Virginia Supreme Court Upholds Marine's Adoption of Afghan War Orphan
The Virginia Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling that a U.S. Marine and his wife will retain custody of an Afghan orphan they brought to the United States, despite the federal government's initial efforts to reunite the child with her Afghan relatives. This decision appears to conclude a protracted and emotionally charged legal conflict spanning several years.
A Contested Adoption and Legal Reversals
In 2020, a Fluvanna County, Virginia, judge granted Joshua and Stephanie Mast an adoption order for the child, who was then residing in Afghanistan with a family designated by the Afghan government as her relatives. Lower courts subsequently voided this adoption, declaring it fundamentally flawed. However, on Thursday, four justices of the Virginia Supreme Court reversed those rulings.
The majority opinion emphasized a state law that finalizes adoption orders after a six-month period, effectively barring challenges regardless of procedural errors or even potential fraud. The justices argued this statute is intended to provide stability and permanency for children, preventing them from being shuffled between homes.
Three justices issued a fierce dissent, condemning the proceedings as "wrong," "cancerous," and akin to "a house built on a rotten foundation." They accused the Masts of systematically misleading the courts.The Child's Tragic Origins and Disputed Custody
The case stems from a 2019 U.S. military raid in Afghanistan, during which the child was injured and her parents and siblings were killed. American soldiers transported her to a military hospital. Initially, some personnel questioned her nationality, but the U.S. State Department, under the Trump administration, collaborated with Afghan authorities and the Red Cross to place her with a man identified as her uncle.
This uncle entrusted the girl to his son and daughter-in-law, who cared for her in Afghanistan for approximately 18 months. Meanwhile, the Masts pursued adoption through Virginia courts, presenting the child as "stateless." Judge Richard Moore finalized the adoption in December 2020. Crucially, the Afghan family testified they were unaware of these legal proceedings while the child lived with them.
Following the U.S. withdrawal and Taliban takeover in 2021, the Afghan family agreed to evacuate. Mast facilitated their flight and subsequently took the child from them at a Virginia refugee center. The Afghan relatives have not seen the girl since and challenged the adoption, arguing the Virginia court lacked jurisdiction and that the Masts deceived the judge.
Legal Arguments and a Shift in Federal Stance
The lower courts had sided with the Afghan couple, recognizing them as the girl's "de facto" parents upon arrival in the U.S. The Supreme Court majority, comprising Justices Kelsey, McCullough, Chafin, and Russell, rejected this, citing Judge Moore's finding that the Afghans were never legal parents as they lacked an Afghan court order or proven biological link. The relatives had declined DNA testing, citing cultural and reliability concerns for distant relations.
The court also dismissed earlier federal warnings that upholding the adoption could be seen as endorsing international child abduction or jeopardize security agreements. Notably, the Justice Department under Trump's second administration reversed its position, withdrawing from the case last year after a "reevaluation."
The majority heavily relied on Judge Moore's 38-page document, in which he expressed greater trust in the Masts' "noble" motivations over the Afghan family's claims.
A Scathing Dissent and Lasting Implications
The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Thomas Mann and joined by Chief Justice Powell and Justice Millette, was unsparing. It accused the Masts of "brazenly" circumventing legal processes and criticized the circuit court's overreach. "If this process was represented by a straight line, (the Masts) went above it, under it, around it, and then blasted right through it," Mann wrote, arguing that an adoption must be "impeccable" as it severs natural parental rights.
This ruling underscores profound tensions between state adoption laws, federal foreign policy, international obligations, and the interpretation of parental rights. It leaves a young girl's future with the American family, closing a chapter in a complex saga of war, migration, and competing claims of care and belonging.
