Judge Alito will be so pleased

[Lamplighter]

Reuters
Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley
Jun 24, 2013

UPDATE 2-U.S. justices rule against college worker in harassment case

<snip>The court had in 1998 said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
let harassment victims hold their employers responsible for improper conduct by a supervisor,
but never defined exactly what a supervisor was.

Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito adopted
a narrower version of a supervisor than Vance had proposed.

"An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when
the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions
against the victim, i.e., to effect a 'significant change in employment status, such as hiring,
firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities,
or a decision causing a significant change in benefits,'" Alito wrote.

The court rejected Vance's argument that a supervisor was anyone
with day-to-day oversight of an employee's activities.
It also rejected what Alito called the "nebulous" guidance by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to link supervisor status
to the exercise of significant oversight over an employee's daily work.
<snip>

Sam's parents are so proud, as are the parents of Clarence Thomas.

[Lamplighter]

The "conservative" wing of the USSC is working steadily to reverse
laws which historically have protected minority rights.
In this session, this group has ruled in one way or another to reverse
protections which affect minorities in voting rights, harassment in the workplace,
legal remedies for employment discrimination, and now a strike
at a well established law affecting American Indians.

The facts in this case were quite clear and undisputed, but the
non-Indian public and these Justices wanted a different decision.

Sam Alito has written an opinion based on the public emotion rather than the law.
He calls it a technicality, but it's just an excuse to over run basic provisions of,
and previous USSC rulings on, a very important protection to another minority, American Indians.
He seeks a ruling against this particular child's biological father.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...googlenews_wsj
Wall Street Journal
June 25, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Indian Child Welfare Act in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

In mid-April of 2013, the Supreme Court Justices considered an appeal
by the South Carolina couple and their lawyers to the South Carolina Supreme Court
decision which held the following;

1. that it was in Veronica's best interests to be placed with her father;

2. that ICWA applied and was not unconstitutional;

3. the "Existing Indian Family" doctrine was inapplicable
as an exception to the application of the ICWA in this case;

4. that the father did not voluntarily consent to the termination
of his parental rights or the adoption;

5. the Appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that Father's parental rights should be terminated or that granting
custody of Baby Girl to Father would likely result in serious emotional
or physical damage to Baby Girl.

In today's 5-4 decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
the United States Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),
but reversed and remanded this case back to the South Carolina courts on a technicality.
The narrow decision focused on the standard to determine whether
this particular father's parental rights could be terminated.

In advance of the oral arguments, support for the position to uphold the lower court rulings
and the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) were characterized as historic.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and 19 states and state attorneys general
were joined by a large array of groups who submitted 24 separate briefs in all.
Not one state submitted briefs in support of Adoptive Couple.

The overwhelming support included 17 former and current members of Congress;
Casey Family Programs, the Children's Defense Fund, and 16 other child welfare organizations;
the American Civil Liberties Union; broad coalitions of psychology associations,
child advocates, and legal experts; adult Native American adoptees;
and tribal amicus briefs which include 333 American Indian tribes.
<snip>

[Lamplighter]

It took a day or so, but Indian tribal leaders are now responding to this "one-off" decision of Alito et al.

USA Today
Peter Harriman
6/25/13
Ruling on adopted Indian kids threatens tribes, some say
Leaders worry that the Supreme Court ruling opens the door to what was happening before Indian Child Welfare Act.

A Supreme Court decision that undercuts the presumptive rights
of biological Native American parents could threaten an entire slate of legislation
passed almost 40 years ago to strengthen tribal sovereignty, according
to a former South Dakota senator.

The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act is intended to keep Indian children
from being taken from their homes and placed with non-Indian adoptive or foster parents.
The law's intent is to preserve familial bonds between Indian parents
and their children and tribes and their children.<snip>

"It's an attack on tribal sovereignty through the children.
I can't believe they did this," retired Sen. James Abourezk, D-S.D.,
who was the driving force behind the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act
and the other bills, said Tuesday of the court's decision.

Clyde Bellecourt, an American Indian Movement activist who was a key player in the effort
to develop and strengthen the principle of tribal sovereignty in the 1970s, agreed with Abourezk.
He said the Supreme Court ruling

Because of widespread adoptions of tribal children by non-Indians before the law,
Bellecourt said, "there are thousands of people wandering the earth who have no idea
from whence they came even though they have a culture and a traditional way of life of their own."

My understanding of this, despite current wordings in some media,
is that the father proposed marriage when the mother learned she was pregnant.
When she said no to marriage, he then refused financial support of the child
and agreed to give full custody to the mother.

Later, the mother decided to put the child up for adoption.
The father and the tribe have a legal right to notification of such adoption proceedures.

It was not until afterward that the father learned of the adoption through informal tribal contacts.
It was at that time he gained custody through legal channels.
The non-Indian "adoptive" parents then appealed the case to the USSC.

The father has always maintained that he did give up "custody" before the baby was born,
but did not give up his "parental rights" or his legal Indian rights under ICWA.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina agreed with him, and he was given physical custody of his daughter.

Sam's opinion and the USSC majority have now made her parental custody unnecessarily tenuous.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Sam's opinion and the USSC majority have now made her parental custody unnecessarily tenuous.

It might make other custody battles more tenuous, but I would think that "decided by the Supreme Court" is as un-tenuous as parental custody can be.

[Lamplighter]

HM, I don't think so.
I suspect that by referring the case back to the South Carolina Supreme Court,
the issues can/will be debated again, and the decision may yet
go with the father.

Who knows ...