family law

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Petitioners, Adoptive Couple, decided to adopt a baby girl from a single mother. After Baby Girl's birth, Adoptive Couple began the official adoption process and Birth Father, a member of the Cherokee Nation, signed a form relinquishing his rights to Baby Girl. Later, however, Birth Father claimed that he did not intend to relinquish his rights and sought to invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") because Baby Girl is of Indian heritage. Both the Charleston County Family Court and the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that Birth Father should have custody of Baby Girl. Adoptive Couple argues that Birth Father does not qualify as a “parent” under the ICWA and, thus, does not have parental rights to stop Baby Girl’s adoption. Furthermore, Adoptive Couple asserts that given the intent of the ICWA and the fact that Baby Girl has no parental relationship to Birth Father or other ties to the Cherokee Nation, the ICWA cannot be applied to oppose her adoption. Respondents Birth Father and the Cherokee Nation claim that Birth Father does meet the “parent” definition of ICWA because he has proven his biological link to Baby Girl and also acknowledged her as his child. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have an impact on the adoption process and system for children of Indian heritage, their biological parents, and prospective adoptive parents.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke ICWA to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law.

Whether ICWA defines "parent" in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.

top

Issue

Under the ICWA, can a non-custodial parent or an unwed biological father prevent a non-Indian parent from pursuing adoption?

top

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources
Submit for publication
0

Department of State v. Muñoz

Issues

(1) Does the government infringe upon a U.S. citizen’s constitutionally protected interest when it denies the citizen’s non-citizen spouse a visa? (2) If such an interest exists, does merely notifying the visa applicant that their visa was rejected under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffice in providing that citizen with due process?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the government infringes upon a U.S. citizen’s constitutionally protected interest when it denies their non-citizen spouse’s visa, and if so, whether the government’s citation of a statute as its reasoning is sufficient to provide that citizen with due process. Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Asencio-Cordero, a non-citizen, and petitioned the government to grant her husband an immigration visa. The government denied the application, giving only a citation to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) as the reason. The government argues that Muñoz has no statutory or constitutional right to appeal the visa denial nor any right to further explanation of the reasoning behind the decision. Muñoz argues that the denial of her husband’s visa infringes upon her constitutionally protected liberty interests, and that she is entitled to further explanation about the denial under due process. This case has important ramifications for U.S. citizens with noncitizen spouses who wish to live together in the United States, for national security, and the ability of Congress to exercise oversight over agencies.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.

In July 2010, Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador who first arrived in the United States in 2005. Muñoz v. Department of State at 8–9. Muñoz filed an immigration petition for Asencio-Cordero which was approved, and Asencio-Cordero returned to El Salvador in April 2015 to interview for his immigrant visa at the local U.S. consulate.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to family law