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 01-26-2013, 08:47 AM   #316
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Our country is supposed to be the land of the free..

Veronica's father put in writing (noncontested) that he did not want her and he did not want to pay child support. He did not help support Vs birth mother during the pregnancy nor visit her.

It was only 4 months later, after the birth mother had chosen adoption and carefully chose the couple to raise V did he come back and say, "I changed my mind". If he had been white, or black, Asian, or Middle Eastern...he would not have had the opportunity to do that. State law would have severed his rights and V would be with the family that raised her since she was a newborn.

Instead, because he was some tiny % Indian, he invokes federal law. ( When he originally began his paperwork, he checked the box saying for him, that Indian heritage was "N/A") This isn't the days of "bad white men stealing minority babies". During slave times, if a slave baby was born, it was the property of the plantation. Does adoption involving mixed black/white families invoke federal law? 'Cause we used to steal them too.

This is a law that has had it's day. And according to an attorney who has won all but 1 of the cases she's presented to the Supreme Court, it was not followed the way it was written.

The Supreme Court often hears cases and reverses them. 70% is the average of reversed cases. I so hope, that Veronica is one of them...
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:53 AM   #317
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,088

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
Veronica's father put in writing (noncontested) that he did not want her and he did not want to pay child support. He did not help support Vs birth mother during the pregnancy nor visit her.

It was only 4 months later, after the birth mother had chosen adoption and carefully chose the couple to raise V did he come back and say, "I changed my mind". If he had been white, or black, Asian, or Middle Eastern...he would not have had the opportunity to do that. State law would have severed his rights and V would be with the family that raised her since she was a newborn.

Instead, because he was some tiny % Indian, he invokes federal law. ( When he originally began his paperwork, he checked the box saying for him, that Indian heritage was "N/A") This isn't the days of "bad white men stealing minority babies". During slave times, if a slave baby was born, it was the property of the plantation. Does adoption involving mixed black/white families invoke federal law? 'Cause we used to steal them too.

This is a law that has had it's day. And according to an attorney who has won all but 1 of the cases she's presented to the Supreme Court, it was not followed the way it was written.

The Supreme Court often hears cases and reverses them. 70% is the average of reversed cases. I so hope, that Veronica is one of them...
I hope that it doesn't because they didn't obay the law. Mothers give up children for adoption and in some cases they change their mind after the child has been in the home for a few weeks they are allowed to change their mind the law says both parents can do it. They had to go before tribal court to get him to sign off for the adoption they didn't do it. They are "saving" this child a completely unhealthy attitude to adoption they are not fit to look after a rat let alone a child. Did you see the picture of her with her father she should be with him.

Father is a “parent” under ICWA because he established his paternity and sought custody of his daughter.
Father’s adoption consent was invalid. ICWA requires that consents be “executed in writing and recorded before a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction and accompanied by the presiding judge’s certificate that the…[parent fully understood]… the terms and consequences of the consent.”
The adoption decree can only be granted if Appellants have grounds, under state law and ICWA, for involuntarily terminating Father’s rights.
Because the Appellants did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the child will suffer physical or emotional damage if returned to…her biological father,” ICWA would not support termination of Father’s rights.

Last edited by PaulaSB12; 01-26-2013 at 08:59 AM.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 04-05-2013, 06:48 AM   #318
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,088

I found this in one of the court documents for the child and the father about the so called independent GAL

2. The Family Court appointed a guardian ad li- tem (GAL) who has filed a brief in this Court that purports to be on behalf of Baby Girl and asserts that Baby Girls interests would be best served by awarding custody to petitioners. GAL Br. 22. In fact, the GAL is not a neutral party. Although appointed by the Family Court, that court noted that the GAL and her attorney both were unilaterally selected by [petitioners] counsel (Pet. App. 129a); the GAL had a continuing business relationship with petitioners attorney, with whom she had worked frequently in
the past and who had already referred her multiple cases in 2009. Trial Tr. 591-592.
In this case, although the GAL had performed a comprehensive home study of petitioners, she resist- ed repeated requests from Fathers attorney to con- duct a home study of Father. Trial Tr. 619-621. When the GAL finally did conduct such a study, well over a year after her appointment and some five months after counsels request, she informed Father and his family that she knew the adoptive couple prior to the child being placed in their home and had worked with them before the child had been placed (JA 113); that petitioners were a well- educated couple with a beautiful home, could afford to send Baby Girl to any private school that they chose and, when she was older, to any college she wanted; and that there was nothing that Baby Girl needed that petitioners could not buy for her. JA 146-147. The GAL therefore told Fathers family that they really need[ed] to get down on [their] knees and pray to God that [they] can make the right deci- sion for this baby (id. at 148), and they needed to talk to God and pray about taking the child from the only family that she has known (id. at 113). At trial, Father stated that the GAL treated him and his fam- ily as a bunch of * * * rednecks that cant * * * afford anything, that were not able to provide this child with proper education, schooling * * *. Pretty much that we werent fit to love this child and raise her. Trial Tr. 514.
The GALs initial report did not note Baby Girls Native American heritage because the GAL thought that was not something * * * the courts need to take into consideration. Trial Tr. 632. As for the GALs view of Native American culture, she stated that the
advantages of having Native American heritage in- clude[ed] free lunches and free medical care and that they did have their little get togethers and their little dances. Id. at 634.
Given the GALs obvious bias, respondents ini- tially sought her removal. But rather than delay the proceedings, respondents ultimately withdrew this motion on the understanding that the Family Court would not consider either the GALs conclusion re- garding Baby Girls best interests or the GALs cus- tody recommendation. See Pet. App. 51a n.44. In- deed, South Carolina law precludes a guardian ad li- tem in a private adoption from providing a custody recommendation unless one is requested by the court (see S.C. Code § 63-3-830(A)(6)); no such request was made here.
3. After holding a four-day hearing to resolve custody of Baby Girl, the Family Court determined that ICWA applied to the proceeding, rejecting peti- tioners invocation of the so-called existing Indian family doctrine that, petitioners asserted, barred application of ICWA when the Indian child was not part of an Indian family at the time of the proceed- ing. Pet. App. 118a. The court went on to hold that Father meets ICWAs definition of parent because he has both acknowledged paternity and paternity has been conclusively established in this action through DNA testing. Id. at 119a-120a. This meant that the only way this adoption can be granted is if the [petitioners] prove grounds upon which [Fathers] parental rights can be terminated [under South Car- olina law], and prove that custody of the minor child with [Father] is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child [under ICWA]. Id. at 122a-123a.
http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.co...rth-father.pdf

Last edited by PaulaSB12; 04-05-2013 at 07:28 AM.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 03:41 AM   #319
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,088

Here is something for peole who say he never provided for his daughter after her birth

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...-family-values

Although adoption lawyers for the South Carolina couple filed an adoption action just days after her birth, they waited four months to serve the father with the legal papers – finally serving him just before he deployed for his mission in Iraq.

In short, from his first knowledge of the pregnancy, the father expressed nothing but a sincere desire to love, support and care for his child.

Throughout the two-year long court proceedings, the father sent child support payments to the South Carolina couple, which deposited them into their attorney’s trust account. The father also purchased stuffed animals and other toys for his daughter during this period – all of which were returned, along with the 20 pairs of socks hand-knitted by the child’s grandmother.


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...-family-values
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 11:23 AM   #320
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

The Supreme Court ruled today. They threw out the SC Court ruling and she will be going home to the parents who have always been there for her. I am over the moon for them.

zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 11:37 AM   #321
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,041

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
The Supreme Court ruled today. They threw out the SC Court ruling and she will be going home to the parents who have always been there for her. I am over the moon for them.

Ditto. I uh, normally don't like anything Justice Alito does, but this was a good ruling, IMHO.
__________________
Amy, Patrick, Cosette and Herbie
Many trips as a kid! 2010 GF RPC (March) and AKL/BWI (Oct)
2012
AKL (marathon weekend) and ... AKL (Wine and Dine)
2013 Fort Wilderness 2014 Dopey Challenge AKL
2015 Dopey Challenge at POR!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 12:36 PM   #322
Hoodie
Going to BC and GF with one week's planning
The snappers go for you and the painteds pee on you. Either way, they never seemed very grateful!
 
Hoodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,932

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
The Supreme Court ruled today. They threw out the SC Court ruling and she will be going home to the parents who have always been there for her. I am over the moon for them.

I'm sad for Veronica. She most likely doesn't remember them.
Hoodie 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 07:02 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: