The Glade 4.0

(CNN) -- The 4-year-old girl at the center of a lengthy, high-profile custody dispute between her Native American father and her adoptive parents has been returned to the couple, an attorney for the biological father said Monday.

Earlier in the day, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Dusten Brown, the girl's father, must return the girl, named Veronica, to Matt and Melanie Capobianco, who live in South Carolina.

The Capobiancos adopted Veronica at birth in 2009 and have been involved in a custody battle since then with Brown, who lives in Oklahoma.

According to an earlier written statement from the family after the court announcement, their "long legal nightmare" is over.
Cherokee girl back with adoptive parents
4-year-old returned to adoptive parents

Birth father arrested

"Matt and Melanie cannot wait to bring Veronica home and begin the healing process as a reunited family," the statement said.

Brown is a registered member of the Cherokee tribe and invoked the Indian Child Welfare Act to gain custody of Veronica.

His attorney, Clark Brewster, said Brown handed Veronica over Monday night.

The Cherokee Nation Attorney General also issued a statement late Monday night in response to the news, praising Brown for the "peaceful and dignified" transfer of Veronica to her adoptive parents, and saying the 4-year-old would "always be a Cherokee citizen."

"Although this is not something any parent should ever have to do, we could not be more proud of the dignity and courage with which [Brown] carried himself," the statement read.

A family court judge had ruled in Brown's favor in late 2011, and he took his daughter to Oklahoma. The Capobiancos had fought since to have Veronica returned, arguing federal law does not define an unwed biological father as a parent.

In June, a divided U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Capobiancos, who are white, but Brown had refused to hand over the child.

I'd imagine it is: "federal law does not define an unwed biological father as a parent."

The birth father, Dusten Brown, considers himself Cherokee. The birth mother, Christy Maldonado, is of Hispanic heritage. Maldonado got pregnant while engaged to Brown, but subsequently broke off the engagement. Brown refused to support her or the child and eventually texted Maldonado that he was giving up his parental rights. He says he thought he was turning over his rights to Maldonado and therefore was angry to learn, four months after the birth, that she had put the child up for adoption. He then filed an objection in court and sought custody.

Two years later, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that while Brown would have had no rights under state law, the Indian Child Welfare Act trumped state law. The court ordered the adoptive parents to turn the little girl, by then 2 years old, over to Brown.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/16/177507503/supreme-court-case-tests-indian-child-welfare-act

With his ex-fiancee having cut off contact with him, Brown didn't know about the adoption until Veronica had been out of the state for four months, Brewster said.

He began fighting the adoption as soon as he found out about it, Brewster said.

How was she able to put the child up for adoption without the biological fathers knowledge consent ?

He actually signed the papers for the adoption/consent and submitted them.

After reading more of the details of the case, I'm not sure where I come down, but I think we have to go with 'best interest of the child' -in this case the parents she had known

Saying something should be the "default" ruling(especially without giving a reason why it should be) doesn't mean anything. Courts only have a "default" ruling when one side or the other essentially presents no case or doesn't show up. Each case is considered on its own merits.

Saying the burden for adoptive parents should be "enormous" doesn't mean much either. Why? How do we know they didn't already meet an "enormous" burden?

Why? Seriously? Do I seriously need to explain why removing a child from a parent should not be done lightly?

No, but we're talking about cases where the removal has already been done,

and in which the parent has (arguably) agreed to give up their parental rights.

In dispute

Also in dispute.

This is pretty much the point of the case. Yes, this appears to be resolved now, but these issues are the crux of the dispute.

And no, I don't think this case was handled lightly. 4 years and the supreme court... no. However, I was speaking in more general terms. The burden for removing a child from his or her parents should be very high (don't you agree?). In this case, as you say, there are errors and issues on both sides. The child has been with the father for the last 2 years. A previous ruling sided with him. It seems... this should be borderline insurmountable for the adoptive parents, who should have a higher bar to clear.