(Richmond, VA — February 12, 2026) In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled in favor of Joshua and Stephanie Mast, upholding their adoption of a severely wounded orphaned child rescued by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan. This ruling brings to a close years of complex litigation and international attention, affirming the finality of the Masts’ adoption and dismissing challenges brought by Afghan nationals A.A. and F.A., aka John and Jane Doe, who had sought to overturn the adoption order.
Background: From Battlefield Rescue to Legal Battle
The origins of this case trace to September 2019, when U.S. Army Rangers discovered a gravely injured infant during a mission targeting Al Qaeda foreign fighters in Afghanistan. The child’s parents, non-Afghan Turkmenistan foreign fighters, were killed in the conflict after attacking the Rangers at close quarters. The infant was left orphaned and seriously wounded when the mother detonated a suicide vest while carrying the baby. The Afghan soldiers assisting the Rangers wanted to leave the baby to die, but the Rangers intervened and secured medical treatment for the child at Bagram Air Field.
Moved by her plight, Major Joshua Mast, a Marine Judge Advocate stationed in Afghanistan, learned of the child’s critical medical needs, and he and his wife, Stephanie, enlisted his brother Richard, a young Virginia lawyer, to begin legal proceedings in Virginia to secure emergency custody and adoption papers to allow the baby’s transport to the U.S. Richard’s legal efforts were supported by findings from military and medical professionals who attested to the urgent need for advanced care unavailable in Afghanistan. After the Virginia courts determined they had jurisdiction due to the child’s statelessness and unique circumstances, the Masts moved forward with adoption.
State Department Duplicity
As the adoption process advanced, Biden administration State Department officials attempted to intervene, falsely asserting that they were “reuniting” the child with individuals claiming family ties without DNA evidence. Led by Donna Welton, a now retired career “diplomat,” the State Department wanted to get rid of this baby to avoid interfering with Biden’s ultimately disastrous efforts to cut a deal with the Taliban for the U.S. troop pullout.
The State Department prevailed, and the DOD was forced to turn the baby over to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which turned her over to a Taliban affiliated Afghan who claimed he was a half-uncle. They did so even as the Masts demanded he take a DNA test, which the State Department and the ICRC obviously did not allow, lest their fraud be uncovered. The “half-uncle” in turn dished the baby girl off to his son (“John Doe”) as though the baby was chattel. The son then gave the baby girl to his child-bride (“Jane Doe”), who in turn gave the child to other family members.
The Evacuation
Soon thereafter, the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan, the puppet Afghan government fell, and the Taliban took control, killing U.S. marines and murdering those Afghans left behind by the retreating Americans whom the Taliban thought aided the U.S. in its war efforts.
Against all odds, Joshua arranged for a behind-enemy-lines Blackhawk helicopter to evacuate the baby and the young couple (the Does, who had physical custody of the baby).
The Gitmo Bar and the Litigation
Once stateside, the young couple whom Joshua saved from the Taliban tyranny, decided that was not enough. They also wanted the baby girl even though they had no legal right—either under U.S. or Afghan law—to demand custody. In fact, at this point in time, Richard had obtained a final adoption order from a Virginia court. As a result, the Masts, as the baby’s adoptive parents, obtained physical custody of the baby girl.
But it didn’t take long for the Gitmo Bar—huge multinational law firms who love to represent, pro bono, jihadists desiring to destroy the U.S.—to run to the Virginia courts to challenge the adoption and to sue in federal court to do the same albeit disguised as a claim for $20 million for “kidnapping” and “fraud.”
Supreme Court’s Ruling: Finality and the Rule of Law
The Virginia Supreme Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, held that Virginia Code §63.2-1216 prevents challenges to an adoption order more than six months after its entry, ‘for any reason,’ including fraud, lack of notice, and procedural defects. The Court found that the statute’s purpose is to protect children from instability caused by repeated litigation over parental rights.
The Court reviewed the extensive factual record, noting that the trial court found the Masts to be credible and was not persuaded by the Afghan claimants’ assertions of biological relationship or legal guardianship under Afghan law. The Court rejected arguments alleging violations of the Supremacy Clause or claims of constitutional parental rights by the Afghan petitioners, none of whom were biological or adoptive parents under American law.
AFLC’s Representation in Federal Litigation
AFLC worked with local counsel during the Virginia appeals and continues to represent Richard Mast in ongoing federal litigation arising from his assistance in supporting his brother’s efforts to secure custody and adoption. The U.S. government previously sought to involve itself in the case in favor of the Does, but later withdrew after AFLC pursued discovery into the Biden administration’s nefarious actions concerning the child and its bias toward the Taliban and the Afghan couple. Importantly, literally minutes before oral arguments before the Virginia Supreme Court, the Trump administration stepped in and withdrew its support for the Afghan couple.
Significance and Broader Impact
This ruling secures the Masts’ legal status as the child’s adoptive parents and reinforces the importance of finality in adoption orders. It highlights Virginia’s commitment to protecting vulnerable children and providing stability for adoptive families facing international disputes and extraordinary circumstances. However, the Gitmo Bar lawyers are not done. In federal court they still seek to bankrupt the Masts with their claims of fraud and emotional distress. Rest assured, AFLC will not rest until these claims are dismissed and the Does and their lawyers are held to account for their abuse of the legal system.
AFLC Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented:
“This case exposed the lengths to which government officials and international actors will go to manipulate the fate of a vulnerable child for political convenience. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory not just for the Mast family, but for the rule of law and the principle that justice must not be sacrificed for diplomatic expediency. We are proud to stand with the Masts and will continue to fight against those who abuse the legal system to advance their own agendas.”
Senior Counsel Robert Muise added:
“From the battlefield in Afghanistan to the courtroom in Virginia, the Mast family’s commitment to this child’s welfare has been unwavering. The Supreme Court’s decision affirms what we have argued from the beginning: the law protects children from instability and endless litigation. AFLC will not rest until the remaining federal claims are dismissed and those responsible for this legal abuse are held accountable.”
Media Contact:
David Yerushalmi
646.262.0500
dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org