In 2019, a 2-month-old Afghan girl was wounded during military operations in which her parents died. The baby was taken by U.S. forces to receive medical treatment. The Afghan and U.S. government found the baby’s family and sought to return the child to her relative caregivers in Afghanistan. At the same time, a U.S. Marine Corps judge advocate named Joshua Mast deployed in Afghanistan encountered the baby, and he and his wife then initiated proceedings in Virginia state court to adopt the child, falsely representing to the Virginia court that the Afghan child was a stateless orphan with no known relatives. Neither the child’s Afghan family nor the United States (who had custody of the child at the time) were given notice of or an opportunity to participate in the initial custody proceedings in Virginia. Based in part on these misrepresentations, the state court granted the Masts a custody order. Days later, the Masts petitioned and obtained an adoption order for the baby (referred to in court as Baby Doe), again with no notice to the child’s Afghan family or the United States. Several months later, the U.S. government transferred custody of Baby Doe to the Afghan government who returned her to her relatives in Afghanistan.  

In 2021, after Baby Doe (now two years old) had been in the care of her relatives for six months, she and her relative caregivers traveled to the United States after the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control of the country. Days later, Baby Doe was taken away from her relative caregivers and was placed with the Masts based on the adoption order from the Virginia state court. Only then did Baby Doe’s relative caregivers learn for the first time of the adoption order obtained by the Masts; they began a years-long battle in U.S. courts to be reunited with Baby Doe. The Virginia Circuit Court vacated the Masts’ adoption order because of the lack of due process for the child’s relative caregivers in the proceedings. The Virginia Court of Appeals also ruled for Baby Doe’s family, holding that the custody and adoption orders were void under Virginia law. But the Virginia Supreme Court reversed on appeal. The majority found in a divided opinion that the relative caregivers’ challenges were time-barred. In 2026, the relative caregivers filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and reverse the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court denied their petition in October 2026. 

The Young Center filed multiple amicus briefs in support of Baby Doe’s relative caregivers’ efforts to be reunited with her. These briefs explain how placing children with family and maintaining kinship bonds are in their best interests. The briefs also explain how maintaining a child’s ties to their ethnic heritage, language, and culture further their best interests.

• U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief (filed September 16, 2026, by the Young Center, represented by the law firm Jenner & Block LLP) 
  
• Virginia Court of Appeals Amicus Brief (filed September 19, 2023, by the Young Center and the National Center for Youth Law) 
  
• Virginia Circuit Court Amicus Brief (filed August 18, 2022, by the Young Center)