Baby Veronica is going home!!!!

[Janepod]

Where he lives is irrelevant. The fact that he texted the mother that he relinquished his rights to the child, and then signed a piece of paper saying the same thing is what matters.

And offered to pay child support. Meaning, not a deadbeat dad.

 

[zippingalong]

And offered to pay child support. Meaning, not a deadbeat dad.

Where did you find that? In his home town newspaper? Did you read the Supreme Court ruling or are they making it up?

 

[zippingalong]

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

He's already told the biological mom via text he wanted to relinquish his rights. Did he think the baby was 4 months overdue and that's why he didn't check back again for months?

 

[robinb]

What a sad decision. That poor little girl.

 

[Janepod]

Where did you find that? In his home town newspaper? Did you read the Supreme Court ruling or are they making it up?

Did you not click on the URL? It's the National Council for Research on Women. It's a reputable organization.

No, I have not yet read the lengthy ruling, but I did listen to a long (20 or 30 min) discussion on NPR this morning. I consider them a fair and balanced organization. At least twice they stated that the father offered financial support. I assume that is considered one of the "facts of the case" and not in dispute, or I doubt they (NPR) would be repeating it as fact.

Where in the SC decision does it say he DIDN'T offer financial support?

 

[Robbi]

You are exactly correct.

Under NO law would a man who fathered a child, knew the woman was pregnant, put in writing that he was giving up rights to said child and not attempt any interaction with the child for months be given custody of that child because he changed his mind.

Using ICWA was his only option and he used it. It has been found by the Supreme Court that it was used incorrectly and I agree with the findings.

The rest is purely technical. In SC that father would have had NO rights to the child under state law except for ICWA. She will be returned home.

In his dissenting opinion on the Charleston County Family Court returning the Indian child to her father,Justice John W. Kittredge, said that he believed that the state standards for best interest of the child should trump those of ICWA. He stated that Brown earned $23,000 in 2010. Brown paid nothing to assist with pre-birth expenses, and Brown indicated that he did not intend to do so.

Whomever is determined to be the loser in the case should get visitation. This way at least Veronica is not totally ripped away from people who want her in their lives.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

Did you not click on the URL? It's the National Council for Research on Women. It's a reputable organization.

No, I have not yet read the lengthy ruling, but I did listen to a long (20 or 30 min) discussion on NPR this morning. I consider them a fair and balanced organization. At least twice they stated that the father offered financial support. I assume that is considered one of the "facts of the case" and not in dispute, or I doubt they (NPR) would be repeating it as fact.

Where in the SC decision does it say he DIDN'T offer financial support?

Pretty much everywhere, but here is page 16:

As the State Supreme Court read §§1912(d) and (f ), a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth
mother—perhaps contributing to the mother’s decision to put the child up for adoption—and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests

 

[chirurgeon]

My question is why is some one who is less than 1/100 Cherokee considered part of the tribe? From what I heard he has very little actual Native American blood. Making the child have even less by half. So why is this even being considered under the law being sited in the arguments?

I'm having a mixed reaction to the basic decision.

 

[wvjules]

Where is the text he sent to the birth mother saying he relinquished his rights? Not what she said he texted, but the actual text. Does it exist anywhere?

 

[shortbun]

I am very happy for her adoptive parents, and for her. Also a good victory for adoptive parents everywhere.

As an adoptive parent, I do not consider this a victory. We almost skipped domestic adoption because of things like this. I think this is a conflict over the rights of the child versus the decision of the court. These people don't even know this little girl. Very sad.

 

[Janepod]

Pretty much everywhere, but here is page 16:

As the State Supreme Court read §§1912(d) and (f ), a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth
mother—perhaps contributing to the mother’s decision to put the child up for adoption—and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests

The decision is not saying Dusten Brown did this. The decision is posing a hypothetical, that WERE a biological father to refuse to pay, he could still assert his "trump card" at a later date. "As the State Supreme Court read..." means "this is how the SSC interprets this."

The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted to help preserve the cultural identity and heritage of Indian tribes, but under the State Supreme Court’s reading, the Actwould put certain vulnerable children at a great disadvantage solely because an ancestor—even a remote one—was an Indian. As the State Supreme Court read §§1912(d) and (f ), a biological Indian father could abandonhis child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother—perhaps contributing to the mother’s decision to put the child up for adoption—and then could play hisICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests. If this were possible, many prospective adoptive parents would surely pause before adopting any child who might possibly qualify as an Indian under the ICWA.

 

[sunshinehighway]

My question is why is some one who is less than 1/100 Cherokee considered part of the tribe? From what I heard he has very little actual Native American blood. Making the child have even less by half. So why is this even being considered under the law being sited in the arguments?

I'm having a mixed reaction to the basic decision.

I think that's more misinformation being spread by people on the side of the adoptive parents.

 

[zippingalong]

Where is the text he sent to the birth mother saying he relinquished his rights? Not what she said he texted, but the actual text. Does it exist anywhere?

The text was presented in both the state and the US Supreme Court cases. It's never been contested. The bio father sent it.

 

[zippingalong]

I think that's more misinformation being spread by people on the side of the adoptive parents.

Or info that been passed by people who have actually *read* the court documents in this case.

 

[zippingalong]

Per the Supreme Court, Veronica is 1.2% Cherokee. (3/256)

 

[moon]

I think that's more misinformation being spread by people on the side of the adoptive parents.

No, it isn't. This case and others were discussed in Dr Phil's show, were lawyers from Native American Tribe claimed that if a child was even 1/100, NA s/he belonged to the tribe. They called adoptions outside the tribe "genocide", so they fought to keep all children, even if they had only a drop of indian blood in them.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the adoptive parents:

http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...ames-island-family-in-fight-for-baby-veronica

The case is going back they havent won yet and I really hope someone kills them first.

 

[wvjules]

The case is going back they havent won yet and I really hope someone kills them first.

Well that's a little extreme.

 

[carissa1970]

The case is going back they havent won yet and I really hope someone kills them first.

Are you serious? That is an odd thing to post.

 

[PaulaSB12]

It really doesn't matter if he actually relinquished is rights in writing(unless he is married to the mother). If a bio father is absent, doesn't sign up for a putative father's registry, or in a bad position to raise a child a mother can often place the child with the adoptive parents without his consent. Laws were changed after women felt forced into abortions and bio fathers were ripping toddlers from the only children they ever knew. Despite being more involved from his child's birth, this kid didn't have any tribal adoption law to fall back on and look how it turned out for him:



http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/112919829.html

That law has led to adoption agencies hiding birthmothers with the intent to prevent fathers getting their children and selling the babies it needs to be struck down.