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 Display Modes
Old 05-04-2012, 01:54 PM   #136
CPT Tripss
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey - The Philly End
Posts: 5,080

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmeck View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
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
__________________
Non siggy
Can't lose what you don't have
CPT Tripss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 01:58 PM   #137
Muslickz
Mouseketeer
 
Muslickz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: FLorida
Posts: 143

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

-M
__________________
Muslickz is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 05-04-2012, 02:08 PM   #138
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizBelle View Post
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.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 02:20 PM   #139
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

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.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 02:23 PM   #140
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by snarlingcoyote View Post
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".
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 02:47 PM   #141
DizBelle
CSI: Can't Stand Idiots
Slimy yet satisfying?
 
DizBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: It ain't WDW like I want it to be!
Posts: 13,278

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
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?
__________________

Veni, vidi, Visa (I came, I saw, I shopped)

Some people should use a glue stick instead of chapstick.

====================================

====================================
DizBelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 03:14 PM   #142
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizBelle View Post
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!
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 03:24 PM   #143
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: MA
Posts: 22,416

Quote:
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
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.
__________________



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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 03:50 PM   #144
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,085

Quote:
Originally Posted by superme80 View Post
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.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 04:29 PM   #145
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
I think you mean "adoptive parents".
Whoops! I'm on my phone. I did mean adoptive parents. Thanks!
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 05:14 PM   #146
Spoodleink
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 385

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 05:19 PM   #147
Spoodleink
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 385

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
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.
__________________
_______________________________________________
Spoodleink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 06:15 PM   #148
nuttylawprofessor
Green is edgyWhat kinds of goodies have people found so far?
I keep my mickey hidden
 
nuttylawprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,805

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by disney4us2002 View Post
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.
nuttylawprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 07:14 PM   #149
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoodleink View Post
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.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 07:22 PM   #150
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuttylawprofessor View Post

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?
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote 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 08:10 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: