The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"The Facts Alleged … Tell a Remarkable Story of Resilience and Duplicity" Related to Adoption of Afghan Orphan
From Doe v. Mast, decided Wednesday by Judge Norman Moon (W.D. Va.) (for more on the recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision voiding the adoption, see this AP story [Martha Mendoza, Juliet Linderman & Claire Galofaro]):
The facts alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint tell a remarkable story of resilience and duplicity. In the aftermath of a September 2019 joint operation by the United States and Afghan militaries conducted in rural Afghanistan, "Baby Doe" was found in the rubble of her family's home. Her parents and siblings lay dead. She was seriously injured, and was, as a result, taken to a U.S. military hospital for emergency treatment. A short time later, the International Committee of the Red Cross ("ICRC") and the United States and Afghan governments began trying to find, and reunite Baby Doe with, her biological family in Afghanistan.
In February 2020, their efforts paid off. Baby Doe and her family were reunited. Plaintiffs John Doe (Baby Doe's cousin) and his wife Jane Doe are a young, married Afghan couple who became Baby Doe's guardians. They raised Baby Doe as their own daughter for a year and a half. But, at the same time, an American couple's efforts to remove Baby Doe from their care were well underway.
Defendant Joshua Mast—a Marine Corps Major and Judge Advocate—was stationed in Afghanistan in the fall of 2019 where he became familiar with Baby Doe and her case. Joshua knew that the ICRC was searching for Baby Doe's family. Yet in October 2019, Joshua and his wife Defendant Stephanie Mast asked a Virginia family court for temporary custody of Baby Doe, claiming that she was "stateless," and that the Afghan government would soon waive its authority (also called "jurisdiction") over her. At the time, Baby Doe had never been to Virginia. Or the United States. Stephanie had never met her. But based on their representations, the Virginia family court awarded temporary custody to the Masts. Days later, Stephanie secured an interlocutory order of adoption from the Virginia Circuit Court, designating Joshua and Stephanie Mast as Baby Doe's father and mother.
Then, the day before Baby Doe was to be reunited with her biological family in Afghanistan, the Masts came to this Court and sued the government, asking for an emergency order stopping the transfer. Joshua's brother, Defendant Richard Mast, represented them in all these proceedings. When this Court asked Richard why Joshua and Stephanie wished to stop Baby Doe's return to her relatives in Afghanistan, he responded falsely that they did not seek to adopt Baby Doe—only to get her medical care in the United States. This Court denied the motion.
The Masts, however, were undeterred by Baby Doe's reunification with her own family. Indeed, mere days later, Richard secured the Masts a final adoption order from the Virginia Circuit Court for Baby Doe. Moreover, Joshua Mast proceeded with a new plan to contact the Does directly to convince them to bring Baby Doe to the United States. To do so, Joshua utilized his connection with Defendant Kimberly Motley—a lawyer who worked in Afghanistan. Joshua had told Motley that he and his wife wanted to adopt Baby Doe and raise her in the United States. Motley knew about the custody order. She also knew that Afghanistan hadn't waived jurisdiction over Baby Doe, voiding the order. And she knew that the ICRC reunited Baby Doe with her Afghan family. Yet still, Motley agreed to help the Masts take Baby Doe from John and Jane Doe so the Masts could raise her. On behalf of the Masts, Motley directly connected with John and Jane Doe. Over the next year, Motley ingratiated herself to John and Jane Doe, telling them repeatedly that a U.S. family (the Masts) wanted to help Baby Doe get needed, specialized medical care in the United States. She even introduced John and Jane Doe to the Masts directly. Joshua Mast paid Motley several thousand dollars for her assistance.
The Masts also worked with Defendant Ahmad Osmani—an Afghan with family in Afghanistan. Osmani met Joshua Mast in a WhatsApp Bible study group, and he agreed to help the Masts bring Baby Doe to the United States so they could raise her as their daughter. Osmani served as a translator between the Masts and John and Jane Doe. He told the Does the same story as Motley. Yet neither Motley nor Osmani in their outreach to John and Jane Doe told them about the Masts' custody or adoption orders; or efforts to stop Baby Doe's reunification with them. Joshua Mast wired Osmani over a thousand dollars. He used the funds to get the Masts a fake Afghan passport for Baby Doe, with an Americanized name and the Masts' last name.
In August 2021, with the Taliban approaching Kabul, John and Jane Doe felt it could be their last chance to get Baby Doe medical care in the United States. Though Jane Doe was in the third trimester of her pregnancy, they agreed to bring Baby Doe to the United States to get medical care only after Joshua assured them that they would be able to return to Afghanistan afterward. While en route, Joshua and Stephanie Mast pressed them three times to let Baby Doe travel with them to the United States, claiming it would make her entry into the United States easier. The Does refused. Joshua Mast also falsely told the Does that he was acting as their attorney and could help get them through customs. When they finally arrived in the United States, Joshua Mast gave the immigration officer the fake Afghan passport for Baby Doe—which the Does had never seen before. He told them it was merely a means to facilitate her easy travel to the United States.
In September 2021, once John, Jane and Baby Doe were in the United States and housed at Fort Pickett in Virginia, Joshua Mast devised a plan to remove Baby Doe from their care once and for all. Under the guise of a transfer of housing, a woman in a transport vehicle placed Baby Doe in a car seat while the Does were in the vehicle; when it stopped, the woman picked up Baby Doe and held her. A social worker "then informed John and Jane Doe that they were not Baby Doe's lawful guardians and that Joshua Mast had adopted the child." Initially they did not understand. When Joshua Mast entered the room, however, the Does understood that he would be taking Baby Doe. The woman handed Baby Doe to Stephanie Mast over John and Jane Doe's objections. Jane Doe—more than eight months pregnant at the time—fell to the ground crying, and begged Joshua Mast not to take Baby Doe. Joshua and Stephanie Mast abducted Baby Doe, and John and Jane Doe have not seen Baby Doe since that day.
John and Jane Doe have been doggedly pursuing avenues to challenge the Masts' custody and adoption orders over Baby Doe in the Virginia courts. This month, they achieved some success, as the Virginia Court of Appeals held that the Masts' custody and adoption orders were void from the outset. This federal case does not involve adoption or custody. It involves John and Jane Doe's claim that the Masts, Motley and Osmani conspired to abduct Baby Doe, committing fraud and several torts in the process. They seek millions in compensatory and punitive damages.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the Court holds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the bulk of this case—though two of Plaintiffs' claims, their request for declaratory relief, and any claims brought on behalf of Baby Doe will be dismissed without prejudice at this time as falling within the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction. Notwithstanding those claims, the Court will not abstain from resolving John and Jane Doe's three remaining tort claims under the Burford or Colorado River abstention doctrines. The Court further concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Kimberly Motley and Ahmad Osmani. Finally, Plaintiffs have stated more-than-plausible state-law claims of fraud, conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Defendants….
There's much more in the opinion.
