Is anyone following the Veronica Rose story?

[sunshinehighway]

What I said is that it needs to be taken into consideration. A woman who is the kind of person who would burn down a house to kidnap a baby is highly unlikely to be a good parent. Neither is someone who would steal a child. Those behaviours would mean, in my opinion, that it would not be in the best interests of the child to stay with them.

That's very different than caring parents who adopted a child in good faith, legally, and then had a previously-uninvolved father attempt to take the child. I think in these situations the best interests of the child should be carefully considered. Both sides will have arguments to make, and I think the child should have a lawyer too to express the child's interests.

TP

The court ruling seems to disagree with you about the father and the way the adoption was handled. The ruling seems to say there was deceit which kept the father from being involved.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

I wasn't talking about that case specifically. I was talking about cases in general, where a child is placed with an adoptive family and then a parent later comes forward. The point I am trying to make is that a blanket rule ("the child should always be given to the parent" OR "the child should always stay with the adoptive parents") is not the right way to go. The best interests of the child should be taken into consideration, and those are complex.

TP

 

[PaulaSB12]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

I wasn't talking about that case specifically. I was talking about cases in general, where a child is placed with an adoptive family and then a parent later comes forward. The point I am trying to make is that a blanket rule ("the child should always be given to the parent" OR "the child should always stay with the adoptive parents") is not the right way to go. The best interests of the child should be taken into consideration, and those are complex.

TP

How about the Emma Wyatt case which is also going to SCOTUS. The adoptive parents knew the father wanted her and that he had applied and got custody of the child yet they still took mother and father to Utah hid them til it was too late for the father and adopted.

 

[cornflake]

I appreciate the lively exchange of thoughts/opinions.

I am probably a broken record, but for the best interest of the child, for the emotional wellbeing of both sets of parents, it would be best if there were National Regulation of adoption.

one timeframe for a mom to sign relinquishment paperwork and a specific timeframe for her to change her mind.

Requirements for notifying the father. If not sure,then there should be a default that indicates that after the child is legally adopted (not placed) that a father can only recieve visitation rights, unless clear indication of fraud on part of agency, mom or adoptive parents is shown. (Legal ramification of lying about the father should be clearly outlined to mom before relinquishment) As an adoptee, I think it would still be destructive for a dad to file for custody after I've been adopted and attaching to my adoptive family. But if he really was not informed, he should not be denied the ability to know, love and share family with his child.

Specific language and counseling requirements for birth families to explain ALL options prior to an adoption plan.

Legally enforceable agreements for open adoption. Many, many open adoptions close at the chosing of the adoptive parents. There are also many birthparents who also close contact. Frankly, I think it should be enforceable on the adoptive parent side but birth parents should have the choice. Sometimes, they just can't deal with seeing their children in the other family- but I think they owe their child some contact thru the agency.

This is such an emotionally charged topic... and I am by no means offering the only solution. But whatever the law- it should be national so that there can be clearly defined decisions for the birthparents when they make the hardest choice of their lives.And agencies shouldn't be netting so much profit from placing babies. We're the only country that allows this...

Yes, because it's the parents' right to determine who interacts with, visits with, etc., their child!

I can't imagine trying to legally mandate open adoptions have to remain some way over the wishes of the parents.

Why not just call them babysitters at that point? I can't imagine who would ever get involved with an adoption again. It's not shared custody - it's adoption.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Yes, because it's the parents' right to determine who interacts with, visits with, etc., their child!

I can't imagine trying to legally mandate open adoptions have to remain some way over the wishes of the parents.

Why not just call them babysitters at that point? I can't imagine who would ever get involved with an adoption again. It's not shared custody - it's adoption.

My husband grew up in an open adoption and I can guarantee you his parents never felt like babysitters. That comment struck me as pretty insulting to those who choose to have an open relationship with their child's birth family. I'm sure you were just trying to be rhetorical, but NO his parents were NOT babysitters, they were his parents.

Someone else gave birth to that child and like it or not, that child shares genes with his/her birth parents. Also, that child has a birth family who may want to know that the child they loved enough to give the right family is doing well.

It's just. . .well, I'll say it, it sounds pretty selfish. An adopted child has traits, diseases, a personality, and physical looks that are not those of his/her adoptive family.

I'm adopted myself, and when I'm with my birth family I'm finally with people who "get" me, who look like me, who share medical problems and have similar challenges. That does not make MY parents babysitters either! The people who raise you, love you, cherish you are your parents, come hell or high water. The person who loved you enough to give you to your parents is your birth parent, and it's an entirely different relationship.

And really, honestly, with the rarity of "prime" babies (i.e. White) do you think parents would turn down open adoption over no adoption? And how many young women if they knew for certain sure that they would have a role in their child's life would choose adoption instead of their other alternatives?

 

[cornflake]

My husband grew up in an open adoption and I can guarantee you his parents never felt like babysitters. That comment struck me as pretty insulting to those who choose to have an open relationship with their child's birth family. I'm sure you were just trying to be rhetorical, but NO his parents were NOT babysitters, they were his parents.

Someone else gave birth to that child and like it or not, that child shares genes with his/her birth parents. Also, that child has a birth family who may want to know that the child they loved enough to give the right family is doing well.

It's just. . .well, I'll say it, it sounds pretty selfish. An adopted child has traits, diseases, a personality, and physical looks that are not those of his/her adoptive family.

I'm adopted myself, and when I'm with my birth family I'm finally with people who "get" me, who look like me, who share medical problems and have similar challenges. That does not make MY parents babysitters either! The people who raise you, love you, cherish you are your parents, come hell or high water. The person who loved you enough to give you to your parents is your birth parent, and it's an entirely different relationship.

And really, honestly, with the rarity of "prime" babies (i.e. White) do you think parents would turn down open adoption over no adoption? And how many young women if they knew for certain sure that they would have a role in their child's life would choose adoption instead of their other alternatives?

If they want to have contact, fine. The poster was talking about making it somehow illegal for parents to 'close' open adoptions, which is giving parental power to people who are not the parents while removing it from those who are.

What if the biological people start getting overly involved? What if they start saying they're the REAL parents and telling the kid their parent are wrong; telling them they don't have to listen, that they can come live with the biological people, badmouth the actual parents - what if they just want to keep visiting and the kid isn't interested and doesn't want to see them, but they have the right to force visits? It's not their kid, period, the end. If the kid cares, they can contact. If not, tough.

That puts the actual parents in the role of sitters, imo, and not only is it offensive, it's legally untenable.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

If they want to have contact, fine. The poster was talking about making it somehow illegal for parents to 'close' open adoptions, which is giving parental power to people who are not the parents while removing it from those who are.

What if the biological people start getting overly involved? What if they start saying they're the REAL parents and telling the kid their parent are wrong; telling them they don't have to listen, that they can come live with the biological people, badmouth the actual parents - what if they just want to keep visiting and the kid isn't interested and doesn't want to see them, but they have the right to force visits? It's not their kid, period, the end. If the kid cares, they can contact. If not, tough.

That puts the actual parents in the role of sitters, imo, and not only is it offensive, it's legally untenable.

Your examples are, well. . .ahem. It sounds like you're thinking that birth moms are all crazy people. I mean really, you want the genese of a crazy person?

At any rate, most open adoptions these days are very clear on the responsibilities and rights of both the birth parents and the adoptive parents in regards to visitation and contact. One of my nieces (adopted in as much of an open relationship as her parents could allow - one parents was a convicted felon who wasn't. . .well, a nice person.) gave her youngest up for adoption right after her husband died. The adopting parents would've given her as much access to the baby as she'd liked, but she did go completely off the deep end for a matter of a year or two, so the adopting parents hauled back and went to the exact limitations of the adoption paperwork, which was a once year visit and photographs.

You're trying to fear monger, and it doesn't really work, because the limitations are usually spelled out in open adoption paperwork, and yes, even when the birth mom is, for various reasons, going a bit crazy, the open adoptions still work as advertised.

Unless, of course, the adoptive parents were lying when they got into it, knowing that the paperwork isn't enforceable. (Which happens pretty often, I'm told.)

 

[PaulaSB12]

It's not only possible, it's likely. The Supreme court's function is not to allow people to endlessly squabble because they didn't like a lower court ruling. The court has rule numerous times that the IWCA is a valid law and I don't think that's something that will change. As the state's verdict was based on this properly applied law, I think it's highly doubtful the Supreme Court would hear the case.

If they refuse to hear the case, there's no other recourse, generally. They can fight to get the ICWA act repealed for other people's future adoptions, but I really don't see that one happening either. The tribes would ALL be up in arms. That act stopped American Indian kids from being forcibly and deliberately removed from their families and their heritage.

How long will it take before a decision is made on whether the case will be heard or not? Is it a quick process or will it take months to decide if it will be heard or not? If it did get a hearing would that be this year or next because if it is heard next year it will be one year since she moved to her father.

 

[cornflake]

How long will it take before a decision is made on whether the case will be heard or not? Is it a quick process or will it take months to decide if it will be heard or not? If it did get a hearing would that be this year or next because if it is heard next year it will be one year since she moved to her father.

Court isn't even in session until October, they haven't apparently prepared an appeal, but even if they submit one, it can lay there, it can be rejected, whatever - at the very least, it'd be well into next year.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Court isn't even in session until October, they haven't apparently prepared an appeal, but even if they submit one, it can lay there, it can be rejected, whatever - at the very least, it'd be well into next year.

So its possible this could hang on until 2014, surely if it does that the father can claim that being with her for the same time as the paps makes it possible for him to use the same arguments as they did. Mind you the fact that they want this go hang over the head of a child even longer is disturbing, why don't they let it go now as painful as it is and try for gestational surrogacy.

 

[sunshinehighway]

So its possible this could hang on until 2014, surely if it does that the father can claim that being with her for the same time as the paps makes it possible for him to use the same arguments as they did. Mind you the fact that they want this go hang over the head of a child even longer is disturbing, why don't they let it go now as painful as it is and try for gestational surrogacy.

I don't think you can bring up new arguments with the Supreme Court. My understanding (which could be wrong) is the lower court rulings are what is looked at. Its not like a regular court with witnesses and all that. The lawyers basically use laws and other cases to argue why the lower court made a right or wrong decision.

 

[cornflake]

I don't think you can bring up new arguments with the Supreme Court. My understanding (which could be wrong) is the lower court rulings are what is looked at. Its not like a regular court with witnesses and all that. The lawyers basically use laws and other cases to argue why the lower court made a right or wrong decision.

You're correct in that the child's current state and etc., will not be at issue with the Court as yes, they're basically a court of appeals. Their interest lies in the Constitutional issue. The argument is about the Indian Child Welfare Act and its use.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

If they want to have contact, fine. The poster was talking about making it somehow illegal for parents to 'close' open adoptions, which is giving parental power to people who are not the parents while removing it from those who are.

What if the biological people start getting overly involved? What if they start saying they're the REAL parents and telling the kid their parent are wrong; telling them they don't have to listen, that they can come live with the biological people, badmouth the actual parents - what if they just want to keep visiting and the kid isn't interested and doesn't want to see them, but they have the right to force visits? It's not their kid, period, the end. If the kid cares, they can contact. If not, tough.

That puts the actual parents in the role of sitters, imo, and not only is it offensive, it's legally untenable.

The "biological people"?

Most kids in this country have more than one parent with legal rights to them. Does the fact that Dad can potentially get visitation rights make mom "a sitter"?

As a parent in an open adoption, I do think open adoption agreements should be enforceable. I think most open adoption agreements should specify a minimum amount of contact, whether that's letters 4 times a year, or one visit, or whatever. If more is comfortable, then I'd say go for it (we do a phone call about once a week, and an in person visit every couple of months). If either party becomes uncomfortable then three should be provisions for mediation.

As far as what if the kid "isn't interested"? My kid has 2 grandma's. Sometimes I have to drag him to both, because he'd rather play video games or hang with his friend. I don't see any difference between saying "Hey, get dressed, we're going to see Nana (my mom), and "Hey get dressed we're going to see Grandma (his firstmom's mom).

As far as "if the kid cares they can contact", there's a huge assumption that the birth mother, and other family members, will still be alive when the child turns 18. In our case that didn't turn out to be true.

 

[PaulaSB12]

They have put up the argument for the appeal I wont put all of it but here are the main questions

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25
U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, applies to state custody proceedings
involving an Indian child. A dozen state courts of
last resort are openly and intractably divided on two
critical questions involving the administration of
ICWA in thousands of custody disputes each year:
(1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke
ICWA to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully
initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law.
(2) Whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C.
§ 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who
has not complied with state law rules to attain legal
status as a parent.

What are the chances this will be listened to?

 

[PaulaSB12]

The Veronica Rose case is going on Dr phil on thursday (we in the uk do get the show but way after you do) so can someone who watches tell me how it goes. The show has been put on the website with this comment

Matt and Melanie adopted Veronica after her birth mom handpicked them to be her parents. Two years later, Veronica’s biological father, Dusten, decided he wanted to raise Veronica, and Matt and Melanie were forced to hand over their daughter. Dusten, who is part Cherokee Indian, was able to reclaim his daughter pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which was enacted “to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.” Devastated, Matt and Melanie petitioned the United States Supreme Court to regain custody of Veronica. Should she be returned to them, or should she remain with her biological father? Dr. Phil, along with Troy Dunn, who has reunited thousands of lost loved ones on his hit TV show The Locator, delves into this controversial story. And, Chrissi Nimmo, assistant attorney general for the Cherokee Nation, and Les Marston, attorney and tribal judge, explain why they believe Veronica’s father is the best person to raise her. Then, find out why Johnston, who adopted two boys who are part American Indian, says the ICWA is racist, unjust and hurts children.
You see the words two years after the adoption took place which is totally wrong, they have the attorney general for the Cherokee nation coming so hopefully they will get the truth out, because if someone from a different country can then the show should do a better job of it.

 

[ronandannette]

The Veronica Rose case is going on Dr phil on thursday (we in the uk do get the show but way after you do) so can someone who watches tell me how it goes. The show has been put on the website with this comment

Matt and Melanie adopted Veronica after her birth mom handpicked them to be her parents. Two years later, Veronica’s biological father, Dusten, decided he wanted to raise Veronica, and Matt and Melanie were forced to hand over their daughter. Dusten, who is part Cherokee Indian, was able to reclaim his daughter pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which was enacted “to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.” Devastated, Matt and Melanie petitioned the United States Supreme Court to regain custody of Veronica. Should she be returned to them, or should she remain with her biological father? Dr. Phil, along with Troy Dunn, who has reunited thousands of lost loved ones on his hit TV show The Locator, delves into this controversial story. And, Chrissi Nimmo, assistant attorney general for the Cherokee Nation, and Les Marston, attorney and tribal judge, explain why they believe Veronica’s father is the best person to raise her. Then, find out why Johnston, who adopted two boys who are part American Indian, says the ICWA is racist, unjust and hurts children.
You see the words two years after the adoption took place which is totally wrong, they have the attorney general for the Cherokee nation coming so hopefully they will get the truth out, because if someone from a different country can then the show should do a better job of it.

Hi Paula,

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but the reference to the "Cherokee Nation" does not imply a different country. It's a term commonly used for Indian tribes to identify themselves as they have certain (limited) degrees of self-government on their reservations within the US and Canada.

 

[PaulaSB12]

[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Hi Paula,

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but the reference to the "Cherokee Nation" does not imply a different country. It's a term commonly used for Indian tribes to identify themselves as they have certain (limited) degrees of self-government on their reservations within the US and Canada.

What I meant (sorry posted after a long night shift weekend) was if I in the UK can find that the adoption hadn't been formalised and that the father had been fighting for her since she was 4 months old and not waited for the two years the tv show said then why can't they?

 

[PaulaSB12]

They have changed the story on the web site
from this
Matt and Melanie adopted Veronica after her birth mom handpicked them to be her parents. Two years later, Veronica’s biological father, Dusten, decided he wanted to raise Veronica, and Matt and Melanie were forced to hand over their daughter. Dusten, who is part Cherokee Indian, was able to reclaim his daughter pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which was enacted “to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.
To this which changes the whole slant of the story rather than say he waited two years they at least say he started fighting for her at 4 months


Matt and Melanie adopted Veronica after her birth mom handpicked them to be her parents. When Veronica’s biological father, Dusten, was notified about the adoption four months later, he decided he wanted to raise her, even though he had little involvement during the pregnancy and with the birth mother since Veronica’s birth. Dusten, who is part Cherokee Indian, was able to reclaim his daughter pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which was enacted “to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.”

 

[PaulaSB12]

I saw the program on youtube and this and the program about Morgan Ingram's death does not show him in a good light. He was racist to the native americans especially the bit where he took these kids to a reservation and asked did you want to be part of that. Mind you that was nothing to allowing a total lunatic accuse a teenage girl, her father and ex of killing their daughter. According to Morgans parents on their blog 7 people broke in their house through the front door without the parents knowing or two dogs reacting and killing their daughter. How does he get away with rubbish like this? Or the surrogate mother who kept the twins after finding out the mother had a mental disease very closely linked to Paranoid schizophrenia she hears voices has a history of cocaine use and he wants her to be given two babies not related to her.

 

[tomthebarncat]

I don't know anyone in the military but I assume they don't actually have access to counsel unless, like anyone else, they're charged with a crime.

Do they really have access to legal counsel they can call up for personal matters who will advise them, read documents, etc. for free because they're in the military?! That's... nuts, if that's true.

Actually it is true, every base has a JAG office with lawyers, etc. They do personal business also. I am married to a government employee here in Germany, I used the base legal office to review my Chinese work contract before I left for China. I have also used them for a German work contract, so yes they do provide advice, insight, etc. You only have to have a military ID card and wait for an available appointment. Since the loser dad in question deployed, he would have had to see the JAG office prior to deploying as it is mandatory. Also if he really cared, he could have married the woman and she would have gotten benefits and his life insurance if anything happened. I feel for the adoptive parents and the dad well...time will tell!