roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
The father never agreed in writing or by any legal document that he wanted to sever ties to his child.
.
He was a deadbeat father who refused to support her.
The father never agreed in writing or by any legal document that he wanted to sever ties to his child.
.
Yes, but if he was interested in his child, how would he have not known the baby was put up for adoption? It is implied that he was nowhere near the baby for months. I guess it was okay to ignore her as long as she was with the mother, but not anyone else? Just seems odd to me.
http://www.myvacationcountdown.com/
He was a deadbeat father who refused to support her.
I think he has a different side to that story.
.
I think he has a different side to that story.
At least its over. I feel bad for the child.
Sorry, it's his child. Nothing else matters except that he didn't sign away his rights to his child. The adoptive family can be Nobel peace prize winners for all I care. Providing a safe, loving home does not give you the right to steal someone else's baby.
From the ruling: The couples relationship deteriorated, and Birth Mother broke off the engagement in May 2009. In June, Birth Mother sent Biological Father a text message asking if he would rather pay child support or relinquish his parental rights. Biological father responded via text message that he relinquished his rights.
It's not over. More legal proceedings are expected.
The Supreme Court did not grant the couple an adoption, but threw out the South Carolina court decisions awarding custody to the father.
The court returned the case to the South Carolina state courts for further proceedings.
An article I read several months ago said that he relinquished his rights to the birth mother because he was trying to gain her favor since he wanted them to get back together. If I remember correctly, he specifically said she was not to be put of for adoption.
I think he's made a lot of mistakes but I also believe that the birth mother was dishonest and that the adoptive family ignored issues that they were aware of early on. He should have been given custody when she was 4 months old.
Also, this case was never about whether the father was entitled to custody of this child. He never was, under US law. This case was only about whether Native American law granted him the right to custody of his child. The Supreme Court has found that it doesn't.
An article I read several months ago said that he relinquished his rights to the birth mother because he was trying to gain her favor since he wanted them to get back together. If I remember correctly, he specifically said she was not to be put of for adoption.
I think he's made a lot of mistakes but I also believe that the birth mother was dishonest and that the adoptive family ignored issues that they were aware of early on. He should have been given custody when she was 4 months old.
That's what I read too. The birth mother ran out on him and he wanted to get married and was trying to get her back. You can't help someone who runs out on you and refuses your help.
Don't call the father a deadbeat dad. It's inaccurate. He was living on an army base, waiting to be deployed to Iraq, at the time of the birth.
The Supreme Court's decision is that the Native American claims are irrelevant to the custody decision and that South Carolina has to review the case and decide custody without using the Native American laws as a basis for its custody decision.
So all we know right now is that the decision is still not final. She will stay with her biological father for now while the court reviews the case and makes its decision.
Don't call the father a deadbeat dad. It's inaccurate. He was living on an army base, waiting to be deployed to Iraq, at the time of the birth.
He never OFFERED any help. He made NO attempt to support the mother, or the baby. He knew she was coming and never made any offer at contact with her.
He was NOT her father except in the biological sense.
The Supreme Court agrees.
False.
"Baby Veronica was born in September with the would-be adoptive parentsthe Capobiancospresent, but Maldonado told the hospital to deny she was there if Brown called. Four months later, less than two weeks before Brown was to be deployed to Iraq, the Capobiancos lawyer sent a process server with relinquishment papers. Thinking he was relinquishing to Maldonado during his deployment, Brown signed a form entitled Acceptance of Service but immediately asked for the paper back, saying he wanted to talk to an attorney. The process server threatened him with criminal prosecution if he touched the paper. Brown consulted an army attorney, and filed a stay of the adoption in South Carolina, establishing paternity, seeking custody (offering to place the baby with his parents until he returned from Iraq), and promised to support Veronica."
http://www.ncrw.org/public-forum/real-deal-blog/guest-blog-feminists-and-baby-veronica-case