Adoption of Cherokee girl heads to Supreme Court
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The father of a Cherokee Indian girl at the center of an adoption dispute that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court faces arrest because he has not turned over his 3-year-old daughter to the South Carolina adoptive parents as ordered by a family court this week.
Dusten Brown faces a charge of custodial interference, according to a statement from the Charleston County Sheriff's Office on Saturday.
Cherokee Nation spokeswoman Amanda Clinton called the action “morally reprehensible” and “legally questionable.”
Brown, who is Cherokee, is training with the National Guard in Iowa. The sheriff's office said he is expected to turn himself in to military authorities on Sunday when he returns for duty. The statement said extradition proceedings will begin when he is taken into custody.
“Not only is the adoptive couple asking this child be ripped from her father while he is serving our country, they are also endangering his military career in the process,” Clinton said.
Matt and Melanie Capobianco have been trying to adopt 3-year-old Veronica since her birth in 2009 and raised the girl for two years. She has been living with her biological father, Brown, in Oklahoma since 2011, when South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled that federal law governing the placement of American Indian children favored him as her custodian.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina courts should decide who gets to adopt Veronica. South Carolina courts had originally said the federal Indian Child Welfare Act favored her living with her father, and Brown took custody in 2011.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.