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, 08:32 AM   #166
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

More SCOTUS documents..

The Birth Fathers express abandonment of Baby Girl should have made this an easy case: South Carolina law does not recognize Birth Father as a legal parent with standing to contest Baby Girls adoption.

It bears repeating: Baby Girl was already disconnected from the Tribe and her Indian relatives well before the adoption proceedings, by virtue of Birth Fathers decision to abandon her. Presumably, if Birth Mother had raised the child as a single parent, Birth Father would have had no basis to interfere based on his express abandonment of his parental rights. Allowing Birth Father nonetheless to rely on his Indian heritage as a basis for blocking Baby Girls adoption is not only a perversion of ICWA, but an unwarranted and unconstitutional intrusion on the intimate family relationships Baby Girl developed as a result of Birth Fathers intentional absence from her life.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:02 AM   #167
DizBelle
CSI: Can't Stand Idiots
Slimy yet satisfying?
 
DizBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: It ain't WDW like I want it to be!
Posts: 13,231

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).
Did he or did he not sign a document giving up his parental rights to Veronica? If he did, the it is not an opinion, it is a fact. Changing his mind after the fact or claiming he didn't know what he was signing is not an excuse.
__________________

Veni, vidi, Visa (I came, I saw, I shopped)

Some people should use a glue stick instead of chapstick.

====================================

====================================
DizBelle is online now   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 06-27-2013, 10:47 AM   #168
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,249

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
More SCOTUS documents..

The Birth Fathers express abandonment of Baby Girl should have made this an easy case: South Carolina law does not recognize Birth Father as a legal parent with standing to contest Baby Girls adoption.

It bears repeating: Baby Girl was already disconnected from the Tribe and her Indian relatives well before the adoption proceedings, by virtue of Birth Fathers decision to abandon her. Presumably, if Birth Mother had raised the child as a single parent, Birth Father would have had no basis to interfere based on his express abandonment of his parental rights. Allowing Birth Father nonetheless to rely on his Indian heritage as a basis for blocking Baby Girls adoption is not only a perversion of ICWA, but an unwarranted and unconstitutional intrusion on the intimate family relationships Baby Girl developed as a result of Birth Fathers intentional absence from her life.
That was written by LAWYERS arguing the case . Nice try.
__________________
DVC Member since 1997
Walt Disney World 2013 * Disneyland Paris 2012 * Disneyland 2011 * Hong Kong Disneyland 2007 * Tokyo Disneyland 2007
robinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 10:49 AM   #169
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
That was written by LAWYERS arguing the case . Nice try.

Actually it was written by her court appointed guardian. So I think it counts.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 10:49 AM   #170
Don'tLookDown
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 132

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.
The adoption wasn't "going south" after 4 months. The sperm donor merely had a change of attitude. Without this misapplied(according to SCOTUS) law this would've been totally irrelevant.
Don'tLookDown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 10:53 AM   #171
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

It is undisputed that, for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girls 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 Girls 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.

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

Of course there's always that too...written by the SCOTUS.

The fact that she was abandoned has been proven and accepted by the court.

Last edited by zippingalong; 06-27-2013 at 10:58 AM.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 10:53 AM   #172
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,249

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
Actually it was written by her court appointed guardian. So I think it counts.
By the lawyers. In any case, it's still not FACT.
__________________
DVC Member since 1997
Walt Disney World 2013 * Disneyland Paris 2012 * Disneyland 2011 * Hong Kong Disneyland 2007 * Tokyo Disneyland 2007
robinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 10:56 AM   #173
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
By the lawyers. In any case, it's still not FACT.
OK.. even though the court chose this person to come to an opinion. Whatever. Of course the above opinion of the court IS a fact.

Nice try though.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 11:05 AM   #174
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinb View Post
By the lawyers. In any case, it's still not FACT.
Just wanted to add, that the court choses the guardian ad litem.

No attorney on either side does. So what they write is considered and expert opinion by the court. So, I'd say it's a fact.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 11:15 AM   #175
Earth Mama
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 115

From SC here.

What bothers me is that the 'father' refuses to allow an contact with the C's (the only parents this child ever knew) and refuses to allow her to have contact with her biological half siblings who adore her. Neither is in the best interest of the child.
__________________
Just got back from WDW
Earth Mama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 11:21 AM   #176
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earth Mama View Post
From SC here.

What bothers me is that the 'father' refuses to allow an contact with the C's (the only parents this child ever knew) and refuses to allow her to have contact with her biological half siblings who adore her. Neither is in the best interest of the child.
Not for much longer..
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 12:33 PM   #177
ashley0139
DIS Veteran
 
ashley0139's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: LA
Posts: 1,323

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?
I disagree. If I had adopted a child, even after four months, you better believe I would do everything to fight for her. Especially if the father had given up his parental rights and was trying to get her back through a loophole. Can you honestly say that if you had a child and someone was trying to rip her away from you due to a technicality (and it seems pretty clear to me the father did not want her in the first place, changed his mind and found a loophole) you would not do everything in your power to keep her? I don't believe any loving parent wouldn't fight for their child. The father ripped her away from her family in the first place. Of course she should be returned to her parents.
__________________
All Star Movies October 7-13, 2009

Pre-Trip Report 2009: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2293006

Pop Century October 19-26, 2011

Pre-Trip Report 2011: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2796928
Trip Report 2011:http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2867080
ashley0139 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 12:38 PM   #178
wvjules
DIS Veteran
 
wvjules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,401

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earth Mama View Post
From SC here.

What bothers me is that the 'father' refuses to allow an contact with the C's (the only parents this child ever knew) and refuses to allow her to have contact with her biological half siblings who adore her. Neither is in the best interest of the child.
Umm hello? Where has Veronica been the past two years? She KNOWS her father.

Honestly, if I were the dad I woudln't allow contact at this point either.
wvjules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 01:21 PM   #179
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashley0139 View Post
I disagree. If I had adopted a child, even after four months, you better believe I would do everything to fight for her. Especially if the father had given up his parental rights and was trying to get her back through a loophole. Can you honestly say that if you had a child and someone was trying to rip her away from you due to a technicality (and it seems pretty clear to me the father did not want her in the first place, changed his mind and found a loophole) you would not do everything in your power to keep her? I don't believe any loving parent wouldn't fight for their child. The father ripped her away from her family in the first place. Of course she should be returned to her parents.
You're right I would fight too. I love the way people who have never adopted think they know what they would do if they were in this position. Just like bio parents, adoptive parents love their child before it's born. Do they think that we love our adopted children less than they love their bio children or that the bond is not as strong? I'm here to say it's the same. If someone tried to take their bio child at 4 months would they rollover? I doubt it.

The bio father in this story relinquished his rights and said he would rather give her up than pay child support for her. If this was another case that someone posted about on the DIS, people would be outraged that he was trying to get this child. They'd call him a dead beat and advise the adoptive parents to get a lawyer. He relinquished his rights.
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 02:18 PM   #180
Hrhpd
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,576

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi View Post
You're right I would fight too. I love the way people who have never adopted think they know what they would do if they were in this position. Just like bio parents, adoptive parents love their child before it's born. Do they think that we love our adopted children less than they love their bio children or that the bond is not as strong? I'm here to say it's the same. If someone tried to take their bio child at 4 months would they rollover? I doubt it.

The bio father in this story relinquished his rights and said he would rather give her up than pay child support for her. If this was another case that someone posted about on the DIS, people would be outraged that he was trying to get this child. They'd call him a dead beat and advise the adoptive parents to get a lawyer. He relinquished his rights.
I think we have heard from several adoptive parents here that said they would not go through with the adoption if they knew they would have to tell the child someday that even though they knew her father wanted her and had provided a good home for 2 years, that they went all the way up to the Supreme Court to take her away from her biological parent.

God forbid a young, scared parent, about to deploy overseas makes a mistake. Especially when he was being frozen out by the mother, the adoption agency and the prospective adoptive parents. Granted, a pretty big mistake, but by all accounts, he has been a good parent since then, proving his love and commitment. He should be allowed to be a father to his OWN child. If he was not providing a current, stable home, my opinion would be different.

If it were my child, I would also forbid any contact with the couple that was trying to take my child away. It was probably by lawyer's advice anyway.

As for the SCOTUS info some are quoting, it seems they have acknowledged that the father testified that he was led to believe he was not signing away his rights.

That leaves a loophole open for SC to grant custody to the current custodial parent, as it should be.

I think the adoptive parents are going to have a adopted daughter that will hate and resent them when she finds out they went all the way to the Supreme Court to take her away from a biological parent that wanted her.
Hrhpd 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 11:10 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: