Where he lives is irrelevant. The fact that he texted the mother that he relinquished his rights to the child, and then signed a piece of paper saying the same thing is what matters.
And offered to pay child support. Meaning, not a deadbeat dad.
Where he lives is irrelevant. The fact that he texted the mother that he relinquished his rights to the child, and then signed a piece of paper saying the same thing is what matters.
And offered to pay child support. Meaning, not a deadbeat dad.
False.
"Baby Veronica was born in September with the would-be adoptive parentsthe Capobiancospresent, but Maldonado told the hospital to deny she was there if Brown called. Four months later, less than two weeks before Brown was to be deployed to Iraq, the Capobiancos lawyer sent a process server with relinquishment papers. Thinking he was relinquishing to Maldonado during his deployment, Brown signed a form entitled Acceptance of Service but immediately asked for the paper back, saying he wanted to talk to an attorney. The process server threatened him with criminal prosecution if he touched the paper. Brown consulted an army attorney, and filed a stay of the adoption in South Carolina, establishing paternity, seeking custody (offering to place the baby with his parents until he returned from Iraq), and promised to support Veronica."
http://www.ncrw.org/public-forum/real-deal-blog/guest-blog-feminists-and-baby-veronica-case
Where did you find that? In his home town newspaper? Did you read the Supreme Court ruling or are they making it up?
You are exactly correct.
Under NO law would a man who fathered a child, knew the woman was pregnant, put in writing that he was giving up rights to said child and not attempt any interaction with the child for months be given custody of that child because he changed his mind.
Using ICWA was his only option and he used it. It has been found by the Supreme Court that it was used incorrectly and I agree with the findings.
The rest is purely technical. In SC that father would have had NO rights to the child under state law except for ICWA. She will be returned home.
Did you not click on the URL? It's the National Council for Research on Women. It's a reputable organization.
No, I have not yet read the lengthy ruling, but I did listen to a long (20 or 30 min) discussion on NPR this morning. I consider them a fair and balanced organization. At least twice they stated that the father offered financial support. I assume that is considered one of the "facts of the case" and not in dispute, or I doubt they (NPR) would be repeating it as fact.
Where in the SC decision does it say he DIDN'T offer financial support?
I am very happy for her adoptive parents, and for her. Also a good victory for adoptive parents everywhere.
Pretty much everywhere, but here is page 16:
As the State Supreme Court read §§1912(d) and (f ), a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth
motherperhaps contributing to the mothers decision to put the child up for adoptionand then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mothers decision and the childs best interests
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.
Where is the text he sent to the birth mother saying he relinquished his rights? Not what she said he texted, but the actual text. Does it exist anywhere?
I think that's more misinformation being spread by people on the side of the adoptive parents.
I think that's more misinformation being spread by people on the side of the adoptive parents.
Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the adoptive parents:
http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...ames-island-family-in-fight-for-baby-veronica
The case is going back they havent won yet and I really hope someone kills them first.
It really doesn't matter if he actually relinquished is rights in writing(unless he is married to the mother). If a bio father is absent, doesn't sign up for a putative father's registry, or in a bad position to raise a child a mother can often place the child with the adoptive parents without his consent. Laws were changed after women felt forced into abortions and bio fathers were ripping toddlers from the only children they ever knew. Despite being more involved from his child's birth, this kid didn't have any tribal adoption law to fall back on and look how it turned out for him:
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/112919829.html