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, 02:49 PM   #181
Don'tLookDown
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 132

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrhpd View Post
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.
I surely wouldn't hate loving adoptive parents chosen by the woman who carried me to term who didn't want to just relinquish me to one "young, scared, parent" who used a loophole(that no longer even exists thanks to SCOTUS) to try and gloss over his ignorance and laziness. If any other guy did what he did he'd be out of luck. I'd be heartbroken to find out that the people had me since birth just gave up because of a misapplied law. I say this as someone who's mother considered adoption.
Don'tLookDown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 03:03 PM   #182
Hrhpd
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,210

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don'tLookDown View Post
I surely wouldn't hate loving adoptive parents chosen by the woman who carried me to term who didn't want to just relinquish me to one "young, scared, parent" who used a loophole(that no longer even exists thanks to SCOTUS) to try and gloss over his ignorance and laziness. If any other guy did what he did he'd be out of luck. I'd be heartbroken to find out that the people had me since birth just gave up because of a misapplied law. I say this as someone who's mother considered adoption.
Since the ICWA provisions have been negated, the courts must now decide custody in the best interest of the child. As noted below, the fact that the father has provided a good, stable home puts a custody decision greatly in his favor.

And although the father cannot use ICWA, the tribe and the paternal grandparents still can. This child will be with her father for a long time while this is fought in court.

Quote:
Court watchers in this case have now shifted the focus from the stricken provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the broader, more widely interpreted standard of "best interest analysis" in determining custodial placement of Veronica between Matt and Melanie Capobianco and Dusten and Robin Brown.

"What this Court said is that going forward, unwed birth fathers who do not take the steps required to acquire parental rights will not benefit from the provisions in ICWA," said Martin Guggenheim, Professor of Law at New York University. "By remanding back to the lower courts, 'best interest' is now a new question before the courts, and that she may suffer a second disruption in her life. But Sotomayor did remind the reader in her dissent that the Cherokee Nation could put forward other options in jurisdiction and adoptive preference. Either way, the Supreme Court won't care what South Carolina does with respect to interest, though the length of time [Veronica] spent with the father is now a factor in his favor."

Hrhpd 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, 04:38 PM   #183
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrhpd View Post
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.
Oh please. I don't care if the bio father would be someone like Mahatma Gandhi. He said he would rather give up his daughter than pay to support her.
A mistake is forgetting to close the garage door or turn off a light. He only changed his mind once he discovered the bio mom was putting the baby up for adoption. In other words, he would lose that control and he didn't like it.

He was led to believe. Can he not read? Does he not know that you sign nothing before having read it? "Ignorance of the law excuses no one".
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 06:01 PM   #184
Hrhpd
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,210

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi View Post
Oh please. I don't care if the bio father would be someone like Mahatma Gandhi. He said he would rather give up his daughter than pay to support her.
A mistake is forgetting to close the garage door or turn off a light. He only changed his mind once he discovered the bio mom was putting the baby up for adoption. In other words, he would lose that control and he didn't like it.

He was led to believe. Can he not read? Does he not know that you sign nothing before having read it? "Ignorance of the law excuses no one".
Oh Please, yourself. Have you never said anything in anger that you have regretted?

From the documents I have read, when the dad found out the mother was pregnant, he pushed for a quick marriage.

The mother decided she did not want a quick marriage and called off the engagement. In anger, he texted her that one statement. If he didn't want his daughter, why was he the one pushing to get married?

Yes, he was probably acting like an angry jerk until reality was forced upon him and he realized that he may actually lose his daughter. But he was also being jerked around by the mother, the agency and especially by the prospective adoptive parents.

One single text is crucifying him by some. Never mind his almost 4 years of fighting for HIS child and being a stable, loving father since he has had custody.

I, for one, will judge his character by the majority of his actions, not by one single text sent in anger over being dumped by the mother of HIS daughter.
Hrhpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 06:06 PM   #185
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrhpd View Post
Oh Please, yourself. Have you never said anything in anger that you have regretted?

From the documents I have read, when the dad found out the mother was pregnant, he pushed for a quick marriage.

The mother decided she did not want a quick marriage and called off the engagement. In anger, he texted her that one statement. If he didn't want his daughter, why was he the one pushing to get married?

Yes, he was probably acting like an angry jerk until reality was forced upon him and he realized that he may actually lose his daughter. But he was also being jerked around by the mother, the agency and especially by the prospective adoptive parents.

One single text is crucifying him by some. Never mind his almost 4 years of fighting for HIS child and being a stable, loving father since he has had custody.

I, for one, will judge his character by the majority of his actions, not by one single text sent in anger over being dumped by the mother of HIS daughter.
It was not just one text. He signed the relinquishment papers.
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 06:09 PM   #186
Hrhpd
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,210

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi View Post
It was not just one text. He signed the relinquishment papers.
Which SCOTUS has acknowledged that there was a misunderstanding. He immediately tried to fix it, but was blocked.
Hrhpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 06:28 PM   #187
ashley0139
DIS Veteran
 
ashley0139's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: LA
Posts: 1,263

My question for the people who think the daughter should stay with the biological daughter:

The only reason this case went to the Supreme Court was because of ICWA. Without that, there wouldn't have even been a question of whether the father could get her back. It wouldn't have gone to court. He relinquished his rights. We wouldn't even be talking about this if he hadn't found that tiny loophole (and it is tiny, especially since the child is less than 2% Native American). Would you still advocate for the return of the child to her biological father? Would the amount of time the adoptive or biological parent had her in their home make a difference? I still can't even fathom how/why the biological dad was allowed to take her in the first place, even taking ICWA into consideration.
__________________
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, 06:38 PM   #188
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashley0139 View Post
My question for the people who think the daughter should stay with the biological daughter:

The only reason this case went to the Supreme Court was because of ICWA. Without that, there wouldn't have even been a question of whether the father could get her back. It wouldn't have gone to court. He relinquished his rights. We wouldn't even be talking about this if he hadn't found that tiny loophole (and it is tiny, especially since the child is less than 2% Native American). Would you still advocate for the return of the child to her biological father? Would the amount of time the adoptive or biological parent had her in their home make a difference? I still can't even fathom how/why the biological dad was allowed to take her in the first place, even taking ICWA into consideration.
Most would be outraged at the bio dad. Can you just see it, "Father chooses to give up his daughter than pay child support." ?
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 06:56 PM   #189
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

It's just a "little thing". You know, making no effort to support your child or help out the child's mother for four months. Everyone should get to just blow off their kids for a while. Why not?

And when the SC Supreme Court reconvenes, they will hear the same case minus ICWA.

It'll finally be over.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 07:21 PM   #190
Hrhpd
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,210

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
It's just a "little thing". You know, making no effort to support your child or help out the child's mother for four months. Everyone should get to just blow off their kids for a while. Why not?

And when the SC Supreme Court reconvenes, they will hear the same case minus ICWA.

It'll finally be over.
Not for a long time. As Sotomayer cautioned in her dissent, the tribe and the paternal grandparents can still exhaust all their tribal rights.
Hrhpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 07:50 PM   #191
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrhpd View Post
Not for a long time. As Sotomayer cautioned in her dissent, the tribe and the paternal grandparents can still exhaust all their tribal rights.
Good luck with that.

They didn't attempt to adopt her as a newborn. NO one including the father, the grandparents or the tribe attempted to adopt her. Only the adoptive family in SC. That's mentioned in the ruling also.

And, my guess is since she wasn't part of the "family"before, she won't be part of it now...per SCOTUS and the ruling on ICWA.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:34 PM   #192
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippingalong View Post
Good luck with that.

They didn't attempt to adopt her as a newborn. NO one including the father, the grandparents or the tribe attempted to adopt her. Only the adoptive family in SC. That's mentioned in the ruling also.

And, my guess is since she wasn't part of the "family"before, she won't be part of it now...per SCOTUS and the ruling on ICWA.
The tribe was completely unaware of her tribal affiliation at the time of adoption because the birth mother put the wrong information down when she checked with said tribe to see if the birth father was enrolled.

I have no idea what the Cherokee tribe will do in this situation. The Cherokee tribe of Oklahoma is. Uhm. They've successfully maximized the number of people who can be registered as members by utilizing a a membership policy that wouldn't even quality as "one drop" under the old Jim Crow laws. However, as a tribe, they are well within their purview to use whatever qualifications they choose to determine eligibility for membership. Soooo. . .I don't know what their policies are towards ICWA, so who knows what they will choose to do.

However, to say that the Cherokee tribe did nothing to stop the adoption is misleading - they were completely unaware she had eligibility to become a member of the tribe.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:38 PM   #193
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashley0139 View Post
My question for the people who think the daughter should stay with the biological daughter:

The only reason this case went to the Supreme Court was because of ICWA. Without that, there wouldn't have even been a question of whether the father could get her back. It wouldn't have gone to court. He relinquished his rights. We wouldn't even be talking about this if he hadn't found that tiny loophole (and it is tiny, especially since the child is less than 2% Native American). Would you still advocate for the return of the child to her biological father? Would the amount of time the adoptive or biological parent had her in their home make a difference? I still can't even fathom how/why the biological dad was allowed to take her in the first place, even taking ICWA into consideration.
What percentage to you is enough? 1/2? 1/4? 1/8? The question at hand is about tribal identity and membership, not about DNA tests or blood quantum. The Cherokee tribe decided its membership requirements. This child qualifies.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:42 PM   #194
Robbi
DIS Veteran
 
Robbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,694

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrhpd View Post
Not for a long time. As Sotomayer cautioned in her dissent, the tribe and the paternal grandparents can still exhaust all their tribal rights.
The ruling was 5-4. The grandparents probably have zero leverage. Ask any grandparent who tries to see their grandchild against the wishes of the parent.

Part of SCOTUS ruling:

We further hold that the act, which conditions involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child on a showing that remedial efforts have been made to prevent the "breakup of the Indian family" - is inapplicable when,. as here, the parent abandoned the Indian child before birth and never had custody of the child.

"What this Court said is that going forward, unwed birth fathers who do not take the steps required to acquire parental rights will not benefit from the provisions in ICWA," said Martin Guggenheim, Professor of Law at New York University.

Even after it is kicked back to the state court, there is at least one precedent in Utah where the supreme court of that state ruled in favor of the adoptive couple over the Navajo tribe in a custody case.
Robbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:10 PM   #195
Mickey'snewestfan
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,544

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashley0139 View Post
My question for the people who think the daughter should stay with the biological daughter:

The only reason this case went to the Supreme Court was because of ICWA. Without that, there wouldn't have even been a question of whether the father could get her back. It wouldn't have gone to court. He relinquished his rights. We wouldn't even be talking about this if he hadn't found that tiny loophole (and it is tiny, especially since the child is less than 2% Native American). Would you still advocate for the return of the child to her biological father? Would the amount of time the adoptive or biological parent had her in their home make a difference? I still can't even fathom how/why the biological dad was allowed to take her in the first place, even taking ICWA into consideration.
To give some context to my opinion, I am a transracial adoptive parent. I believe strongly that ethical, legal adoption, including transracial adoption, can be the best choice for children in certain circumstances.

I think that adoption laws in South Carolina are unethical. I think that they unfairly disadvantage birth parents, particularly birth fathers. I very strongly feel that they need to be changed. I think that prospective parents like the Capobianca's take advantage of the law to legally kidnap children.

I also think that the ICWA is a law that is still needed in this country. Indian children continue to be disproportionately removed from their families of origin, and without the protections provided by the law, it's easy for children to be removed from their culture of origin as well.

Given that I think that the Capobianca's and Veronica's birth mother intentionally tried to take advantage of loopholes in the law, and that they lied to prevent Brown from exercising his parental rights, I don't think that they should be allowed to complete the adoption. I realize that apparently ICWA is the only law that currently protects Brown's rights, and so I'd like to see it enforced. But what I'd really like is to see South Carolina's laws changed.
Mickey'snewestfan 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 07:24 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: