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 05-03-2012, 03:35 PM   #106
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: Southeastern Coast of Massachusetts
Posts: 21,769

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
He's a grown adult in the military. He has free legal council at his avail. If he didn't read it, or didn't understand it and still signed it, how is that anyone's problem but his?
This is actually a point that's been bothering me for the last few pages.

How many times do we suggest people go to a doctor, or a counselor, or a lawyer, for important things, and they don't go? Often.

Just because he had access (if he in fact did), it doesn't mean he had the wherewithall to go, for whatever reason.

How old was this guy again?
__________________



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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 03:35 PM   #107
Schmeck
Funny thing is now my 17 year old naps almost every day and so do I!

 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Massachusetts Strong!
Posts: 8,466

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.
__________________
July '13 - CBR
Mar '13 - PC Aug '12 - PC (Best Trip Ever!)
Aug '10 - PC June '08 - ASMo (school trip)
Aug '05 - BC Aug '04 - PC, AKL
Oct '02 - AKL, POR May '99 - CBR
May '96 - CBR Dec '80 - offsite
Schmeck is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 05-03-2012, 03:42 PM   #108
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: Southeastern Coast of Massachusetts
Posts: 21,769

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
Seriously, I just don't get this. He KNEW he was signing off his parental rights. It doesn't MATTER if the document said the child was being placed for adoption. If he knew he was giving up his rights, he has NO RIGHT to contest where the child was placed from there.
But don't you see that this is a point that could be hotly debated by legal scholars?

INFORMED CONSENT

Shouldn't he have been informed of the plan before he signed papers terminating his rights?

From what was posted earlier, he says he had plans to marry the mother and presumably, be with the daughter also. (I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.)

This is a LOT different than not seeing the daughter for at least the next 18 years, maybe more.

I say it's one for the courts to decide. (Maybe the lower court has decided but there is such a thing as Appeal.)

If the Indian angle wasn't taken up, perhaps this could have been another argument seeing that he says he wasn't aware of this when he signed his rights away.
__________________



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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 03:47 PM   #109
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

The case is in appeal with the SC Supreme Court.

FWIW, the case was decided because of the ICWA issue. That's the only reason the father got custody. If he hadn't been Indian, this would be over and he would have lost the case and the child.

We can debate all we want about what he knew...that was not the legal issue of the case, just ICWA. And the Supreme Court heard the case, because it's been argued that ICWA was used inappropriately. We'll see soon.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 03:56 PM   #110
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: Southeastern Coast of Massachusetts
Posts: 21,769

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
The case is in appeal with the SC Supreme Court.

FWIW, the case was decided because of the ICWA issue. That's the only reason the father got custody. If he hadn't been Indian, this would be over and he would have lost the case and the child.

We can debate all we want about what he knew...that was not the legal issue of the case, just ICWA. And the Supreme Court heard the case, because it's been argued that ICWA was used inappropriately. We'll see soon.
So if it's not pertinent, why was it even brought it up?

Smells fishy to me.
__________________



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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:01 PM   #111
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,126

I went back and looked at the link in the first post. The thing that makes me question their side of the story is, in the link it says the father "signed a document stating he wouldn't contest the adoption". From further reading, it seems he didn't know about the adoption and signed away his rights thinking the child would be raised by the mother. I don't know which is accurate but, if he didn't know about the adoption, I think the wording on the website is misleading. That doesn't sit well with me.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:20 PM   #112
cornflake
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by tammymacb View Post
The case is in appeal with the SC Supreme Court.

FWIW, the case was decided because of the ICWA issue. That's the only reason the father got custody. If he hadn't been Indian, this would be over and he would have lost the case and the child.

We can debate all we want about what he knew...that was not the legal issue of the case, just ICWA. And the Supreme Court heard the case, because it's been argued that ICWA was used inappropriately. We'll see soon.
That's what he used, doesn't mean that's all he COULD have used.
cornflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:27 PM   #113
luvmy3
When I drink I find its easier to watch my children because I see all 3 of them double, so all 6 of them of them take all my attention
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflake View Post
That's what he used, doesn't mean that's all he COULD have used.
If that is what he used, and it isn't all he could have, he should have fired his attorney.
luvmy3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:29 PM   #114
cornflake
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
If that is what he used, and it isn't all he could have, he should have fired his attorney.
Why?
cornflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 05:43 PM   #115
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflake View Post
That's what he used, doesn't mean that's all he COULD have used.
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.
tammymacb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 07:24 PM   #116
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

If the ICWA is to be applied in this case, the adoptive parents likely can't have her no matter what. I'm pretty sure there's a specific order for whom the child has to be offered to for adoption before that child can go to a White family. If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's the family, then the tribe, then any other American Indian, then finally, if no one else is willing to adopt the child, a non-American Indian family can adopt.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 07:50 PM   #117
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,126

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.
Perhaps the ICWA superseded all so any other arguments didn't matter. Its not that same thing as being the only reason he got his child back.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 08:02 PM   #118
sookie
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,307

Quote:
Originally Posted by disney4us2002 View Post
I work for a public agency that works with foster care and adoption and I will be shocked if Veronica's adopted family wins. Don't misunderstand that to mean I think she shouldn't be returned; I just don't think it'll turn out the way they want. I've been in this field too long and know of many heart-breaking stories.
Me too. He is the bio dad and he can change his mind. The law is in place for a reason. At four months - he can build a much stronger bond with her. He deserves to be able to parent his daughter if he wants to.
sookie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 09:52 PM   #119
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 snarlingcoyote View Post
If the ICWA is to be applied in this case, the adoptive parents likely can't have her no matter what. I'm pretty sure there's a specific order for whom the child has to be offered to for adoption before that child can go to a White family. If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's the family, then the tribe, then any other American Indian, then finally, if no one else is willing to adopt the child, a non-American Indian family can adopt.
, But the Father also has 2 other children if I'm not mistaken and he does not have anything to do with them. It is rumored that he only wanted Veronica back to hurt the Mother of his child since she didn't want to be with him again Since Veronica has been back in her father's custody, she has yet to visit with the adoptive family. I don't think they will ever see her again either. If they do, it will be a miracle.
__________________
"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 05-03-2012, 10:02 PM   #120
sookie
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,307

Quote:
Originally Posted by cm8 View Post
, But the Father also has 2 other children if I'm not mistaken and he does not have anything to do with them. It is rumored that he only wanted Veronica back to hurt the Mother of his child since she didn't want to be with him again Since Veronica has been back in her father's custody, she has yet to visit with the adoptive family. I don't think they will ever see her again either. If they do, it will be a miracle.
They have no claim on her. They don't need to see her again if he doesn't want them to.
He has a right to parent the kid.
If the lawyer had not used the ICWA it would have been malpractice. Of course he should have used it.
You don't know this guys state of mind, and maybe he does want to parent this child. I would say that if he did not want to parent the kid - he would not have put up with all of the hassle he has obviously put up with at this point (and the adoptive parents have put up a hassle). If they had wanted to visitation, they would be examining how their behaviors could be influencing how the bio-dad could be viewing them at this point. He probably doesn't want them around the kid with a ten foot pole. He probably wants to parent his kid in peace.
The adoptive parents don't have ultimate claim on this kid because they had her for four months. Let the dad - who has had her for longer than THEY had her now - parent her.
We have these laws in place for a reason. Sure, I feel bad for the adoptive parents. But also the dad has rights too.
sookie 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 08:52 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: