Is It That Hard to Understand?
Congress sometimes, not always, not very often in fact, sometimes acts with good intentions. It passed a law that works to prevent Native American families from being broken up by giving special rights to the parents. And in an incredible scenario a case involving the law and a specific adoption went to the Supreme Court. And in an even more incredible scenario, the child and her adoptive family won.
A sharply divided Supreme Court delivered a 3-year-old girl back to her adoptive parents from her biological father Tuesday despite her 1% Cherokee blood.
The facts supporting the decision were straight forward.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito ruled for the majority that the law's ban on breaking up Native American families cannot apply if the family didn't exist in the first place. He noted the father had not supported the mother during pregnancy, texted his willingness to give up parental rights, and only changed his mind much later.
"In that situation, no Indian family is broken up," Alito said.
So no Mr. Wanna-Be father, you had your opportunity and you didn’t take it. Your child is not a basketball to be tossed around on your whim. And going forward the law ought to be changed and be the same for everyone. You give up your child, it is irrevocable, no taking back, no second look, no do-overs.
For reasons beyond understanding some of the liberal Justices opposed the decision, and good ole Justice Scalia chimed in to support the rights of the Father, arguing the father has rights too. No Justice Scalia, the father did have rights but he gave them up, didn't you even bother to read the case?
So no taking back, a child's life is what is paramount here, not Justice Scalia's cherished goal to make sure the father can ruin a child's life. The welfare of the child is paramount here. No disturbing the child, never, ever. Is that clear enough for everyone?