Is anyone following the Veronica Rose story? - Page 8 - The DIS Discussion Forums

Pea-n-Me · 05-03-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tammymacb

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?

Schmeck · 05-03-2012, 03:35 PM

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.

Pea-n-Me · 05-03-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tammymacb

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.

tammymacb · 05-03-2012, 03:47 PM

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.

Pea-n-Me · 05-03-2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tammymacb

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.

sunshinehighway · 05-03-2012, 04:01 PM

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.

cornflake · 05-03-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tammymacb

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.

luvmy3 · 05-03-2012, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornflake

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.

cornflake · 05-03-2012, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvmy3

If that is what he used, and it isn't all he could have, he should have fired his attorney.

Why?

tammymacb · 05-03-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornflake

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.

snarlingcoyote · 05-03-2012, 07:24 PM

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.

sunshinehighway · 05-03-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tammymacb

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.

sookie · 05-03-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disney4us2002

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.

cm8 · 05-03-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snarlingcoyote

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.

sookie · 05-03-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cm8

, 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.

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: 7,290	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. __________________ 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

05-03-2012, 07:24 PM	#116
snarlingcoyote I know people who live in really carpy school districts Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Louisiana Posts: 4,797	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: "You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts." - Unknown

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Sponsored Links
The DIS Register to remove Join Date: 1997 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,000,000

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! 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.

05-03-2012, 04:01 PM	#111
sunshinehighway DIS Veteran Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 2,077	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.