Is anyone following the Veronica Rose story?

Discussion in 'Community Board' started by tammymacb, May 1, 2012.

  1. SaraJayne

    SaraJayne <font color=red>Stop moving those smilies! <img sr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,080
    Knowing the history behind the Indian Child Welfare Act, I support the father and hope he gets his daughter back.

    For those that aren't familiar with the history, the US gov used to forcibly take Native American children away from their families, to raise them "white", ie, the "right" way.
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. TheSchragFamily

    TheSchragFamily Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    222
    I kind of agree with this. The law isn't about who is a "better" parent...his rights had not yet been terminated so he had the right to get her back.
     
  4. disneysnowflake

    disneysnowflake DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,229
    ITA. This is hardest on that little girl. They should have figured something out at 4 months. That poor, sweet girl. She is so adorable.
     
  5. luvmy3

    luvmy3 <font color=green>When I drink I find its easier t

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,052
    But we don't do that anymore so just who is that law protecting now?

    If the bio dad legally gave up his parental rights, and legally agreed to the adoption, then he should not be protected under ICWA.
     
  6. sunshinehighway

    sunshinehighway DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,618
    I don't know anything about ICWA. From what I am reading, it seems the argument on the father's side is, at least partly, the ICWA was violated from the start. It seems there should have been an attempt to place the baby in a Native American home first. Anyone know more about the ICWA?

    Its hard to find information giving the father's side. It seems the bio mom has been allowed a relationship with the girl. I wonder if the bio dad was as well.
     
  7. tammymacb

    tammymacb Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta dow

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,958
    The father is only using this act because he has no other legal ground to stand on. He signed away his parental rights. He told the mother he did not want the baby. When he changed his mind ( for whatever reason ) Veronica was now living in an open adoption with new parents in SC.

    The ICWA has been ruled against in cases in the past where the judge stated that it was not in the best interest of the child to be taken away from adoptive parents. I'm hoping that's what happens this time.
     
  8. tammymacb

    tammymacb Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta dow

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,958
    The father was not ever part of a tribe until before he went to court. He is just using the ICWA as the only option he has to contest the adoption.
     
  9. TheSchragFamily

    TheSchragFamily Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    222
    Bio parents can't change their minds in SC? I know in some states, even after you sign, you have a certain number of months to retract it.
     
  10. SaraJayne

    SaraJayne <font color=red>Stop moving those smilies! <img sr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,080
    The law was passed in 1978, so not that long ago.

    http://www.nicwa.org/indian_child_welfare_act/

    (Bolded mine)
     
  11. tammymacb

    tammymacb Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta dow

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,958
    SC law has a much shorter cooling off period and it's very difficult to change your mind. I believe ( though I'd have to research and double check ) that once you sign the papers, you're done.
     
  12. luvmy3

    luvmy3 <font color=green>When I drink I find its easier t

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,052
    But does that still happen today? If it was written to protect those Indian children who were forcibly taken from their parents, and Veronica wasn't one of those children because her mother (and presumably) her bio-dad legally gave her up, then this law shouldn't apply in this case.

    (I say presumably because in link to the OP it states he signed a legal document stating he wouldn't contest the adoption) Also (JMO) if he had a legal leg to stand on as far as getting Veronica back, why would he have to resort to using the ICWA loophole.
     
  13. DopeyDame

    DopeyDame DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    All states have a period during which either birth parent can change their mind. They range from 3 days (in Virgina, and I'm sure other places) to at least 30 days (in Maryland). That's the longest I've heard, but I certainly don't know the waiting period of all 30 states. Note that it's X days from the time the papers are signed, NOT from birth of the baby.

    That's a different issue, though, than the actual termination of parental rights. It's still unclear to me if the father actually signed and agreed to termination of his parental rights. the website said he signed a "legal document saying he would not contest the adoption". I have no clue what that actually means, and I'm sure if he actually terminated parental rights they would have said that. Unfortunately, in almost all of the messy adoption cases, it's a situation where one parent did not, in fact, have a proper termination of parental rights. That is a risk... one, frankly, that we were not willing to accept when adopting my son.

    I can't imagine what Iwould have done in their scenario, but it is pretty clear that the adoptive parents have made this far harder on Veronica than it needed to be by dragging it out or at the very least not having the bio father involved in her life so that he wasn't a stranger when she was placed with him.

    That poor little girl. I truly hope she can find peace in her life however this all palys out.
     
  14. SaraJayne

    SaraJayne <font color=red>Stop moving those smilies! <img sr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    12,080
    I'm having a hard time finding info that isn't horribly biased (like the link in the OP) so I'm not sure what exactly happened with the bio father and what he supposedly signed.
     
  15. luvmy3

    luvmy3 <font color=green>When I drink I find its easier t

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    20,052
    I tried too but couldn't find any info either. Its hard to know the real story when we are only getting one side.
     
  16. bookgirl

    bookgirl DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    6,463
    To be part of an Oklahoma tribe you have to have more than 1%. I believe it is 1/16 but it may be 1/32 so if he was on the rolls then his parents or grandparents were part of the culture. Veronica was 1/8 which means her father was 1/4.

    He never lived on a reservation because Oklahoma has no reservations, we are Indian Territory the whole state is considered Tribal Land.

    I understand the need to fight for the baby you love on both sides of this. Both sides are to blame for the transistion this baby is going through. The father for not stepping up immeditaly and the adoptive parents who did not consider that at 4 months the transistion would be seemless and less trying to the child.

    The news stories here are very much in support of the father. There is a gag order so the birth father had not been talking at all, don't know why the adoptive family is. This is the most recent story I found.

    http://news.yahoo.com/cherokee-adoption-battle-south-carolina-high-court-131251708.html

    http://www.koco.com/news/30165731/detail.html local news story
     
  17. jrmasm

    jrmasm <font color=blue>Last time I checked, it was still

    Joined:
    May 20, 2000
    Messages:
    7,234
    :thumbsup2
     
  18. tammymacb

    tammymacb Under da sea, under da sea, darlin' it's betta dow

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,958
    The adoptive family hasn't spoken out since the gag order.

    The fact that that baby was legally adopted into a loving home and was ONLY returned because someone had some American Indian blood in their parent line is a travesty of justice.

    The father provided no support to the bio mother. He was in the Military, he could have married his "fiancee" ( he states they were engaged, she says he'd left her and he DID sign a document giving up parental rights "so he wouldn't have to pay child support ".) He could have married her, and given his wife and daughter insurance instead of welfare. He could have made sure his daughter had a box of pampers. But, suddenly 4 months and an established family later, he changes his mind.

    It's a bunch of crap.
     
  19. disney4us2002

    disney4us2002 Tagless by choice!!

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    5,683
    I don't think it's an issue of it happening still today but every child that enters foster care is screened for any tribal affiliation due to that law. If a child has any chance of an affiliation, then the child cannot enter foster care without the consent of the American Indian tribal leader (whichever tribe it is). That specific language is in all court orders regarding children removed from their parents.

    While it seems traumatic for us reading about it, this little girl will likely not remember her first family within a year or two. If she stays with dad and he is a good parent, she will be fine. I agree that the biggest issue lies in how long these court cases drag on.
     
  20. gert

    gert Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    I'm looking for a news story or something that backs up these statements. Anyone found anything yet?
     
  21. Bren's Mom

    Bren's Mom DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    3,892
    I think this CNN article backs at least 1 of those claims.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-08/...e-parents-veronica-biological-father?_s=PM:US

    "Key to Brown's case is a 1978 federal law called the Indian Child Welfare Act.

    Its aim is to "promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and Indian families by the establishment of minimum federal standards to prevent the arbitrary removal of Indian children from their families and tribes and to ensure that measures which prevent the breakup of Indian families are followed in child custody proceedings."

    Had the father NOT been notified of the adoption, then I'd think that it was good that he was part Indian and had this act to back him up.

    But he WAS notified of the adoption and he DID sign the forms. I'd love to hear him explain how he was so unable to understand the forms he signed and yet he WAS able to leave for a military deployment shortly thereafter. If the man was not stable or was mentally disabled that concerns me for our military. :worried:

    There was no arbitrary removal of the child by the government, the parents chose to give up the child for adoption. The parents BOTH signed off on this.

    And if the acts provides measures which prevent the breakup well...once broken it's a bit too late. ESPECIALLY once a legal adoption has already come to pass.
     

Share This Page