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
Old 06-25-2013, 12:14 PM   #31
Hoodie
Going to BC and GF with one week's planning
The snappers go for you and the painteds pee on you. Either way, they never seemed very grateful!
 
Hoodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,932

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrmasm View Post
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.
Yup, this exactly.

First, she should have been given to him at 4 months. Adoptive parents prolonged that and the poor child had to change families at 2. Now at 4, she's going to be taken away from her father and given to, what at this point amounts, to complete strangers. I see years of therapy in this poor little girls future, brought on by her birth mother and her adoptive "parents".
Hoodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:17 PM   #32
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by roomthreeseventeen View Post
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.

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.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 06-25-2013, 12:18 PM   #33
Don'tLookDown
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 132

I'm glad. The father washed is hands of this child until his mother got involved and then used a technicality(he's 2% Native American) to have his way. If he were any other guy she would've been able to stay with the people who raised her.
Don'tLookDown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:19 PM   #34
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,404

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrmasm View Post
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.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:23 PM   #35
sbtrfly74
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,110

You cant "give up your rights" then say "but you cant do this" its a done deal.... over.
sbtrfly74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:24 PM   #36
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshinehighway View Post
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.
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.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:27 PM   #37
Janepod
The new dinning plan is out. Need to get those ressies in!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Fairfield County
Posts: 3,480

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.
Janepod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:28 PM   #38
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,041

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janepod View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Amy, Patrick, Cosette and Herbie
Many trips as a kid! 2010 GF RPC (March) and AKL/BWI (Oct)
2012
AKL (marathon weekend) and ... AKL (Wine and Dine)
2013 Fort Wilderness 2014 Dopey Challenge AKL
2015 Dopey Challenge at POR!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:29 PM   #39
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janepod View Post
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.

With free legal counsel available to him. And he still signed away his paternal rights.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:29 PM   #40
Don'tLookDown
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 132

I like what Justice Alito said about how this law isn't always in the best interest of children:

Quote:
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Alito, concludes that the law "does not apply when, as here, the relevant parent never had custody of the child."

"Under the State Supreme Court's reading, a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother ... and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother's decision and the child's best interests," Alito wrote. "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."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._adoptive.html
Don'tLookDown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:30 PM   #41
Janepod
The new dinning plan is out. Need to get those ressies in!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Fairfield County
Posts: 3,480

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
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 parents—the Capobiancos—present, 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/rea...-veronica-case
Janepod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:31 PM   #42
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,041

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janepod View Post
False.

"Baby Veronica was born in September with the would-be adoptive parents—the Capobiancos—present, 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/rea...-veronica-case
Immediately = the next day.
__________________
Amy, Patrick, Cosette and Herbie
Many trips as a kid! 2010 GF RPC (March) and AKL/BWI (Oct)
2012
AKL (marathon weekend) and ... AKL (Wine and Dine)
2013 Fort Wilderness 2014 Dopey Challenge AKL
2015 Dopey Challenge at POR!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:31 PM   #43
Janepod
The new dinning plan is out. Need to get those ressies in!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Fairfield County
Posts: 3,480

Quote:
Originally Posted by roomthreeseventeen View Post
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.
Janepod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:38 PM   #44
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janepod View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:39 PM   #45
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janepod View Post
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/rea...-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?
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
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 04:43 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: