The Justices Confront a Solomonic Task

, The National Law Journal

   | 3 Comments

Currently the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that pits the interests of a white, would-be adoptive couple, to whom a Latina biological mother surrendered her baby girl at birth, against those of the natural father and his Cherokee tribe.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Sue May

    As an adopted person I would say let the genetic father rear the child. The bonding with the adoptive parents however strong, is little more than that of nannies. Despite what sociologists claim, genetic parents should always be preferred.

  • Avon

    That's the most enlightened and informative analysis of an emotionally, philosophically and psychologically complex conundrum I can remember ever seeing.

    The fact that the public uses inflammatory, overly-certain language on so many legal issues that gain mainstream media exposure won't help public debate. So the wisdom and realistic "letting-go" in Prof. Berger's article are doubly valuable.

  • Sophia

    The author's assessment that there is an "objective imbalance" on the merits is highly ironic, as it seems to reflect her wholesale and uncritical acceptance of the respondents' arguments. She notably does not discuss the weighty statutory and constitutional arguments raised by the adoptive couple and the child's court-appointed Guardian. Nor does she seem to appreciate that the Supreme Court would not have granted the adoptive couple's petition if the arguments were, "objectively," one-sided in the absentee biological father's favor. Your readers rightly expect better than this, even in the opinion pages.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202600434011

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.