After a long, drawn out court battle between two adoptive parents and the Cherokee Nation, a young girl is now back with the parents who have raised her since birth. For those who are not aware of the story of "Baby Girl" Veronica from South Carolina, it is one steeped in love, heritage and politics.

Veronica, 3, was the biological daughter of Dusten Brown of the Cherokee Nation and his non-Native American girlfriend. Upon becoming pregnant, Brown asked for the woman's hand in marriage, but she refused, and the two parted ways. 

Brown never attempted to play a role in the child's life nor pay any form of child support after he separated from his girlfriend. Brown signed his rparental rights to the child away, and the mother gave Veronica up for adoption to Matt and Melanie Capobianco. 

When Brown found out that the child had been given away to another family, he spent a year and a half he lobbying for his rights to her, stating that she should be raised with Cherokee traditions. On Wednesday, however, the South Carolina Supreme Court finally decided that it would be the Capobiancos who should have rightful custody over the child. Previously, the two sides had taken the battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which said the South Carolina Supreme Court should make the decision.

"We are thrilled that after 18 long months, our daughter finally will be coming home," the Capobiancos said in a statement Wednesday. "We look forward to seeing Veronica's smiling face in the coming days and will do everything in our power to make her homecoming as smooth as possible. We also want to thank everyone who has supported us throughout this ordeal. Our prayers have been answered."

A lower court in South Carolina initially ruled that Brown should be allowed to have the child based on the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act. That law was made to keep Native American children within their respective culture and not to dissolve the heritage of the various Indian nations. The Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled 3-2 that the lower court's understanding of the law was incorrect before the cases headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"As you can imagine, we are shocked and saddened at this development," John S. Nichols, a South Carolina-based attorney for Brown, wrote in an email. "There is no mention, or apparent consideration, in the majority decision of the child's best interest, as the dissenters point out."