Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Family Law

570 U.S. 637 (2013)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family LawICWAadoptionIndian Child Welfare Actcontinued custodybreakup of the Indian familytermination of parental rightsadoption placement preferences

Facts

Birth Mother, who had sole custodial rights, decided during pregnancy to place Baby Girl for adoption and selected Adoptive Couple, non-Indians living in South Carolina. Biological Father, a member of the Cherokee Nation, provided no financial support during the pregnancy or the first four months after Baby Girl's birth, and he never had legal or physical custody of the child. After being served with notice of the adoption about four months after the birth, Biological Father sought custody and objected to the adoption. At age 27 months, Baby Girl was transferred to Biological Father pursuant to the South Carolina courts' rulings.

Issue

Whether ICWA § 1912(f) bars termination of an Indian parent's rights when that parent never had custody of the child, whether § 1912(d) requires remedial efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family in those circumstances, and whether § 1915(a)'s adoptive placement preferences apply when no other eligible party has formally sought to adopt the child.

Rule

Section 1912(f) applies only when the parent has existing or prior legal or physical custody because 'continued custody' refers to a pre-existing custodial state. Section 1912(d) applies only when termination of parental rights would precipitate the breakup of an Indian family; it does not apply when the parent abandoned the child before birth and never had custody. Section 1915(a)'s adoptive placement preferences apply only when there is an eligible alternative party that has formally sought to adopt the child.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Nina Flores, who had sole custodial rights under state law, arranged a private adoption of her newborn son with Daniel and Mara Keene. The child's biological father, Owen Redbird, is a member of a federally recognized tribe, but he never lived with the child, never had legal custody, and never had physical custody before objecting to the adoption six months later.

In the termination proceeding, must the petitioners satisfy ICWA § 1912(f) by proving beyond a reasonable doubt, with qualified expert testimony, that Owen's continued custody would likely cause serious emotional or physical damage to the child?

Explanation. The majority interpreted "continued custody" to refer to a pre-existing custodial state. Thus, § 1912(f) applies only when the parent already has, or at least previously had, legal or physical custody. Because Owen never had either, the heightened beyond-a-reasonable-doubt showing concerning likely harm from his continued custody is inapplicable.