High-Profile Custody Case - NYTimes.com Re "A Wrenching Adoption Case" (editorial, April 16): Your editorial about the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl case now before the United States Supreme Court says the child should be returned by the biological father, Dusten Brown, to her putative adoptive parents. That view doesn't reflect the voluminous evidence supporting Mr. Brown's efforts to obtain and keep custody of his 3 ½-year-old daughter, Veronica. That includes the comprehensive court proceedings before the Family Court and the South Carolina Supreme Court. Both courts, after reviewing all of the facts, ruled in favor of Mr. Brown. The courts both relied on key findings that The Times does not mention, including that Mr. Brown, an Iraq war veteran, has demonstrated "his unwavering love for this child." Volumes of amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of Mr. Brown's right to raise his daughter, including briefs by the United States, 19 states and many current and former members of Congress. Many of these briefs focused on the vital role that the Indian Child Welfare Act has played in protecting Native American families. Finally, the editorial skirted the real issue, which deserves attention from the media and from Congress: the relentless efforts by some adoption lawyers to find ways around the federal laws that protect both Native American families and military fathers who are deployed and thus not in a position to contest attempted adoptions. The writer is part of the legal team representing Dusten Brown.