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 08-18-2012, 05:53 PM   #196
sookie
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,338

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
http://www.saveveronica.org/what-can...or-the-family/
They are selling bumper signs with her picture, paintings of her and a perfume in her name all without permission. Their aim is to strike down the american Indian welfare act, to severely limit the time given to parents to change their mind,they want the balance of the law to go from the parents to the potential adoptive parents.
This behavior will make the dad rich - because it will give him the means to sue. And will make the supreme court mad if they hear the case.
sookie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2012, 08:33 PM   #197
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: 4,521

Quote:
Originally Posted by sookie View Post
This behavior will make the dad rich - because it will give him the means to sue. And will make the supreme court mad if they hear the case.
Lets hope so. They (the adoptive parents) have lost all sympathy with me. They are taking this way to far.
__________________
Me DH DD-7 DD- 1


Heidict is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 08-19-2012, 03:10 AM   #198
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,046

From the judgment in the supreme court

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:
Appellants were required to receive consent from the State of Oklahoma pursuant to the Oklahoma Interstate Compact on Placement of Children ("ICPC") as a prerequisite to removing Baby Girl from that state. Mother signed the necessary documentation, which reported Baby Girl's ethnicity as "Hispanic" instead of "Native American." After Baby Girl was discharged from the hospital, Appellants remained in Oklahoma with Baby Girl for approximately eight days until they received ICPC approval, at which point they took Baby Girl to South Carolina. According to the testimony of Tiffany Dunaway, a Child Welfare Specialist with the Cherokee Nation, had the Cherokee Nation known about Baby Girl's Native American heritage, Appellants would not have been able to remove Baby Girl from Oklahoma.
Appellants filed the adoption action in South Carolina on September 18, 2009, three days after Baby Girl's birth, but did not serve or otherwise notify Father of the adoption action until January 6, 2010, approximately four months after Baby Girl was born and days before Father was scheduled to deploy to Iraq. On that date outside of a mall near his base, a process server presented Father with legal papers entitled "Acceptance of Service and Answer of Defendant," which stated he was not contesting the adoption of Baby Girl and that he waived the thirty day waiting period and notice of the hearing. Father testified he believed he was relinquishing his rights to Mother and did not realize he consented to Baby Girl's adoption by another family until after he signed the papers. Upon realizing that Mother had relinquished her rights to Appellants, Father testified, "I then tried to grab the paper up. [The process server] told me that I could not grab that [sic] because . . . I would be going to jail if I was to do any harm to the paper."
After consulting with his parents and a JAG lawyer at his base, Father contacted a lawyer the next day, and on January 11, 2010, he requested a stay of the adoption proceedings under the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). On January 14, 2010, Father filed a summons and complaint in an Oklahoma district court to


So the couple who wanted to adopt her KNEW she had native american status and tried to circumvent the law the father (who did make a stupid mistake never sign what you haven't read) wasn't informed his daughter was being put up for adoption until 4 months later so all this he didn't ask for her til she was 4 months is bogus.
http://www.postandcourier.com/apps/p...F120419305#_=_
Court officials closed the hearing to the public, and all parties in the case remain under a gag order. That didn’t stop about 20 supporters of the Capobiancos from wearing T-shirts in Veronica’s favorite color, purple, and the message: “Bring V Home.” They carried signs: “Equal Rights for All Children,” “Stop the Misuse of ICWA” and “Bring Veronica Home.”so much for the gag order didn't stop them picketing the court, the keep veronica home page has been shut after SVR asked them to for the sake of the child but their page is up and running still calling him a sperm donor.

Last edited by PaulaSB12; 08-19-2012 at 03:28 AM.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 07:23 AM   #199
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,046

Supreme court denied them they now have 90 days to go to the US supreme court. I hope they have the sense to let it go now.

http://www.newson6.com/story/1935429...a-custody-case
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 07:45 AM   #200
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: 4,521

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
Supreme court denied them they now have 90 days to go to the US supreme court. I hope they have the sense to let it go now.

http://www.newson6.com/story/1935429...a-custody-case
I can imagine that this must be gut wrenching for them. They have had this little girl since birth. Imagine having your child ripped from your arms, never to see her again. It is any parents worst nightmare.

They went into this with lies though. They were deceitful and shady and it's now coming back to bite them. You reap what you sow. This pain will always be with them to some degree, for the rest of their lives, but they need to lay this to rest and understand that nothing is going to change this outcome. It's time to move on.
__________________
Me DH DD-7 DD- 1


Heidict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 08:27 AM   #201
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,215

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidict View Post
I can imagine that this must be gut wrenching for them. They have had this little girl since birth. Imagine having your child ripped from your arms, never to see her again. It is any parents worst nightmare.

They went into this with lies though. They were deceitful and shady and it's now coming back to bite them. You reap what you sow. This pain will always be with them to some degree, for the rest of their lives, but they need to lay this to rest and understand that nothing is going to change this outcome. It's time to move on.
The whole situation sounds incredibly shady. As information comes out, it seems everyone involved on the side of the adoptive parents acted badly. I think they, for lack of a better word, all worked to steal this child from the father. Any pain the adoptive parents feel is their own doing.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 10:27 AM   #202
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidict View Post
I can imagine that this must be gut wrenching for them. They have had this little girl since birth. Imagine having your child ripped from your arms, never to see her again. It is any parents worst nightmare.

They went into this with lies though. They were deceitful and shady and it's now coming back to bite them. You reap what you sow. This pain will always be with them to some degree, for the rest of their lives, but they need to lay this to rest and understand that nothing is going to change this outcome. It's time to move on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshinehighway View Post
The whole situation sounds incredibly shady. As information comes out, it seems everyone involved on the side of the adoptive parents acted badly. I think they, for lack of a better word, all worked to steal this child from the father. Any pain the adoptive parents feel is their own doing.
__________________
"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 08-25-2012, 08:31 AM   #203
holcombe5
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 19

And for the record

They did not find out she had Native American blood until she was 4 months old. When the birth father HIMSELF filed for paternity, HE HIMSELF said:

Father's complaint initially alleged that "[n]either parent nor the children [sic] have [sic] Native American blood. Therefore the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act . . . do[es] not apply."

The only reason ICWA was used in this case was a means to an end for a father that abandoned a birth mother.
holcombe5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 08:37 AM   #204
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,046

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opin...s/SC/27148.pdf

So you are saying the South Carolina Supreme court is lying when the judgement said this

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.
Appellants hired an attorney to represent Mother's interests during the adoption. Mother told her attorney that Father had Cherokee Indian heritage. Based on this information, Mother's attorney wrote a letter, dated August 21, 2009, to the Child Welfare Division of the Cherokee Nation to inquire about Father's status as an
[COLOR="rgb(255, 0, 255)"]5 Mother testified that she believed she also had Cherokee heritage, but she was not a registered member of the

Cherokee Nation.
[/COLOR]
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 09:10 AM   #205
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by holcombe5 View Post
They did not find out she had Native American blood until she was 4 months old. When the birth father HIMSELF filed for paternity, HE HIMSELF said:

Father's complaint initially alleged that "[n]either parent nor the children [sic] have [sic] Native American blood. Therefore the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act . . . do[es] not apply."

The only reason ICWA was used in this case was a means to an end for a father that abandoned a birth mother.
Read the court documents.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 11:10 AM   #206
Mary Jo
Techarita
Loves the star on the mountain
 
Mary Jo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: West of the original Magic Kingdom
Posts: 25,579
DISboards Moderator

Sorry folks, for the posts deleted - this was due to attack on poster, plus including her full name (supposedly).
Mary Jo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 03:40 PM   #207
holcombe5
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraJayne View Post
Read the court documents.
I did! I cut and pasted that directly from the document. Try reading past the majority ruling. The dissenting arguments does a great job of explaining the situation at hand. The one person that truly didn't act in V's best interest in the first place is the one that won. That's a shame. Had he stepped up in the beginning NONE of this would have happened. I just want PaulaSB12 to stop scouring the Internet for any possible place to post nasty, heartless comments about this family. Their life has been completely turned upside down. Have a heart for God's sake.
holcombe5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 03:54 PM   #208
holcombe5
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
From the judgment in the supreme court

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:
Appellants were required to receive consent from the State of Oklahoma pursuant to the Oklahoma Interstate Compact on Placement of Children ("ICPC") as a prerequisite to removing Baby Girl from that state. Mother signed the necessary documentation, which reported Baby Girl's ethnicity as "Hispanic" instead of "Native American." After Baby Girl was discharged from the hospital, Appellants remained in Oklahoma with Baby Girl for approximately eight days until they received ICPC approval, at which point they took Baby Girl to South Carolina. According to the testimony of Tiffany Dunaway, a Child Welfare Specialist with the Cherokee Nation, had the Cherokee Nation known about Baby Girl's Native American heritage, Appellants would not have been able to remove Baby Girl from Oklahoma.
Appellants filed the adoption action in South Carolina on September 18, 2009, three days after Baby Girl's birth, but did not serve or otherwise notify Father of the adoption action until January 6, 2010, approximately four months after Baby Girl was born and days before Father was scheduled to deploy to Iraq. On that date outside of a mall near his base, a process server presented Father with legal papers entitled "Acceptance of Service and Answer of Defendant," which stated he was not contesting the adoption of Baby Girl and that he waived the thirty day waiting period and notice of the hearing. Father testified he believed he was relinquishing his rights to Mother and did not realize he consented to Baby Girl's adoption by another family until after he signed the papers. Upon realizing that Mother had relinquished her rights to Appellants, Father testified, "I then tried to grab the paper up. [The process server] told me that I could not grab that [sic] because . . . I would be going to jail if I was to do any harm to the paper."
After consulting with his parents and a JAG lawyer at his base, Father contacted a lawyer the next day, and on January 11, 2010, he requested a stay of the adoption proceedings under the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). On January 14, 2010, Father filed a summons and complaint in an Oklahoma district court to


So the couple who wanted to adopt her KNEW she had native american status and tried to circumvent the law the father (who did make a stupid mistake never sign what you haven't read) wasn't informed his daughter was being put up for adoption until 4 months later so all this he didn't ask for her til she was 4 months is bogus.

Court officials closed the hearing to the public, and all parties in the case remain under a gag order. That didn’t stop about 20 supporters of the Capobiancos from wearing T-shirts in Veronica’s favorite color, purple, and the message: “Bring V Home.” They carried signs: “Equal Rights for All Children,” “Stop the Misuse of ICWA” and “Bring Veronica Home.”so much for the gag order didn't stop them picketing the court, the keep veronica home page has been shut after SVR asked them to for the sake of the child but their page is up and running still calling him a sperm donor.
We live in America where we have the freedom of speech. The gag order does not apply to the general public. It can only apply to the parties of the case. I'm on their support page a lot and I haven't seen sperm donor. I see posts about supporting this family and how people feel about ICWA. And we have a right to support this family. The painting is from Veronica's aunt. The perfume was developed by close friends of the family. All of the proceeds are managed by a nonprofit and paid directly to attorneys. You make this out to be something it's not and your lack of sympathy for this family is disgusting. It's fine to not support them but to be on a rampage to pour salt in their wounds is heartless.

If you experienced something unfortunate adoption-related in your life, please find a more healthy way to deal with your situation. You don't need to take it out on this family.
holcombe5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 03:55 PM   #209
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,215

Quote:
Originally Posted by holcombe5 View Post
I did! I cut and pasted that directly from the document. Try reading past the majority ruling. The dissenting arguments does a great job of explaining the situation at hand. The one person that truly didn't act in V's best interest in the first place is the one that won. That's a shame. Had he stepped up in the beginning NONE of this would have happened. I just want PaulaSB12 to stop scouring the Internet for any possible place to post nasty, heartless comments about this family. Their life has been completely turned upside down. Have a heart for God's sake.
If your friends hadn't put their story out to the public there wouldn't be anything to scour the internet for. When you go to the public with something, you have to understand everyone isn't going to see the situation as you do.


The dissenting opinion doesn't matter. The final ruling and majority opinion is what counts.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 03:59 PM   #210
holcombe5
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
How incredibly stupid and selfish. This shows that it was all about ownership rather than care for the child. Someone needs to slap them hard for treating Veronica like a possession. She has been with her father for eight months if they really loved her they would stop this but all they care about is the toy they
Paid for was taken from them, they are obviously not suitable to be adoptive
Parets as its all about ownership not care.
She's been there for 8 months and you question them continuing to fight for their daughter? What about the 2 1/2 years they raised her? He came, picked her up and they haven't spoken to her since. And that's ok???? What about what's best for Veronica? She lost her Mommy and Daddy and doesn't understand why. Everyone seems to argue about how he has rights, they have rights and the tribe has rights. Good lord, what about her rights? Why hasn't anyone done what's in her best interest? To pull her away from the only family she knew (regardless of the circumstances) and to have no transition is not in any child's best interest.
holcombe5 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 10:55 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: