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 09-30-2013, 03:41 PM   #1021
luvsJack
DIS Veteran
 
luvsJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: My own little corner of the world
Posts: 11,965

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrmasm View Post
Long reply and I deleted it by accident....

The point was that it think it's BS that his rights were terminated for abandonment when biological fathers frequent don't pay child support and still get visitation. That is what has bothered me since I very first read about this case.
So very true. In a divorce, the parent with custody cannot withhold visitation due to unpaid support.

The law definitely slants away from the unmarried father, imho.
__________________


10 pounds closer to Skinny Island!
luvsJack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 04:13 PM   #1022
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,230

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvsJack View Post
The law definitely slants away from the unmarried father, imho.
THAT law in SC slants generously in favor of adoptive parents. It was designed to terminate father's rights as quickly and easily as possible. All Christy had to do was tell him she didn't want his money or gifts and to hide V's birth from him.
__________________
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
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 09-30-2013, 04:30 PM   #1023
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrmasm View Post
Long reply and I deleted it by accident....

The point was that it think it's BS that his rights were terminated for abandonment when biological fathers frequent don't pay child support and still get visitation. That is what has bothered me since I very first read about this case.
Visitation and custody are 2 different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvsJack View Post
Did he have an order for support?
Why would a father who cares so much need a court order?

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
THAT law in SC slants generously in favor of adoptive parents. It was designed to terminate father's rights as quickly and easily as possible. All Christy had to do was tell him she didn't want his money or gifts and to hide V's birth from him.
The Capobiancos live in SC. You live in Wisconsin, I believe. If either of us want to adopt, we'd go by the adoption laws of our state.

Dusten told her he would rather give up custody than send her support. He said that he did it because she would need the money and have to go back to him. When he did that, according to the SCOTUS, he abandoned his child. .
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 04:33 PM   #1024
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: 6,964

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi View Post
Visitation and custody are 2 different things. Why would a father who cares so much need a court order? The Capobiancos live in SC. You live in Wisconsin, I believe. If either of us want to adopt, we'd go by the adoption laws of our state. Dusten told her he would rather give up custody than send her support. He said that he did it because she would need the money and have to go back to him. When he did that, according to the SCOTUS, he abandoned his child. .
It's denying a father his child no matter what you call it. And when the father clearly wants the child like in this case, it's disgusting.

Eta if a father's rights aren't terminated when adoption isn't an issue, it's a double standard whether you want to admit it or not. Is SC terminating the rights of all biological fathers when they don't provide support during pregnancy and the child isn't put up for adoption? I seriously doubt it.
__________________
What?
jrmasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 04:49 PM   #1025
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrmasm View Post
It's denying a father his child no matter what you call it. And when the father clearly wants the child like in this case, it's disgusting.

Eta if a father's rights aren't terminated when adoption isn't an issue, it's a double standard whether you want to admit it or not. Is SC terminating the rights of all biological fathers when they don't provide support during pregnancy and the child isn't put up for adoption? I seriously doubt it.
If it came before a state court depending upon the particular state's laws, the father's rights would be terminated. If SC laws are written that way and it went to court, then yes, his rights would be terminated. Not all cases go to court.

Basically we're all entitled to our feelings and opinions. The fact is the law doesn't worry about that. If someone is not happy about how the law works, call your state and federal legislators and work to change it.

The law is reason, free from passion. Aristotle
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 05:01 PM   #1026
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: 6,964

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi View Post
If it came before a state court depending upon the particular state's laws, the father's rights would be terminated. If SC laws are written that way and it went to court, then yes, his rights would be terminated. Not all cases go to court. Basically we're all entitled to our feelings and opinions. The fact is the law doesn't worry about that. If someone is not happy about how the law works, call your state and federal legislators and work to change it. The law is reason, free from passion. Aristotle
There is no way fathers' rights are being terminated for abandonment. Not when there is a possibility of collecting support.

And IMO this SC law is crap and far from reason and should be changed. It's a double standard and allows for too much dirty dealing on the parts of biological mothers, adoption agencies and paps.
__________________
What?
jrmasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 05:26 PM   #1027
zoemurr
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,414

What I got from the article is more about Veronica's rights..

Why doesn't she have a right to be raised by her bio family? Why are the C's rights greater than hers?
zoemurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 10:04 PM   #1028
CPT Tripss
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey - The Philly End
Posts: 4,637

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrmasm View Post
There is no way fathers' rights are being terminated for abandonment. Not when there is a possibility of collecting support.

And IMO this SC law is crap and far from reason and should be changed. It's a double standard and allows for too much dirty dealing on the parts of biological mothers, adoption agencies and paps.
And SC TANF is strict in requiring the mother's cooperation in establishing paternity and obtaining support. No way would they have allowed Christy to pull the $#!+ she did.
__________________
Non siggy
Can't lose what you don't have
CPT Tripss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 11:40 PM   #1029
1000HappyWishes
I know every mile will be my worth my while.
 
1000HappyWishes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wisconsin ♥
Posts: 528

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoemurr View Post
What I got from the article is more about Veronica's rights..

Why doesn't she have a right to be raised by her bio family? Why are the C's rights greater than hers?
Because they are the people who legally adopted her.
__________________
Mom: Dad: Me(15): Brother(12):


WDW: 2001, 2003, 2013
Disneyland: 2007
Universal: 2013
1000HappyWishes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:38 AM   #1030
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: 6,964

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPT Tripss View Post
And SC TANF is strict in requiring the mother's cooperation in establishing paternity and obtaining support. No way would they have allowed Christy to pull the $#!+ she did.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoemurr View Post
What I got from the article is more about Veronica's rights..

Why doesn't she have a right to be raised by her bio family? Why are the C's rights greater than hers?
She should. It's incredible to me that she didn't count in this case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000HappyWishes View Post
Because they are the people who legally adopted her.
You misunderstood. The question is why were Veronica's rights to be raised by her father ignored and the Cs allowed to adopt her?
__________________
What?
jrmasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 08:53 AM   #1031
luvsJack
DIS Veteran
 
luvsJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: My own little corner of the world
Posts: 11,965

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
THAT law in SC slants generously in favor of adoptive parents. It was designed to terminate father's rights as quickly and easily as possible. All Christy had to do was tell him she didn't want his money or gifts and to hide V's birth from him.
Sadly, that is the case in too many places. It is way to easy for a single mom to manipulate things to make it look like the father is a "dead beat".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi View Post
Visitation and custody are 2 different things.
Why would a father who cares so much need a court order?
The Capobiancos live in SC. You live in Wisconsin, I believe. If either of us want to adopt, we'd go by the adoption laws of our state.

Dusten told her he would rather give up custody than send her support. He said that he did it because she would need the money and have to go back to him. When he did that, according to the SCOTUS, he abandoned his child. .
He doesn't unless he needs to prove that he has tried to give monetary support to the mother. Hind sight is 20/20 but a court order and his paying regularly would have shown that he tried to give her money. Anything short of a court order, gives the woman too much power to manipulate the system.

One statement should not be "abandonment". It takes a whole lot more than that to prove that a father or mother who was married to the other parent has abandoned their child. Have a case right here, right now: Mother and father divorced when the child was an infant. Father paid very little child support over 18 years (as in less than $100) and never saw his kid (didn't even recognize the boy when he stood beside him at a family wedding). At 18 the boy died in a tragic accident. Mother sued; the dad wanted in the law suit. He got a little less than half. Abandonment could not be proven for him but D makes one statement and it equals abandonment? Doesn't seem right to me.
__________________


10 pounds closer to Skinny Island!
luvsJack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 11:31 AM   #1032
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: 5,683

They said they just wanted the child, well they have her, guess it's not all about her after all.

The adopted parents are suing Justin for legal fees.

Good luck he's a vetern and there's no money there, however they are also suing the Cherokee Nation.

Far as I'm concerned they they lied about her Cherokee Heritage and then fought in court to make her Cherokee Heritage not an issue, but since they are now after money it's all about the Cherokee bank accounts. They're scumbags and I hope the Cherokee Nation Lawyers nail them to the wall. They deserve all the Karma that comes their way.
__________________
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 ASsports

UPCOMING: 7/14 Offsite & 10/14 F&W Festival (in planning) WL

bookgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 12:04 PM   #1033
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookgirl View Post
They said they just wanted the child, well they have her, guess it's not all about her after all.

The adopted parents are suing Justin for legal fees.

Good luck he's a vetern and there's no money there, however they are also suing the Cherokee Nation.

Far as I'm concerned they they lied about her Cherokee Heritage and then fought in court to make her Cherokee Heritage not an issue, but since they are now after money it's all about the Cherokee bank accounts. They're scumbags and I hope the Cherokee Nation Lawyers nail them to the wall. They deserve all the Karma that comes their way.

The Capobiancos are not suing Dusten Brown. The South Carolina courts are to recover money. The courts imposed a $32000/ day fine on both Brown and the Cherokee Nation for each day they did not comply with the order to turn over Veronica. The courts are holding Brown and the Cherokee Nation responsible for legal/ court costs. This happens everyday in court cases.

Brown's lawyers are misrepresenting the facts. There have been no suits filed by the Capobiancos.
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 09:09 AM   #1034
zoemurr
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,414

more very sad info.. http://adoptivecouplevsbabygirl.word...our-money-too/

The transition plan that the C's had all over the media of the 7 day meetings was not what was eventually supposed to happen. What was approved was their shorter plan in SC. At their house. I had wondered why the change when Dusten didn't show up in SC.

I think it worked out well for V that they had to go to OK and had many times to meet with her.

Another thing I have read in a few places now is that V was declared a "special needs" child . Presumably for tax breaks? Maybe someone who has adopted can chime in on this. It had never been mentioned anywhere before that she was anything other than a typical child.

Lastly I saw this yesterday:
To Governor Fallin
My name is Caleb Brown and Veronica Brown is my cousin. I really wish you would not have signed the warrant for my uncle Dusten. He is hurting very much and I think Veronica BROWN needs to be in Oklahoma with her real family. I am in 7th grade at Oklahoma Union and our teacher said we could write to you about anything and this is what is most important to me and my family. I believe you made a huge mistake in signing this. You should stand for all Oklahomans, adults like my Uncle Dusten as well as children like my cousin Veronica. My family is saddened by all of this. I would like you to know I am Standing My Ground for Veronica Brown!
From
Caleb Brown

Last edited by zoemurr; 10-02-2013 at 09:41 AM.
zoemurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 09:31 AM   #1035
DopeyDame
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,788

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoemurr View Post

Another thing I have read in a few places now is that V was declared a "special needs" child . Presumably for tax breaks? Maybe someone who has adopted can chime in on this. It had never been mentioned anywhere before that she was anything other than a typical child.
I have no idea why or how she would be declared special needs, or even what that really means. In the adoption world though, depending on the complete circumstances, it wouldn't be unusual for a 4 year old without any medical issues to be considered special needs simply because of her age.

As for the tax breaks... it really shouldn't matter. All adoptions, domestic or international, qualify for the tax rebate the year in which the adoption is finalized. For most adoptions, you can only get back as much as you spent. For certain special needs domestic adoptions, you can get the max rebate back even if you didn't spend that much, so that's really the only benefit I can think of. However, except for foster care placements, almost all adoptions cost more than the tax rebate, special needs or not. I can't imagine the C's haven't spent far, far, far, far more than the tax rebate.
All of which is to say, I have no clue why that label would matter at all, or even what it means or who gave it to her.
DopeyDame 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 12:07 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: