Is anyone following the Veronica Rose story?

[CPT Tripss]

Private adoptions can get so messy. Looks like in this one only the attorneys will come out ahead.

Originally Posted by Schmeck

So what's worse - The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), or the Christian Alliance of Child Welfare (CACW)? They are both pushing their agendas down the throats of people who have been victimized enough by this country.

Sometimes I'm downright embarrassed to be a US citizen.

Groups, like CACW, that don't agree with laws like ICWA often take extreme positions. The ICWA isn't taking a position in this case. It just is the law that guides.

Originally Posted by tammymacb

No. It was what the judge ruled. She had to be returned because of ICWA. Period. The judge ruled that federal ICWA rules overruled SCs state adoption laws. If not, she would have been left with her adoptive parents because, per SC adoption law, her father would not have regained custody of her.

I don't have a problem with a federal law like ICWA taking precidence over a state law, particularly in a situation of interstate adoption. But, I imagine that's a tough sell to traditional South Carolinians

[Muslickz]

I was very sad to hear about this.... my heart goes out to all involved

-M

[SaraJayne]

Originally Posted by DizBelle

Reports I'm hearing say that he signed a form giving up his rights to his daughter and also agreeing not to contest the adoption.

From what I've read (from a biased source admittedly) is his fiance (Ronnie's mother) had him sign a paper giving her POA while he was deployed.

That document was, in fact, a document having him give up all rights to the child. As soon as he discovered the deception on her part, he petitioned the courts when Ronnie was 4 months old for custody.

The adoptive couple are the ones that have chosen to drag this out as long as they have.

[snarlingcoyote]

What I think a lot of people don't get is that the moment it became known that this child had eligibility in a recognized tribe, this should have become a tribal matter. The birth parents are choosing to assert that their state law takes precedence over federal law and thus by extension are claiming that the federally recognized rights of the Cherokee tribe to which this child is entitled to membership are irrelevant and invalid.

[SaraJayne]

Originally Posted by snarlingcoyote

What I think a lot of people don't get is that the moment it became known that this child had eligibility in a recognized tribe, this should have become a tribal matter. The birth parents are choosing to assert that their state law takes precedence over federal law and thus by extension are claiming that the federally recognized rights of the Cherokee tribe to which this child is entitled to membership are irrelevant and invalid.

I think you mean "adoptive parents".

[DizBelle]

Originally Posted by SaraJayne

From what I've read (from a biased source admittedly) is his fiance (Ronnie's mother) had him sign a paper giving her POA while he was deployed.

That document was, in fact, a document having him give up all rights to the child. As soon as he discovered the deception on her part, he petitioned the courts when Ronnie was 4 months old for custody.

The adoptive couple are the ones that have chosen to drag this out as long as they have.

What's the deception? Why did he sign it if he didn't want her to have total control?

[SaraJayne]

Originally Posted by DizBelle

What's the deception? Why did he sign it if he didn't want her to have total control?

Really? You don't see the deception? Signing a POA form and signing away the rights to your child are so far apart, they aren't even in the same ballpark!

[Pea-n-Me]

Originally Posted by DizBelle

Reports I'm hearing say that he signed a form giving up his rights to his daughter and also agreeing not to contest the adoption.

What adoption?

Originally Posted by SaraJayne

From what I've read (from a biased source admittedly) is his fiance (Ronnie's mother) had him sign a paper giving her POA while he was deployed.

That document was, in fact, a document having him give up all rights to the child. As soon as he discovered the deception on her part, he petitioned the courts when Ronnie was 4 months old for custody.

I have been getting a deception vibe and this would make sense if that's how it went down.

[PaulaSB12]

Originally Posted by superme80

That has to be the most insensitive rudest comment I have ever seen. You could have stated your opionion without it. I am completely disguested.

Considering the number of times I have seen the phrase "there are so many couples who would have wanted this child" we have got to the state that people think having a baby is a right. It isn't I have seen infertility in my own family, but none of them would have done what this and others have done when the birth parents have wanted the baby back. In most cases they "adoptive" family has dragged it out stating its in the best interest of the child while dumping their pain onto that child when if they did the best for the child they would hand that child back instead of dragging it on and on using the press to try and get the public on their side.

[snarlingcoyote]

Originally Posted by SaraJayne

I think you mean "adoptive parents".

Whoops! I'm on my phone. I did mean adoptive parents. Thanks!

[Spoodleink]

Originally Posted by tammymacb

Because if you give up your parental rights, you give up all your rights. He doesn't get to pick that the child can live with it's mother, and he won't support it, but she can't place the child for adoption.

It's pretty simple.

And if the fact that he ADMITS that he signed away custody of the child doesn't convince you that he should not have custody, you're not really worth arguing with.

Custody (physical custody) and parental rights (legal custody) are two different things. Custody is about who child the child lives, Parental rights are about having a legal say in the child's life. Since the adoptive parents are arguing that he gave up his right via non support he may signed something that gave the mother full physical custody not legal custody. Meaning he never gave up his parental rights or consented to the adoption.

[Spoodleink]

Originally Posted by tammymacb

http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...1602/301019972

Post and Courier article.

I went back to look for old records that I knew I read in the past. Several things have not been released because of the gag order and some of the facts were "taken back" when the gag order came into play.

The bio father admitted that he signed away custody and he did not belong the the Cherokee nation prior to the lawsuit.

What that actually says is

Court records show that the Cherokee Nation initially denied Brown's membership, because Maldonado's attorney misspelled his name and provided an incorrect date of birth.


The birth mom's lawyer gave the Cherokee Nation and incorrect name and DOB so they said he wasn't a member. That doesn't mean that he joined after the court case just that the initial inquiry said no because it was incorrect.

[nuttylawprofessor]

Originally Posted by luvmy3

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.

In short, "yes," though its couched in terms of saving the children from perceived abuse and neglect.

Originally Posted by disney4us2002

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.

Ah, if only this were true. Some states and courts are better about this than others.

This case doesn't pass the sniff test. It stinks up, down, and sideways.

[snarlingcoyote]

Originally Posted by Spoodleink

What that actually says is

Court records show that the Cherokee Nation initially denied Brown's membership, because Maldonado's attorney misspelled his name and provided an incorrect date of birth.


The birth mom's lawyer gave the Cherokee Nation and incorrect name and DOB so they said he wasn't a member. That doesn't mean that he joined after the court case just that the initial inquiry said no because it was incorrect.

Ahhhhhh. Now that makes sense.

[snarlingcoyote]

Originally Posted by nuttylawprofessor

This case doesn't pass the sniff test. It stinks up, down, and sideways.

Personally, I have yet to find one individual in this case who has acted in good faith the entire way through. Since the father did sign away his rights to the baby, but was and is a tribal member, would that mean then that the tribe really has the superceding claim on the child's custody? We know the adoption was illegal, whether it was due to the birth mom giving bad information or due to the lawyer giving bad information, yes? That still leaves the document in which the birth dad gave up rights to the baby as a separate document or would that document be considered part of the adoption agreement?

If it's not considered part of the adoption agreement and now the child's enrollment in the trube is not in question. . .wouldn't that leave the tribe as the decider of the child's fate?