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
Old 06-25-2013, 11:41 AM   #46
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,230

What a sad decision. That poor little girl.
__________________
DVC Member since 1997
Walt Disney World 2013 * Disneyland Paris 2012 * Disneyland 2011 * Hong Kong Disneyland 2007 * Tokyo Disneyland 2007
robinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 11:51 AM   #47
Janepod
The new dinning plan is out. Need to get those ressies in!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Fairfield County
Posts: 3,452

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
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?
Janepod is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 06-25-2013, 11:52 AM   #48
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
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.
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 11:53 AM   #49
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 7,764

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janepod View Post
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
__________________
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 resort not yet decided!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 11:57 AM   #50
chirurgeon
I am a delicate flower and need my sleep
 
chirurgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
Posts: 4,719

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.
__________________

CBR 4/00, YC 12/02, ASSp 6/05, AKL/BWI 12/06, ASSP/POFQ 6/07, POFQ/AKL 12/08, PCC 1 5/09, Dolphin/POP 2.0 12/09, POFQ/BCV 04/10, PCC 2.0 12/10, POR 12/11, ABD BSM 7/12, PCC 4.0 12/12, BC 4/13, ABD BSM 7/14
chirurgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 11:57 AM   #51
wvjules
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,225

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?
__________________
2014 DIS Book Challenge


I read 36 of 25 in the 2013 DIS Book Challenge
Killing Jesus * Things We Set on Fire * 12 Years a Slave * A Home for Christmas * Heart Shaped Box * Abducted * Beautiful Ruins * When I Found You * John * Entwined in You * Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children * Losing Hope * Zoo * A Moveable Feast * The Paris Wife * The Light Between Oceans * Inferno * We Need to Talk About Kevin * Under the Dome * Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Harry Potter, #7) * Shopaholic Ties the Knot (Shopaholic, #3) * Shopaholic Takes Manhattan (Shopaholic, #2) * Confessions of a Shopaholic (Shopaholic, #1) * Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Harry Potter, #6) * One Second After * Into the Darkest Corner * Before I Go To Sleep * Reflected in You (Crossfire, #2) * The Perks of Being a Wallflower * Bared to You (Crossfire, #1) * Defending Jacob * Hopeless (Hopeless, #1) * Rush Home Road * On the Island * The Fault in Our Stars * The Glass Castle

wvjules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:00 PM   #52
shortbun
Peacenik
 
shortbun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Heart of It All!
Posts: 18,404

Quote:
Originally Posted by roomthreeseventeen View Post
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.
__________________
Keep the Faith!! Peace and Love!!!



USE IT UP, WEAR IT OUT, MAKE IT DO OR DO WITHOUT.

IF YOUR UPKEEP EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME THEN YOUR OUTGO WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL.
shortbun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:04 PM   #53
Janepod
The new dinning plan is out. Need to get those ressies in!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Fairfield County
Posts: 3,452

Quote:
Originally Posted by roomthreeseventeen View Post
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.
Janepod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:08 PM   #54
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,658

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirurgeon View Post
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.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:12 PM   #55
Don'tLookDown
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 132

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:

Quote:
For the past seven months, Christian has been in a court battle to get custody of his son. Christian's former girlfriend placed the baby for adoption without Christian's consent.

Tuesday afternoon a judge ruled the baby should remain with the adoptive parents who have had the boy since his birth on June 4.

"(The judge) said I'm a kid, 17 years old, and she doesn't want me to struggle," said Christian.
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/112919829.html
Don'tLookDown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:22 PM   #56
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by wvjules View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:22 PM   #57
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshinehighway View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:27 PM   #58
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Per the Supreme Court, Veronica is 1.2% Cherokee. (3/256)
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:46 PM   #59
moon
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshinehighway View Post
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.

Last edited by moon; 06-25-2013 at 12:53 PM.
moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:51 PM   #60
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 5,983

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nennie View Post
Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the adoptive parents:

http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...-baby-veronica
The case is going back they havent won yet and I really hope someone kills them first.
PaulaSB12 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 12:19 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: