Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Just for Fun > Community Board
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-02-2012, 08:03 AM   #16
Heidict
I'm not witty enough for a tag... but you can count on me to save all the good deleted posts!
 
Heidict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shoreline in CT
Posts: 4,561

Such a sad story and in the end the little girl is the one who is really going to be damaged and the one losing in all of it. Being ripped back and forth has to be so confusing for her.

In the original OP it mentioned that if the birth parents had returned the child at 4 months when the father petitioned for custody that she would have been placed in foster care. Why? If the father is granted custody of his daughter, why would he not take her home? If, for some legal reason she did end up in foster care, I don't believe it would have been for very long at all and in the end would have been less traumatic for her.

Adoption is a risky road and having one or both of the parents change their mind is a risk that comes with it. I can't imagine how painful it must be to have that happen, but I think fighting it and dragging it on for years is only going to make it even more difficult.

I don't like why they throw in the fact that he was going to be deploying to Iraq shortly after petitioning for custody. What does that have to do with anything? Are we to assume he will be a horrible parent because he will be off fighting for his country? I'm sure he had suitable arrangements for her care in his absence (probably his parents?). That shouldn't even be part of the story.
__________________
Me DH DD-8 DD- 2


Heidict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 08:10 AM   #17
dogluva
DIS Veteran
 
dogluva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: north of Boston, MA
Posts: 1,654

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflake View Post
I'd like to see an actual news piece laying out the details of that case, because that mess reads so awfully it honestly makes me assume they're shady and lying or why wouldn't they just lay out the facts.

Most of those cases are about someone protesting or changing their minds within a legallly acceptable period and the adoptive parents refusing to relinquish the child and dragging it out and THEN years later going on about how could you rip the now years-older child away from the only home he or she has known. That is what this sounds like, so... yeah.

I agree.
dogluva is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 05-02-2012, 08:25 AM   #18
tammymacb
Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta down where it's wetta take it from me!
 
tammymacb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,956

Op here. I deleted the story and left the link up because I agree, it was very worthy.

For the record, I don't believe for a second that that baby should have been taken away from her family.

Her father never lived on a reservation, he didn't "belong" to the Cherokee Nation until prior to using that argument for filing his suit.

Past court cases have sided with the adoptive families over this law, and I'm hoping the SC supreme court follows. If he hadn't been 1% Indian, he would have lost custody a long time ago and Veronica would be home right now.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 08:58 AM   #19
TheSchragFamily
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
Op here. I deleted the story and left the link up because I agree, it was very worthy.

For the record, I don't believe for a second that that baby should have been taken away from her family.

Her father never lived on a reservation, he didn't "belong" to the Cherokee Nation until prior to using that argument for filing his suit.

Past court cases have sided with the adoptive families over this law, and I'm hoping the SC supreme court follows. If he hadn't been 1% Indian, he would have lost custody a long time ago and Veronica would be home right now.
I don't understand how this works. I have WAY more native american blood than this guy, but I fail to see how my kids could be considered part of a tribe...don't live on a reservation, not registered, no paperwork saying that, etc. Did someone in his extended family have papers and that's how they figured it out? I can't believe this guy took 13 months to decide he wanted to be a father...maybe his family pressured him to take the little girl, after all...but apparently the law is that he should have her back. Fighting that has really created a problem for the poor child. Adoption is not without risks and I can't understand how this couple thought they could prevail over the law.
TheSchragFamily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 08:59 AM   #20
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,088

The father said he wanted to raise the child, at that point the couple should have handed her over. As has been said that is the risk you take going for an adoption. For these who say a man needs to show care before the baby was born, what happens is he isn't told before and finds out at birth? I do feel sorry for couples who so desperately want a baby, but having a baby isn't a right and if one or both of the parents change their mind then back the child goes. Not fight and fight until the child reaches an age where it could cause problems. And they call the father selfish!
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:14 AM   #21
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Knowing the history behind the Indian Child Welfare Act, I support the father and hope he gets his daughter back.

For those that aren't familiar with the history, the US gov used to forcibly take Native American children away from their families, to raise them "white", ie, the "right" way.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:22 AM   #22
TheSchragFamily
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
The father said he wanted to raise the child, at that point the couple should have handed her over. As has been said that is the risk you take going for an adoption. For these who say a man needs to show care before the baby was born, what happens is he isn't told before and finds out at birth? I do feel sorry for couples who so desperately want a baby, but having a baby isn't a right and if one or both of the parents change their mind then back the child goes. Not fight and fight until the child reaches an age where it could cause problems. And they call the father selfish!
I kind of agree with this. The law isn't about who is a "better" parent...his rights had not yet been terminated so he had the right to get her back.
TheSchragFamily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:28 AM   #23
disneysnowflake
DIS Veteran
 
disneysnowflake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,231

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
The father said he wanted to raise the child, at that point the couple should have handed her over. As has been said that is the risk you take going for an adoption. For these who say a man needs to show care before the baby was born, what happens is he isn't told before and finds out at birth? I do feel sorry for couples who so desperately want a baby, but having a baby isn't a right and if one or both of the parents change their mind then back the child goes. Not fight and fight until the child reaches an age where it could cause problems. And they call the father selfish!
ITA. This is hardest on that little girl. They should have figured something out at 4 months. That poor, sweet girl. She is so adorable.
__________________
Dec 04 POFQ Oct 05 Pop Dec 07 CR Dec 10 BLT Oct 11 POFQ Dec 14 CR


2014 we are renewing our wedding vows at WDW.
disneysnowflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:28 AM   #24
luvmy3
When I drink I find its easier to watch my children because I see all 3 of them double, so all 6 of them of them take all my attention
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
Knowing the history behind the Indian Child Welfare Act, I support the father and hope he gets his daughter back.

For those that aren't familiar with the history, the US gov used to forcibly take Native American children away from their families, to raise them "white", ie, the "right" way.
But we don't do that anymore so just who is that law protecting now?

If the bio dad legally gave up his parental rights, and legally agreed to the adoption, then he should not be protected under ICWA.
luvmy3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:30 AM   #25
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,418

I don't know anything about ICWA. From what I am reading, it seems the argument on the father's side is, at least partly, the ICWA was violated from the start. It seems there should have been an attempt to place the baby in a Native American home first. Anyone know more about the ICWA?

Its hard to find information giving the father's side. It seems the bio mom has been allowed a relationship with the girl. I wonder if the bio dad was as well.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:32 AM   #26
tammymacb
Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta down where it's wetta take it from me!
 
tammymacb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,956

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
Knowing the history behind the Indian Child Welfare Act, I support the father and hope he gets his daughter back.

For those that aren't familiar with the history, the US gov used to forcibly take Native American children away from their families, to raise them "white", ie, the "right" way.
The father is only using this act because he has no other legal ground to stand on. He signed away his parental rights. He told the mother he did not want the baby. When he changed his mind ( for whatever reason ) Veronica was now living in an open adoption with new parents in SC.

The ICWA has been ruled against in cases in the past where the judge stated that it was not in the best interest of the child to be taken away from adoptive parents. I'm hoping that's what happens this time.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:33 AM   #27
tammymacb
Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta down where it's wetta take it from me!
 
tammymacb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,956

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshinehighway View Post
I don't know anything about ICWA. From what I am reading, it seems the argument on the father's side is, at least partly, the ICWA was violated from the start. It seems there should have been an attempt to place the baby in a Native American home first. Anyone know more about the ICWA?

Its hard to find information giving the father's side. It seems the bio mom has been allowed a relationship with the girl. I wonder if the bio dad was as well.
The father was not ever part of a tribe until before he went to court. He is just using the ICWA as the only option he has to contest the adoption.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:36 AM   #28
TheSchragFamily
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
The father is only using this act because he has no other legal ground to stand on. He signed away his parental rights. He told the mother he did not want the baby. When he changed his mind ( for whatever reason ) Veronica was now living in an open adoption with new parents in SC.

The ICWA has been ruled against in cases in the past where the judge stated that it was not in the best interest of the child to be taken away from adoptive parents. I'm hoping that's what happens this time.
Bio parents can't change their minds in SC? I know in some states, even after you sign, you have a certain number of months to retract it.
TheSchragFamily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:38 AM   #29
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
But we don't do that anymore so just who is that law protecting now?

If the bio dad legally gave up his parental rights, and legally agreed to the adoption, then he should not be protected under ICWA.
The law was passed in 1978, so not that long ago.

http://www.nicwa.org/indian_child_welfare_act/

Quote:
ICWA is a federal law that seeks to keep American Indian children with American Indian families. Congress passed ICWA in 1978 in response to the alarmingly high number of Indian children being removed from their homes by both public and private agencies. The intent of Congress under ICWA was to "protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families" (25 U.S.C. § 1902). ICWA sets federal requirements that apply to state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who is a member of or eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe.
(Bolded mine)
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:40 AM   #30
tammymacb
Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta down where it's wetta take it from me!
 
tammymacb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,956

SC law has a much shorter cooling off period and it's very difficult to change your mind. I believe ( though I'd have to research and double check ) that once you sign the papers, you're done.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: