A U.S. Marine’s adoption of an Afghan girl who still has some living family members was improperly authorized, an appeals court ruled on July 16.
Maj. Joshua Mast’s adoption of the girl, who was 2 months old when she was found on a battlefield in Afghanistan after a 2019 U.S. military operation, should not have happened because the adoption fit none of the categories authorized by Virginia law, according to Virginia Court of Appeals Judge Daniel Ortiz.
“Well-meaning intentions and emergency circumstances are not enough to grant a court the authority or power to complete an adoption. This is especially true when a child is physically present in a foreign country—here, Afghanistan—that has not waived jurisdiction,” Judge Ortiz said.
Virginia law authorizes adoptions from agencies that place children, such as the Department of Social Services, but that department was not caring for the girl when it recommended adoption by Maj. Mast and his wife. The law also lets parents agree to have others adopt their child, but the girl was not placed with the Masts by a birth parent, legal guardian, or adoptive parent.
Maj. Mast, who was deployed in Afghanistan with the Marines in 2019, gained custody of the girl soon after she was found after he represented that Afghan officials did not want custody of the child or jurisdiction over her. He also received adoption authorization from a circuit court in Virginia based on similar representations.
The girl was reunited with relatives in Afghanistan and lived with them for about 18 months. As the Taliban took over the country, however, the relatives agreed to travel with her to the United States.
The girl was brought to Virginia, where she was taken from her relatives and formally adopted by the Masts. She has lived with them since.
U.S. officials say Maj. Mast falsely told U.S. personnel that the girl was his daughter “per both Afghan and U.S. court orders” when she was evacuated from Afghanistan. They told the court that the adoption orders should be voided because of misrepresentations from Maj. Mast and that the child should be sent back to Afghanistan.
The girl’s relatives petitioned the court to vacate the adoption order and give them custody of the child.
The Virginia circuit court in 2023 determined that the child was Afghan, that the relatives who challenged the adoption were de facto parents of the child, and that there was “evidence of some extrinsic fraud” on the part of the Masts. It voided a final adoption order but ruled that the child stay in the custody of the Masts for the time being.
Retired Circuit Judge Richard Moore, who issued the original adoption order, declined to comment on the case.
A spokesperson for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which handles major criminal investigations for the Marines and the Navy, confirmed that the agency is “conducting a thorough investigation into this situation.”
Maj. Mast remains on active duty during the investigation, said Maj. Johnny Henderson at the Marine Forces Special Operations Command.
“To protect the integrity of the investigative process, no other information is available at this time,” Maj. Henderson said.
The new ruling dismissed adoption proceedings and directed the circuit court to hold a hearing on a custody petition filed by relatives of the girl. It also stated that the Masts could file custody or adoption petitions.
The decision does not clarify who should ultimately get to raise the girl, and she remains with the Mast family for now. No government agencies involved would clarify on July 16 what the next steps might entail or what their role might be in determining where the child should live as the remaining legal fight unfolds.
The Masts could appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court and ask that the July 16 decision not be enforced through that process.
All of the parties involved have been forbidden by the court to speak to the news media about this case. Attorneys for the Masts and the Afghan couple did not return The Epoch Times’ phone calls. A lawyer appointed by the court to represent the interests of the child, who is referred to in court records as Baby Doe to protect her identity, also did not respond to requests for comment.
Several legal organizations supporting the Afghan couple said they were encouraged by the ruling. National Center for Youth Law senior attorney Becky Wolozin said that by “clearly stating that the Masts have no legal rights over Baby Doe, the Court refused to legitimize their unlawful actions—actions which have led to profound and unnecessary suffering.”
