Disney Information Station Logo

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





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-02-2012, 08:46 AM   #31
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
The law was passed in 1978, so not that long ago.

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

(Bolded mine)
But does that still happen today? If it was written to protect those Indian children who were forcibly taken from their parents, and Veronica wasn't one of those children because her mother (and presumably) her bio-dad legally gave her up, then this law shouldn't apply in this case.

(I say presumably because in link to the OP it states he signed a legal document stating he wouldn't contest the adoption) Also (JMO) if he had a legal leg to stand on as far as getting Veronica back, why would he have to resort to using the ICWA loophole.
luvmy3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 08:50 AM   #32
DopeyDame
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,190

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSchragFamily View Post
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.
All states have a period during which either birth parent can change their mind. They range from 3 days (in Virgina, and I'm sure other places) to at least 30 days (in Maryland). That's the longest I've heard, but I certainly don't know the waiting period of all 30 states. Note that it's X days from the time the papers are signed, NOT from birth of the baby.

That's a different issue, though, than the actual termination of parental rights. It's still unclear to me if the father actually signed and agreed to termination of his parental rights. the website said he signed a "legal document saying he would not contest the adoption". I have no clue what that actually means, and I'm sure if he actually terminated parental rights they would have said that. Unfortunately, in almost all of the messy adoption cases, it's a situation where one parent did not, in fact, have a proper termination of parental rights. That is a risk... one, frankly, that we were not willing to accept when adopting my son.

I can't imagine what Iwould have done in their scenario, but it is pretty clear that the adoptive parents have made this far harder on Veronica than it needed to be by dragging it out or at the very least not having the bio father involved in her life so that he wasn't a stranger when she was placed with him.

That poor little girl. I truly hope she can find peace in her life however this all palys out.
DopeyDame is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 05-02-2012, 08:56 AM   #33
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
But does that still happen today? If it was written to protect those Indian children who were forcibly taken from their parents, and Veronica wasn't one of those children because her mother (and presumably) her bio-dad legally gave her up, then this law shouldn't apply in this case.

(I say presumably because in link to the OP it states he signed a legal document stating he wouldn't contest the adoption) Also (JMO) if he had a legal leg to stand on as far as getting Veronica back, why would he have to resort to using the ICWA loophole.
I'm having a hard time finding info that isn't horribly biased (like the link in the OP) so I'm not sure what exactly happened with the bio father and what he supposedly signed.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 08:57 AM   #34
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
I'm having a hard time finding info that isn't horribly biased (like the link in the OP) so I'm not sure what exactly happened with the bio father and what he supposedly signed.
I tried too but couldn't find any info either. Its hard to know the real story when we are only getting one side.
luvmy3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:51 AM   #35
bookgirl
I don't eat onions-they squelch when you bite into them
I don't eat raisins-they look like dried up bugs
Can we say food issues?
 
bookgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a OK state
Posts: 5,992

To be part of an Oklahoma tribe you have to have more than 1%. I believe it is 1/16 but it may be 1/32 so if he was on the rolls then his parents or grandparents were part of the culture. Veronica was 1/8 which means her father was 1/4.

He never lived on a reservation because Oklahoma has no reservations, we are Indian Territory the whole state is considered Tribal Land.

I understand the need to fight for the baby you love on both sides of this. Both sides are to blame for the transistion this baby is going through. The father for not stepping up immeditaly and the adoptive parents who did not consider that at 4 months the transistion would be seemless and less trying to the child.

The news stories here are very much in support of the father. There is a gag order so the birth father had not been talking at all, don't know why the adoptive family is. This is the most recent story I found.

http://news.yahoo.com/cherokee-adopt...131251708.html

http://www.koco.com/news/30165731/detail.html local news story
__________________
DL 3/2000 OFFSITE WDW 1/2009 ASMu WDW 9/2011 BC&POFQ WDW/IOA 10/2012 AoA/POFQ/ASMu WDW 10/2013 POR WDW 3/2014 AllStarSports WDW 7/2014 Offsite AAU Nationals @ WWoS
UPCOMING: 10/14 F&W Festival (in planning) WL 1/15 AllStar Movies WDW/US


Last edited by bookgirl; 05-02-2012 at 10:02 AM.
bookgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:53 AM   #36
jrmasm
Last time I checked, it was still the thought that counted
Wanna debate that topic?
So elegant but goofy!!
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 7,117

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
I tried too but couldn't find any info either. Its hard to know the real story when we are only getting one side.
__________________
What?
jrmasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:09 AM   #37
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

The adoptive family hasn't spoken out since the gag order.

The fact that that baby was legally adopted into a loving home and was ONLY returned because someone had some American Indian blood in their parent line is a travesty of justice.

The father provided no support to the bio mother. He was in the Military, he could have married his "fiancee" ( he states they were engaged, she says he'd left her and he DID sign a document giving up parental rights "so he wouldn't have to pay child support ".) He could have married her, and given his wife and daughter insurance instead of welfare. He could have made sure his daughter had a box of pampers. But, suddenly 4 months and an established family later, he changes his mind.

It's a bunch of crap.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:14 AM   #38
disney4us2002
Tagless by choice!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,808

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
But does that still happen today? If it was written to protect those Indian children who were forcibly taken from their parents, and Veronica wasn't one of those children because her mother (and presumably) her bio-dad legally gave her up, then this law shouldn't apply in this case.

(I say presumably because in link to the OP it states he signed a legal document stating he wouldn't contest the adoption) Also (JMO) if he had a legal leg to stand on as far as getting Veronica back, why would he have to resort to using the ICWA loophole.
I don't think it's an issue of it happening still today but every child that enters foster care is screened for any tribal affiliation due to that law. If a child has any chance of an affiliation, then the child cannot enter foster care without the consent of the American Indian tribal leader (whichever tribe it is). That specific language is in all court orders regarding children removed from their parents.

While it seems traumatic for us reading about it, this little girl will likely not remember her first family within a year or two. If she stays with dad and he is a good parent, she will be fine. I agree that the biggest issue lies in how long these court cases drag on.
__________________
Carla

disney4us2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:16 AM   #39
gert
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 143

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
The adoptive family hasn't spoken out since the gag order.

The fact that that baby was legally adopted into a loving home and was ONLY returned because someone had some American Indian blood in their parent line is a travesty of justice.

The father provided no support to the bio mother. He was in the Military, he could have married his "fiancee" ( he states they were engaged, she says he'd left her and he DID sign a document giving up parental rights "so he wouldn't have to pay child support ".) He could have married her, and given his wife and daughter insurance instead of welfare. He could have made sure his daughter had a box of pampers. But, suddenly 4 months and an established family later, he changes his mind.

It's a bunch of crap.
I'm looking for a news story or something that backs up these statements. Anyone found anything yet?
gert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:40 AM   #40
Bren's Mom
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,861

I think this CNN article backs at least 1 of those claims.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-08/u...ather?_s=PM:US

"Key to Brown's case is a 1978 federal law called the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Its aim is to "promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and Indian families by the establishment of minimum federal standards to prevent the arbitrary removal of Indian children from their families and tribes and to ensure that measures which prevent the breakup of Indian families are followed in child custody proceedings."

Had the father NOT been notified of the adoption, then I'd think that it was good that he was part Indian and had this act to back him up.

But he WAS notified of the adoption and he DID sign the forms. I'd love to hear him explain how he was so unable to understand the forms he signed and yet he WAS able to leave for a military deployment shortly thereafter. If the man was not stable or was mentally disabled that concerns me for our military.

There was no arbitrary removal of the child by the government, the parents chose to give up the child for adoption. The parents BOTH signed off on this.

And if the acts provides measures which prevent the breakup well...once broken it's a bit too late. ESPECIALLY once a legal adoption has already come to pass.
__________________
I haven't had a cigarette since 1/25/2012...woohoo!!!!
Bren's Mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:56 AM   #41
Pea-n-Me
Survivor
Call me crazy but I prefer the single bath
Nothing beats the Magic of a Disney Resort!
Will DIS from the Potty
Alice, how's it hanging?
 
Pea-n-Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Southeastern Coast of Massachusetts
Posts: 21,815

Quote:
Originally Posted by gert View Post
I'm looking for a news story or something that backs up these statements. Anyone found anything yet?
I would like to hear the bio father's version of events.
__________________



Post your best iPhone/smartphone pictures here!

All Star Music 2001/Polynesian Lagoon View Concierge 2002/Contemporary 2003/Disney Wonder 2003/Yacht Club and Disney Wonder 2004/Pop Century 2005/Dolphin and Pop Century MNSSHP 2005/Disney Magic and Pop Century 2006/Coronado Springs MNSSHP 2006/Dolphin and Disney Wonder 2007/Port Orleans Riverside 2008/Caribbean Beach 2009/Dolphin and Animal Kingdom Lodge Concierge 2011/Grand Floridian and Dolphin, MNSSHP 2013
Pea-n-Me is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:58 AM   #42
bookgirl
I don't eat onions-they squelch when you bite into them
I don't eat raisins-they look like dried up bugs
Can we say food issues?
 
bookgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a OK state
Posts: 5,992

I think the thing is in SC if a father does not provide prenatal support his rights are up for termination.

If he were told that he had no rights because he did not provide support and told he HAD to sign the papers then by law he was 'tricked' into signing away his rights which I believe is what he claimed when he applied for the adoption to be put aside.

ICWA would have superceded that SC law and he would have the right to contest the adoption. Which is what it looks like happened when he made the bid for custody at 4 months.

I know people are upset that he is using this law and calling it wrong, but it is no more wrong than any other policy put into place based on rights due to race or ethinicticity.

If you are going to adopt a child you have to know there is a chance that the parents might change their mind. It's a sucky thing but it is the way it is. There are laws of adoption, if you enter that process you have to obey all the laws of it. Even the ones you don't like.
__________________
DL 3/2000 OFFSITE WDW 1/2009 ASMu WDW 9/2011 BC&POFQ WDW/IOA 10/2012 AoA/POFQ/ASMu WDW 10/2013 POR WDW 3/2014 AllStarSports WDW 7/2014 Offsite AAU Nationals @ WWoS
UPCOMING: 10/14 F&W Festival (in planning) WL 1/15 AllStar Movies WDW/US

bookgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:48 PM   #43
cornflake
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
The adoptive family hasn't spoken out since the gag order.

The fact that that baby was legally adopted into a loving home and was ONLY returned because someone had some American Indian blood in their parent line is a travesty of justice.

The father provided no support to the bio mother. He was in the Military, he could have married his "fiancee" ( he states they were engaged, she says he'd left her and he DID sign a document giving up parental rights "so he wouldn't have to pay child support ".) He could have married her, and given his wife and daughter insurance instead of welfare. He could have made sure his daughter had a box of pampers. But, suddenly 4 months and an established family later, he changes his mind.

It's a bunch of crap.
He's under no obligation to support another functioning adult and less than no obligation to marry one for goodness sakes.

He filed for custody when she was four months old and apparently deployed. Who knows what happened in the four-month period between her birth and the filing.

Agree the legal q. with the act is quite interesting.
cornflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:53 PM   #44
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: 4,518

Would love to hear what the courts ruling is on this. For those on this thread who live in an area were this is covered on the news could you please let us know what they decide?

I would really appreciate it and being up here in CT I don't think I will hear about it on our news.
__________________
Me DH DD-7 DD- 1


Heidict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:59 PM   #45
NikitaZee
DIS Veteran
 
NikitaZee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,510

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
I hope the biological father wins, if they had done the right thing when his daughter was 4 months there would have been no trauma for the child. By dragging it out the adoptive parents have been the cause of the trauma. For the sake of the child parent bond they shouldn't see her again. It is going to sound cruel but if you find you are unable to have a child you should only be allowed to adopt if BOTH parents agree if one changes his or her mind and closes to raise the child that is how it should be.
I agree with all of this. Sad for the adoptive parents, yes. But the father filed when the baby was 4 months old - that (to me) isn't too long to realize you want to raise your own flesh and blood. The SC law that states a man gives up those rights by not supporting the pregnant mother are ridiculous IMO. I would also like to hear more of the father's side of the story, but I think it was a good thing that he requested a gag order - look at the publicity the adoptive parents/birth mother were garnering. How can the publicity be good for the little girl?
NikitaZee 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 11:47 PM.

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: