Listen to the article
Virginia’s highest court ruled Thursday that a U.S. Marine and his wife will retain custody of an Afghan orphan they brought to America, despite objections from the U.S. government and the child’s Afghan relatives. The decision concludes a contentious legal battle that spanned years and raised questions about international adoption procedures and cultural sovereignty.
In a 4-3 decision, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned previous lower court rulings that had declared the adoption void. The majority opinion determined that Virginia’s six-month statute of limitations on challenging adoptions protected the Masts’ claim to the child, regardless of potential flaws in the original adoption process.
The case began in September 2019 when the child was injured during a U.S. military raid on a compound in Afghanistan that killed her parents and siblings. After receiving treatment at an American military base, she became the focus of competing claims regarding her future.
Initially, the Trump administration worked with Afghan authorities and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reunite the child with her closest surviving relatives in Afghanistan, in accordance with international law. The Afghan government identified an uncle as her next of kin, who then placed her with his son and daughter-in-law. The couple raised the child for 18 months in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Marine Joshua Mast and his wife Stephanie pursued adoption proceedings in Fluvanna County, Virginia, arguing the child was “stateless” and the daughter of foreign fighters. Judge Richard Moore granted them custody followed by a series of adoption orders, culminating in a final adoption in December 2020.
When the adoption’s six-month challenge period expired, the child was still living with her Afghan relatives, who later testified they were unaware of the U.S. court proceedings. During the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Mast arranged for the Afghan family to be evacuated to America. Once they arrived at a refugee resettlement center in Virginia, Mast took custody of the child, separating her from the Afghan family who have not seen her since.
The Afghan couple challenged the adoption, arguing the Virginia court lacked jurisdiction over a foreign child and that Mast had misled the judge. Lower courts sided with the Afghan family, finding they were the child’s “de facto” parents when they arrived in the United States.
However, the Virginia Supreme Court’s majority opinion rejected this argument, citing Judge Moore’s determination that the Afghan couple “are not and never were parents” of the child because they lacked an Afghan court order and had not proven a biological relationship. The Afghan relatives had declined DNA testing, maintaining that Afghan authorities had already determined the child’s next-of-kin status under Afghan sovereignty.
The court’s decision also dismissed concerns raised by the federal government during the first Trump administration that allowing the Masts to keep the child could be viewed as “endorsing an act of international child abduction” and potentially endanger U.S. soldiers abroad. Notably, the Justice Department under Trump’s second administration withdrew its request to argue in the case shortly before oral arguments, stating it had “reevaluated its position.”
Three justices issued a forceful dissent, describing the situation as “suffused with arrogance and privilege” and criticizing the Masts for “brazenly” misleading courts. Justice Thomas P. Mann wrote that a Virginia court never had proper jurisdiction and that the adoption process was fatally flawed, comparing it to “a house built on a rotten foundation.”
The dissenting opinion concluded with a stark assessment of the Masts’ actions: “If this process was represented by a straight line, [the Masts] went above it, under it, around it, and then blasted right through it until there was no line at all—just fragments collapsing into a cavity.”
An attorney for the Masts declined to comment, citing a court order restricting public discussion of the case. Lawyers representing the Afghan family indicated they were not yet prepared to issue a statement regarding the court’s decision.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
This is a complex case with competing cultural and legal considerations. While I can understand the Afghan authorities’ desire for the child to be reunited with surviving family, the Marine family seems to have provided a loving home during a difficult time. The court’s ruling appears to prioritize the child’s wellbeing, which is the right approach.
This case highlights the need for clear, consistent international adoption policies that prioritize the welfare of vulnerable children. I’m glad the Virginia court took a pragmatic approach and upheld the adoption to provide stability for the orphaned child.
The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Marine family’s adoption is a compassionate outcome that recognizes the child’s need for a stable, nurturing home environment. Even if the original adoption process had flaws, the court rightly focused on the child’s best interests in the long run.
I agree, the child’s wellbeing should be the paramount consideration in these difficult cases. The court appears to have made a thoughtful, pragmatic decision that provides the orphan with security and continuity.
This is a complex case that highlights the need for greater international coordination and clarity around adoption policies, especially in conflict zones. While the court’s ruling may not align perfectly with protocol, it seems to strike a reasonable balance by prioritizing the child’s welfare and stability.
It’s encouraging to see the court system upholding the Marine’s adoption despite objections from the U.S. government and Afghan relatives. The child has already endured immense tragedy, and preserving this stable family placement seems the best path forward.
I agree. Continuity and security are so important for a child who has experienced such trauma. The court’s decision to protect this adoption placement is commendable.
The Virginia court’s decision to uphold the Marine’s adoption despite flaws in the original process is a pragmatic and compassionate outcome. Maintaining stability and a nurturing family environment for this orphaned child should be the top priority, even if it conflicts with international protocols.
I agree completely. While adhering to proper procedures is important, the wellbeing of the child has to take precedence in these tragic situations. The court showed good judgment in favoring the child’s best interests.
This is a heartbreaking situation, but the Virginia court’s ruling to preserve the Marine family’s adoption seems like the most responsible choice for the child’s long-term welfare. Maintaining a stable, loving home environment should take priority over strict adherence to adoption protocols, especially given the tragic circumstances.
While I understand the Afghan authorities’ desire to reunite the child with surviving relatives, the Marine family appears to have provided a loving and stable home for her. The court’s ruling to preserve the adoption is likely the best outcome for the child’s well-being.
You raise a good point. Ultimately, the child’s interests must come first, even if that conflicts with cultural norms or government priorities. The court’s decision seems to have balanced these complex factors thoughtfully.
This is an important case that highlights the complexities of international adoption procedures and cultural sovereignty. It’s good to see the Virginia Supreme Court upholding the Marine’s adoption, which seems to be in the best interests of the child given the tragic circumstances.
I agree, the welfare of the child should be the top priority in these delicate situations. The court’s decision to protect the adoption despite potential flaws in the process seems reasonable.