Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Just for Fun > Community Board
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 06-25-2013, 09:41 PM   #91
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,041

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrhpd View Post
This is not a win for the adoptive parents. At least not yet.
I see your point, but the opinion itself is good precedent for adoptive parents facing legal challenges.
__________________
Amy, Patrick, Cosette and Herbie
Many trips as a kid! 2010 GF RPC (March) and AKL/BWI (Oct)
2012
AKL (marathon weekend) and ... AKL (Wine and Dine)
2013 Fort Wilderness 2014 Dopey Challenge AKL
2015 Dopey Challenge at POR!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 10:40 PM   #92
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 chirurgeon View Post
My question is why is some one who is less than 1/100 Cherokee considered part of the tribe? From what I heard he has very little actual Native American blood. Making the child have even less by half. So why is this even being considered under the law being sited in the arguments?

I'm having a mixed reaction to the basic decision.
He is a member of the Cherokee tribe because the Cherokee tribe of Oklahoma, as a nation with some limited sovereign rights, has decided that eligibility to be a member is determined by whether or not you can prove you have one single ancestor on the Dawes roll. (A census taken in the late 1800's of the Five Civilized Tribes' members in Indian Territory, what is now Oklahoma.)

Other tribes have other definitions. Some require 1/4 quantum (1 grandparent), others require 1/8th quantum, others require that one parent of a particular gender be an enrolled member etc.

To be considered an "American Indian" by the Federal Government for census purposes, you must have 1/4 total quantum AND be a member of a recognized tribe. American Indians are the only race where the Federal Government can say who is or is not a member of the race, and to be perfectly honest, their definitions lead to some really bizarre outcomes.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:

Last edited by snarlingcoyote; 06-25-2013 at 11:36 PM. Reason: The Dawes Roll is a list, not an acting gig (role).
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 06-25-2013, 10:51 PM   #93
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 Robbi View Post
If SC cannot use Native American laws, how could they be considered?
The father can't use these laws.

What's generally established in ICWA adoption cases, as far as I'm aware (I'd love to hear from someone with more direct knowledge, btw!) is that you get consent from the parents, then you go to the tribe. If you can get sign off from the tribe, you're probably okay to adopt the child.

The preference in public social services from most desirable placement (with emphasis on the welfare of the child) to least deisrable placement for American Indian babies is, again as I understand it:

Parents
Parents' immediate family
Parents' more distant family
Parents' tribal members
Anyone in any tribe
Non-American Indians

The ICWA was written in a time when most social services had their placements from most desirable to least desirable for American Indian kids and babies as:

Whites
Orphanges


Children had been, up until that time, taken from their parents because they were being "culturally impoverished" and placed in homes with the explicit goal of making them forget their cultural background.

But in the 1970's there was a new era dawning. AIM had occupied Alcatraz, for goodness sakes! The outrage at what was going on was finally recognized and the ICWA law was passed to keep Indian kids in their culture.
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 06:03 AM   #94
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,085

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMom View Post
Don't get her started on international adoption. She may just go off like a Roman candle. From past posts, she has a major issue with adoption in general and has posted at length regarding how awful international adoptions are. Wishing someone dead? Not a surprise.....
Why not be angry at international adoption when there is evidence enough of children being stolen for the market?
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...the-us/247329/
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 07:22 AM   #95
C4talyst
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3

It's interesting that a Disney forum, of all places, would have so many incredibly insensitive posters who throw their support behind a deadbeat dad who essentially abandoned all parenting responsibility as long as he "didn't have any financial obligations". I would suggest that all of you read the original South Carolina Supreme Court ruling.
C4talyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 07:43 AM   #96
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

The Supreme Court has ruled that ICWA was created to keep Indian families from being torn apart.

Dusten Brown literally tore his biological daughter's life apart with no care at all. He will have his parental rights terminated. Under both Oklahoma and SC law, he did not meet even the minimum requirements to be considered as a father by the court.

I'd say ICWA will extend to the family and the tribe too. V wasn't "taken" from a tribe. They took her from a happy family and it's not what the law was created for. Says the "Supreme Court".

The ruling will be punted to SC Supreme Court who will either hear the case or send it back to Charleston. There, the father's rights will be terminated and the MOTHER - (who actually was the only person in her newborn life who did anything for her) will be able to proceed with the adoption.

She's going home.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 07:47 AM   #97
FlightlessDuck
Pluto's personal nose scratcher
Dumb people spoiling my fun makes me a sad Panda
 
FlightlessDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 12,066

Quote:
Originally Posted by penn19 View Post
She has posted about this case before and seems oddly invested in it for some reason.
You ALL seem oddly invested in this in my opinion.
__________________
FlightlessDuck
DH of MouseEarsJenny

'87: Off Site, '94: GF, '02: FWC, '06: POP, '09: CSR, '10: POP, '12: CSR
FlightlessDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 08:12 AM   #98
Soldier's*Sweeties
I WILL walk three miles in the snow, uphill, barefoot for a Pumpkin Spice Latte
I'll take the Palmettos
 
Soldier's*Sweeties's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Schenectady, NY
Posts: 6,452

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlightlessDuck View Post

You ALL seem oddly invested in this in my opinion.
It's the DIS! Haha! You know how it goes.
__________________
2013 Book Challenge: 25 of 25 COMPLETE!!!
Bonus book #26- Parasite(Parasitology #1) Mira Grant
2014 Reading Challenge: 35 Books
#1-Bad Monkey Carl Hiaasen, #2- Undead and Unwed MaryJanice Davidson, #3- New Year Island Paul Draker, #4- Belle de Jour: Diary of an Unlikely Call Girl Anonymous, #5-Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers Mary Roach,
#6- Undead and Unemployed MaryJanice Davidson, #7- Infected Scott Sigler, #8- Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex Mary Roach, #9- Flesh Worn Stone John Burks, #10- Uganda Be Kidding Me Chelsea Handler,
#11- The Witness Sandra Brown, #12-Midnight Crossroad Charlaine Harris, #13- Under the Dome Stephen King, #14- Monument 14 Emmy Laybourne, #15- Monument 14: Sky on Fire Emmy Laybourne, #16- The Magicians Lev Grossman, #17, #18, #19- The Strain Trilogy Guillermo Del Toro, #20- A Discovery of Witches Deborah Harkness, #21- Postmortem Patricia Cornwell, #22- The Darkest Minds Alexandra Bracken, #23- The Heist Janet Evanovich and Lee Goldberg, #24- The Town Bentley Little, #25- The Chase Janet Evanovich and Lee Goldberg, #26- Relic Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child
Soldier's*Sweeties is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:47 AM   #99
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

And for those who say it's not over...cut and pasted from the SCOTUS ruling

In this case, Adoptive Couple was the only party that sought to adopt Baby Girl in the Family Court or the South Carolina Supreme Court. See Brief for Petitioners 19, 55; Brief for Respondent Birth Father 48; Reply Brief for Petitioners 13. Biological Father is not covered by §1915(a) because he did not seek to adopt Baby Girl; in- stead, he argued that his parental rights should not be terminated in the first place.11 Moreover, Baby Girl’s —paternal grandparents never sought custody of Baby Girl. See Brief for Petitioners 55; Reply Brief for Petitioners 13; 398 S. C., at 699, 731 S. E. 2d, at 590 (Kittredge, J., dis- senting) (noting that the “paternal grandparents are not parties to this action”). Nor did other members of the Cherokee Nation or “other Indian families” seek to adopt Baby Girl, even though the Cherokee Nation had notice of—and intervened in—the adoption proceedings. See Brief for Respondent Cherokee Nation 21–22; Reply Brief for Petitioners 13–14.12
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:25 AM   #100
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,761

Quote:
Originally Posted by roomthreeseventeen View Post
I see your point, but the opinion itself is good precedent for adoptive parents facing legal challenges.
Only if those legal challenges are from lies and dirty tricks made by the birth mother, the adoption agency, the adoptive couple and their lawyers. I fully support adoptions, but not at the risk (as someone said upthread) of stealing someone's child away. Where some people see a dead beat dad, I see a dad that was systematically frozen out of his daughter's life by his ex-fiance, the Capobiancos and their lawyers.
__________________
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 06-26-2013, 11:29 AM   #101
Heidict
I'm not witty enough for a tag... but you can count on me to save all the good deleted posts!
 
Heidict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shoreline in CT
Posts: 4,561

They play with this little girls life like it's a game. She is getting bounced around every couple of years from one family to the next. I can't imagine what she must be going through. If she is taken away from her REAL father she will be forced to live with strangers.

Sure they love her and want her back, but she doesn't remember them. She will have no idea who they are. All she will know is that she will never see her father again. Kidnapped and forced to live with strangers. Yeah, I'm sure she will grow up loving these two. None of that matters to them. They want a child and will do so at any costs. It's about possession, not about love or what is best for her. They are blinded to all of that with this all consuming passion to have a child.

It really doesn't surprise me that this is what would come out of SCOTUS. I have agreed with much of what has come out of them in a long time.
__________________
Me DH DD-8 DD- 2


Heidict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:32 AM   #102
palmtreegirl
DIS Veteran
 
palmtreegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NEPA
Posts: 7,950

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidict View Post
They play with this little girls life like it's a game. She is getting bounced around every couple of years from one family to the next. I can't imagine what she must be going through. If she is taken away from her REAL father she will be forced to live with strangers.

Sure they love her and want her back, but she doesn't remember them. She will have no idea who they are. All she will know is that she will never see her father again. Kidnapped and forced to live with strangers. Yeah, I'm sure she will grow up loving these two. None of that matters to them. They want a child and will do so at any costs. It's about possession, not about love or what is best for her. They are blinded to all of that with this all consuming passion to have a child.
palmtreegirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:41 AM   #103
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

I guess it was a "trick" when he texted the birth mother and said he'd give up parental rights before paying child support? Or when he signed off his rights before having the paperwork read by his free lawyer?
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:44 AM   #104
zippingalong
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 366

Or maybe it was a trick that he knew she was pregnant and never sent a pack of diapers or a onesie? Or maybe it was a trick when he was told that babies gestate for 9 months instead of 12? I mean, how in the world did he miss that his child had been born for 4 months? Did he attempt to see her and know she had been sent out of state? Oh, at 4 months old, then he did.

Yep, what nasty tricks they played on him.
zippingalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:51 AM   #105
robinb
DIS Veteran
 
robinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,761

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidict View Post
They want a child and will do so at any costs. It's about possession, not about love or what is best for her. They are blinded to all of that with this all consuming passion to have a child.
I also believe that certain religious organizations had a lot to do with pushing this forward for their own reasons. Specifically, Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and other organizations that support it.
__________________
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
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 06:54 PM.

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: