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
Old 06-27-2013, 08:30 AM   #151
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,069

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...astation-65966

An article saying what damage has been done to Native American children because of adoption, the Supreme Court said the lower court didnt need to use iwca ) bu this doesn't mean they will get the child the best interest is for the child to stay with the father now or do you not care that she knows that she has a father brother sister, grandparents aunties etc. also it's been said while the father can't use iwca the tribe can also his parents can!
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:36 AM   #152
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
He didn't support the birth mother or the infant from pregnancy to 4 months of age. He made no attempt to contact her.

Nowhere, in any state, if he wasn't a teensy bit Indian, would he have had the ability to do what he did. With no ICWA, he falls under the same laws as anyone else, and he did not follow guidelines to be considered a parent.
Are you aware from the moment he started fighting for his daughter he paid child support to the cappobiancos sent her gifts ( which wher never given to her, unlike their gifts which had pictures of them hidden in them), considering adoption agencies hide mothers so fathers can't support them and claim abandonment this law needs to be struck down, if on the other hand you want it to be legal that an unmarried father has no rights to his child if the mother bails out then all laws insisting on child support need to go no rights equals no responsibilities, after all girls you claim you want equal rights but when it comes to this or other matters you don't because if there where equal rights then fathers would have equal rights o their children without jumping through hoops!
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 06-27-2013, 08:37 AM   #153
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Do you think an article written in an Oklahoma paper may be slanted a bit?

The case is going back to SC and will be ruled using SC laws.

As for the grandparents and the tribe, it's already been noted in the SCOTUS ruling that NEITHER tried to adopt Baby Girl. They've missed the boat.

That snippet of the ruling has already been posted on this thread- by me.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:38 AM   #154
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
Are you aware from the moment he started fighting for his daughter he paid child support to the cappobiancos sent her gifts ( which wher never given to her, unlike their gifts which had pictures of them hidden in them), considering adoption agencies hide mothers so fathers can't support them and claim abandonment this law needs to be struck down, if on the other hand you want it to be legal that an unmarried father has no rights to his child if the mother bails out then all laws insisting on child support need to go no rights equals no responsibilities, after all girls you claim you want equal rights but when it comes to this or other matters you don't because if there where equal rights then fathers would have equal rights o their children without jumping through hoops!
Are you aware that he abandoned his child before birth? And per the Supreme Court he lost his right to use ICWA to try to take her back after he changed his mind?

SCOTUS ruled he abandoned her...how can you even argue differently?
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:40 AM   #155
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashley0139 View Post
Exactly. I don't understand how people can say the adoptive parents don't have her best interests at heart because they are "ripping" her away from the only home she remembers to have her back. That's exactly what the bio father did in the first place! He never had her best interests at heart.


When they handed her over the father wanted low key and quiet the adoptive s called friends with banners and the press,they then walked her passed this mob of idiots scaring her how was that in her best interest?
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:47 AM   #156
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
When they handed her over the father wanted low key and quiet the adoptive s called friends with banners and the press,they then walked her passed this mob of idiots scaring her how was that in her best interest?
Not quite how it happened, but whatever.

Taking her away from the only family she ever knew certainly was a fabulous thing to do to a two year old though.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:05 AM   #157
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,571

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
Taking her away from the only family she ever knew certainly was a fabulous thing to do to a two year old though.
The blame for that is shared by both the birth father and the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents knew the adoption was going south when she was 4-months old. But they chose to fight and ended up having to give her away when she was 2 instead of 4-months when she wouldn't remember a thing. NOW, they have fought all the way to the SCOTUS and if they have their way, they will rip her away from her current family. How fabulous will that be?
__________________
DVC Member since 1997
Walt Disney World 2013 * Disneyland Paris 2012 * Disneyland 2011 * Hong Kong Disneyland 2007 * Tokyo Disneyland 2007
robinb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:08 AM   #158
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: 7,245

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don'tLookDown View Post
In the process he also told her that her parents left her with him because they didn't love her anymore. I can't imagine the pain of know your child is in the care of someone like that.
Really? Where did you read that?
__________________
What?
jrmasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:08 AM   #159
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Considering he NEVER should have gotten her in the first place, it's sad, but it's fair.

I've already said that to me it's no different than returning a kidnapped child back to it's parents.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:09 AM   #160
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,571

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
I've already said that to me it's no different than returning a kidnapped child back to it's birth parents.
Except we disagree on who has done the kidnapping.
__________________
DVC Member since 1997
Walt Disney World 2013 * Disneyland Paris 2012 * Disneyland 2011 * Hong Kong Disneyland 2007 * Tokyo Disneyland 2007
robinb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:12 AM   #161
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,571

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrmasm View Post
Really? Where did you read that?
I know. It's like some posters have a special insight into the case that the rest of us don't. Don'tLookDown knows all about how the birth father told the little girl that her adoptive parents didn't love her anymore and PaulaSB12 knows that they sent gifts to the little girl had pictures hidden in them.
__________________
DVC Member since 1997
Walt Disney World 2013 * Disneyland Paris 2012 * Disneyland 2011 * Hong Kong Disneyland 2007 * Tokyo Disneyland 2007
robinb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:12 AM   #162
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
The blame for that is shared by both the birth father and the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents knew the adoption was going south when she was 4-months old. But they chose to fight and ended up having to give her away when she was 2 instead of 4-months when she wouldn't remember a thing. NOW, they have fought all the way to the SCOTUS and if they have their way, they will rip her away from her current family. How fabulous will that be?
The adoptive parents do not hold blame here. The birth father abandoned her, and they knew that. The courts made a mistake. Not the adoptive parents. What they said is what SCOTUS ruled. He had no right to take her. In SC, and OK if he wasn't Indian, his parental rights would have been terminated.

And now it's going back to SC.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:17 AM   #163
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,571

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
The adoptive parents do not hold blame here. The birth father abandoned her, and they knew that.
You keep on saying that again and again like repeating it makes it true. That is your opinion. Others of us believe that the mother froze him out to make the adoption of her child easier (as is common in adoption situations).
__________________
DVC Member since 1997
Walt Disney World 2013 * Disneyland Paris 2012 * Disneyland 2011 * Hong Kong Disneyland 2007 * Tokyo Disneyland 2007
robinb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:17 AM   #164
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
Except we disagree on who has done the kidnapping.
And it's ok if we disagree. But, I'm doing my best to use facts and it's a hard case (on both sides) not to have strong feelings about.

My opinion is and has always been what the SCOTUS ruled. He had no right to take her back. Not as a parent or as a "tribe member" - Still going through SCOTUS documents so I have a source but he actually filled out his original paperwork as NA regarding ICWA.

She was taken unlawfully, from her home and parents. To me thats the same as kidnapping.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:29 AM   #165
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
You keep on saying that again and again like repeating it makes it true. That is your opinion. Others of us believe that the mother froze him out to make the adoption of her child easier (as is common in adoption situations).
From SCOTUS.

Under our reading of §1912(f ), Biological Father should not have been able to invoke §1912(f ) in this case, because he had never had legal or physical custody of Baby Girl as of the time of the adoption proceedings. As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Biological Father never had physical custody of Baby Girl. And as a matter of both South Carolina and Oklahoma law, Biological Father never had legal custody either. See S. C. Code Ann. §63– 17–20(B) (2010) (“Unless the court orders otherwise, the custody of an illegitimate child is solely in the natural mother unless the mother has relinquished her rights to the child”); Okla. Stat., Tit. 10, §7800 (West Cum. Supp. 2013) (“Except as otherwise provided by law, the mother of a child born out of wedlock has custody of the child until determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction”).7
In sum, the South Carolina Supreme Court erred in finding that §1912(f) barred termination of Biological Father's parental rights.

.................................................. ...........................

It is undisputed that, for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Biologi- cal Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl, even though he had the ability to do so. In- deed, Biological Father “made no meaningful attempts to assume his responsibility of parenthood” during this period. App. to Pet. for Cert. 122a (Sealed; internal quota- tion marks omitted).
Approximately four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the pending adoption. (This was the first notification that they had provided to Biological Father regarding the adoption proceeding.) Biological Father signed papers stating that he accepted service and that he was “not contesting the adoption.” App. 37. But Biological Father later testified that, at the time he signed the papers, he thought that he was relinquishing his rights to Birth Mother, not to Adoptive Couple.

.................................................. ............

Regarding the "freezing out" by the birth mother...

At approximately six months pregnant, the birth mother in this case (“Birth Mother”) received a text message from respondent Birth Father, stating his desire to relinquish any parental rights to their unborn child,

Following his text message, Birth Father made no attempt to contact or support Birth Mother or Baby Girl, and gave no indication that he was interested in any sort of relationship with Baby Girl, until he was served with petitioners’ adoption complaint approximately four months after Baby Girl’s birth.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
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 07:50 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: