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 Display Modes
Old 06-01-2012, 06:30 AM   #166
tammymacb
Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta down where it's wetta take it from me!
 
tammymacb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,956

There's still no ruling. Though there's a ruling by the State Supreme Court that child custody cases ( when possible ) be ruled on within 30 days, this case has been an exception.

http://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/dis...fm?indexID=771

Though the Supreme Court refused to hear and the US Court of appeals ruled against this case recently..

http://64.38.12.138/News/2012/005735.asp

my feelings are that they are shoring up the legal work for overruling the lower court's verdict.

Of course, it's speculation, but with the current ICWA climate, I think if the State Supreme Court was going to rule with the lower courts, it would have happened a long time ago.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2012, 10:07 PM   #167
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,036

This is what I found from these supporting the father
1 the parents where engaged and had lived together and the father wanted to marry her on his first leave
2 It was Jag who informed him what the papers actually where (adoption not power of attorney) it says as soon as jag caught the paperwork the military immediately took steps to object on Dusten's behalf he then located his daughter and went to court.
2 It then goes on to this Dusten has been a Cherokee nation member since birth and his family is involved in Cherokee and local native american activities. His oldest daughter knows some of the Cherokee language and Dusten himself even sang at the drum. He also has a job and a home only staying with his parents while it was being remodelled his daughter had a brick thrown through the window with paper signed svr on it. From what I can see the "adoptive" parents have done a good job of lying about everything and slagging off the father and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near another baby.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 07-26-2012, 01:18 PM   #168
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

It's finally over!! Congratulations to the Brown family today! What happy and exciting news for Ronnie's biological father. They can finally get on with their lives in peace.

There are lots of things in that court ruling that paint the adoptive family/bio mother in a very bad light. No wonder they wanted to keep the records sealed.

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 01:48 PM   #169
jen0610
DIS Veteran
 
jen0610's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ft Wayne IN
Posts: 4,452

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
It's finally over!! Congratulations to the Brown family today! What happy and exciting news for Ronnie's biological father. They can finally get on with their lives in peace.

There are lots of things in that court ruling that paint the adoptive family/bio mother in a very bad light. No wonder they wanted to keep the records sealed.

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf
Well, if I am reading the attached correctly, she's being returned to her adoptive parents. From pg 72 and 73 of the attached:

IV.
CONCLUSION
I dissent and would reverse the judgment of the family court. I would terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to section 63-7-2570 of the South Carolina Code of Laws and in accordance with ICWA. Additionally, I would hold there is good cause to deviate from ICWA's adoptive placement preferences and remand for an immediate entry of judgment approving and finalizing the adoption of Baby Girl by Appellants. And finally, I would require the immediate return of Baby Girl to Appellants.HEARN, J., concurs.

JUSTICE HEARN: Without hesitation, I join Justice Kittredge's thoughtful, well-reasoned, and excellent dissent. Like Justice Kittredge, I view both the pertinent facts of this case—facts which emanate solely from Father's conduct— and the legal principles underlying termination of parental rights and adoption as requiring judgment in favor of Adoptive Couple. My review of the record convinces me that Father turned his back on the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood at every turn. I would not minimize, as the majority does, the telling fact that Father told Mother in writing after Baby Girl's birth that he would relinquish his parental rights rather than support her and Baby Girl, and I do not join the majority in accepting his laughable explanation that he did this as a way to convince Mother to marry him. In stark contrast to Father's behavior in completely shirking his parental responsibilities, every action taken by Adoptive Couple since they learned she was going to be their child has demonstrated their deep and unconditional love and commitment to Baby Girl. Nevertheless, today, the majority goes out of its way to re-cast the facts in a light unfavorable to Adoptive Couple and overlooks Father's clear course of conduct, affording him a second chance at fatherhood, all at great emotional cost to Baby Girl and Adoptive Couple.
Apart from the human tragedy that Father's reluctance to act like a father until the eleventh hour has wrought on Baby Girl, Adoptive Couple, and their extended family, I profoundly disagree with the majority's elevation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to a position of total dominance over state law and settled principles of the best interests of the child, a position which I find totally unsupported by ICWA jurisprudence. As Justice Kittredge demonstrated, Father's last-ditch efforts to embrace a relationship with his daughter under the cloud of litigation are far too little and much too late. I cannot fathom that Congress intended ICWA to require the return of a child to a parent who consistently, by his words and actions, evinced a desire to forego his responsibilities as a father. I therefore wholeheartedly join Justice Kittredge's dissent and would order Baby Girl's return to Adoptive Couple.
KITTREDGE, J., concurs.

If there is something in there that shows that Bio-Dad is getting her, please let me know what page number that info is found on.
jen0610 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 01:57 PM   #170
mnrose
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,608

The passages cited in PP are from the DISSENT. The bio dad was awarded custody by the majority. For the majority conclusion see page 29.
mnrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 02:00 PM   #171
diesel
Mouseketeer
 
diesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: billerica, ma
Posts: 489

thanks for the explanation. I just figured if I went to the last page that would show the ruling.
__________________
diesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 02:02 PM   #172
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen0610 View Post

If there is something in there that shows that Bio-Dad is getting her, please let me know what page number that info is found on.
It's at the top of page 2, on the pdf I linked.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 02:08 PM   #173
jen0610
DIS Veteran
 
jen0610's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ft Wayne IN
Posts: 4,452

Quote:
Originally Posted by diesel View Post
thanks for the explanation. I just figured if I went to the last page that would show the ruling.
That's were I went. Every court document I have had to deal with, always has it at the every end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
It's at the top of page 2, on the pdf I linked.
Thanks for telling me where I could find it.
jen0610 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 02:10 PM   #174
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen0610 View Post
That's were I went. Every court document I have had to deal with, always has it at the every end.



Thanks for telling me where I could find it.
You're welcome. It's also throughout the document, but couched in lots of legal mumbo jumbo. The easiest part to read/understand is the very first paragraph.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 02:24 PM   #175
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,036

Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a registered
member of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this information "important"
throughout the adoption process.
5
Further, she testified she knew that if the
Cherokee Nation were alerted to Baby Girl's status as an Indian child, "some things
were going to come into effect, but [she] wasn't for [sic] sure what." Mother
reported Father's Indian heritage on the Nightlight Agency's adoption form and
testified she made Father's Indian heritage known to Appellants and every agency
involved in the adoption. However, it appears that there were some efforts to
conceal his Indian status. In fact, the pre-placement form reflects Mother's
reluctance to share this information:
Initially the birth mother did not wish to identify the father, said she
wanted to keep things low-key as possible for the [Appellants],
because he's registered in the Cherokee tribe. It was determined that
naming him would be detrimental to the adoption

Goes against what has been said before that she claimed not to know he was a member of the Cherokee tribe doesn't it. For the father I am glad I do feel sorry for the potential adoptive parents but they should have given her back when he asked for her at 4 months.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 02:26 PM   #176
cm8
Half of the time we're rushing around to get things done last minute or we realize we're running behind so we need to catch up
 
cm8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: DI, SC
Posts: 5,955

Was just coming to post the ruling
__________________
"Worry looks around, Sorry looks back, Faith looks up."


"I have placed the Lord ever before me. Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken." Psalm 16:8



cm8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 08:52 PM   #177
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

I'm glad this was finally settled in accordance with the law. Hopefully, now the little girl and her family can begin to build a life.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 06:24 AM   #178
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: 7,070

Quote:
Originally Posted by snarlingcoyote View Post
I'm glad this was finally settled in accordance with the law. Hopefully, now the little girl and her family can begin to build a life.
__________________
What?
jrmasm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 07:20 AM   #179
Heidict
I'm not witty enough for a tag... but you can count on me to save all the good deleted posts!
 
Heidict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shoreline in CT
Posts: 4,513

Glad this case has finally been settled, and settle in this manner. The birth mother lied to everyone. The father, the attorney, the adoptive parents and this is what it got her. If anyone is to blame for this mess, it is her. She says the father and his mother never contacted her, contrary to what they say. I have a feeling she is probably lying about that also.

I'm sure the adoptive parents are hurting, but the father never voluntarily gave up his parental rights and therefore the adoption was never legal.
__________________
Me DH DD-7 DD- 1


Heidict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 07:26 AM   #180
duffy
The Tag Fairy did not give me this tag...I wrote it myself.
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 2,631

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidict View Post
Glad this case has finally been settled, and settle in this manner. The birth mother lied to everyone. The father, the attorney, the adoptive parents and this is what it got her. If anyone is to blame for this mess, it is her. She says the father and his mother never contacted her, contrary to what they say. I have a feeling she is probably lying about that also.

I'm sure the adoptive parents are hurting, but the father never voluntarily gave up his parental rights and therefore the adoption was never legal.
I agree. The pain the adoptive parents feel must be so awful, I can't comprehend it. But, as you say, the adoption wasn't legal. We have to follow the law, otherwise, it would be an open market on baby-snatching.
duffy 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 10:25 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: