Is anyone following the Veronica Rose story?

[sunshinehighway]

I can imagine that this must be gut wrenching for them. They have had this little girl since birth. Imagine having your child ripped from your arms, never to see her again. It is any parents worst nightmare.

They went into this with lies though. They were deceitful and shady and it's now coming back to bite them. You reap what you sow. This pain will always be with them to some degree, for the rest of their lives, but they need to lay this to rest and understand that nothing is going to change this outcome. It's time to move on.

The whole situation sounds incredibly shady. As information comes out, it seems everyone involved on the side of the adoptive parents acted badly. I think they, for lack of a better word, all worked to steal this child from the father. Any pain the adoptive parents feel is their own doing.

 

[cm8]

I can imagine that this must be gut wrenching for them. They have had this little girl since birth. Imagine having your child ripped from your arms, never to see her again. It is any parents worst nightmare.

They went into this with lies though. They were deceitful and shady and it's now coming back to bite them. You reap what you sow. This pain will always be with them to some degree, for the rest of their lives, but they need to lay this to rest and understand that nothing is going to change this outcome. It's time to move on.

The whole situation sounds incredibly shady. As information comes out, it seems everyone involved on the side of the adoptive parents acted badly. I think they, for lack of a better word, all worked to steal this child from the father. Any pain the adoptive parents feel is their own doing.

 

[holcombe5]

They did not find out she had Native American blood until she was 4 months old. When the birth father HIMSELF filed for paternity, HE HIMSELF said:

Father's complaint initially alleged that "[n]either parent nor the children [sic] have [sic] Native American blood. Therefore the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act . . . do[es] not apply."

The only reason ICWA was used in this case was a means to an end for a father that abandoned a birth mother.

 

[PaulaSB12]

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

So you are saying the South Carolina Supreme court is lying when the judgement said this

Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this information "important" throughout the adoption process.5 Further, she testified she knew that if the Cherokee Nation were alerted to Baby Girl's status as an Indian child, "some things were going to come into effect, but [she] wasn't for [sic] sure what." Mother reported Father's Indian heritage on the Nightlight Agency's adoption form and testified she made Father's Indian heritage known to Appellants and every agency involved in the adoption. However, it appears that there were some efforts to conceal his Indian status. In fact, the pre-placement form reflects Mother's reluctance to share this information:
Initially the birth mother did not wish to identify the father, said she
wanted to keep things low-key as possible for the [Appellants],
because he's registered in the Cherokee tribe. It was determined that
naming him would be detrimental to the adoption.
Appellants hired an attorney to represent Mother's interests during the adoption. Mother told her attorney that Father had Cherokee Indian heritage. Based on this information, Mother's attorney wrote a letter, dated August 21, 2009, to the Child Welfare Division of the Cherokee Nation to inquire about Father's status as an
5 Mother testified that she believed she also had Cherokee heritage, but she was not a registered member of the

Cherokee Nation.

 

[SaraJayne]

They did not find out she had Native American blood until she was 4 months old. When the birth father HIMSELF filed for paternity, HE HIMSELF said:

Father's complaint initially alleged that "[n]either parent nor the children [sic] have [sic] Native American blood. Therefore the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act . . . do[es] not apply."

The only reason ICWA was used in this case was a means to an end for a father that abandoned a birth mother.

Read the court documents.

 

[WebmasterMaryJo]

Sorry folks, for the posts deleted - this was due to attack on poster, plus including her full name (supposedly).

 

[holcombe5]

Read the court documents.

I did! I cut and pasted that directly from the document. Try reading past the majority ruling. The dissenting arguments does a great job of explaining the situation at hand. The one person that truly didn't act in V's best interest in the first place is the one that won. That's a shame. Had he stepped up in the beginning NONE of this would have happened. I just want PaulaSB12 to stop scouring the Internet for any possible place to post nasty, heartless comments about this family. Their life has been completely turned upside down. Have a heart for God's sake.

 

[holcombe5]

From the judgment in the supreme court

Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this information "important" throughout the adoption process.5 Further, she testified she knew that if the Cherokee Nation were alerted to Baby Girl's status as an Indian child, "some things were going to come into effect, but [she] wasn't for [sic] sure what." Mother reported Father's Indian heritage on the Nightlight Agency's adoption form and testified she made Father's Indian heritage known to Appellants and every agency involved in the adoption. However, it appears that there were some efforts to conceal his Indian status. In fact, the pre-placement form reflects Mother's reluctance to share this information:
Appellants were required to receive consent from the State of Oklahoma pursuant to the Oklahoma Interstate Compact on Placement of Children ("ICPC") as a prerequisite to removing Baby Girl from that state. Mother signed the necessary documentation, which reported Baby Girl's ethnicity as "Hispanic" instead of "Native American." After Baby Girl was discharged from the hospital, Appellants remained in Oklahoma with Baby Girl for approximately eight days until they received ICPC approval, at which point they took Baby Girl to South Carolina. According to the testimony of Tiffany Dunaway, a Child Welfare Specialist with the Cherokee Nation, had the Cherokee Nation known about Baby Girl's Native American heritage, Appellants would not have been able to remove Baby Girl from Oklahoma.
Appellants filed the adoption action in South Carolina on September 18, 2009, three days after Baby Girl's birth, but did not serve or otherwise notify Father of the adoption action until January 6, 2010, approximately four months after Baby Girl was born and days before Father was scheduled to deploy to Iraq. On that date outside of a mall near his base, a process server presented Father with legal papers entitled "Acceptance of Service and Answer of Defendant," which stated he was not contesting the adoption of Baby Girl and that he waived the thirty day waiting period and notice of the hearing. Father testified he believed he was relinquishing his rights to Mother and did not realize he consented to Baby Girl's adoption by another family until after he signed the papers. Upon realizing that Mother had relinquished her rights to Appellants, Father testified, "I then tried to grab the paper up. [The process server] told me that I could not grab that [sic] because . . . I would be going to jail if I was to do any harm to the paper."
After consulting with his parents and a JAG lawyer at his base, Father contacted a lawyer the next day, and on January 11, 2010, he requested a stay of the adoption proceedings under the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). On January 14, 2010, Father filed a summons and complaint in an Oklahoma district court to


So the couple who wanted to adopt her KNEW she had native american status and tried to circumvent the law the father (who did make a stupid mistake never sign what you haven't read) wasn't informed his daughter was being put up for adoption until 4 months later so all this he didn't ask for her til she was 4 months is bogus.

Court officials closed the hearing to the public, and all parties in the case remain under a gag order. That didn’t stop about 20 supporters of the Capobiancos from wearing T-shirts in Veronica’s favorite color, purple, and the message: “Bring V Home.” They carried signs: “Equal Rights for All Children,” “Stop the Misuse of ICWA” and “Bring Veronica Home.”so much for the gag order didn't stop them picketing the court, the keep veronica home page has been shut after SVR asked them to for the sake of the child but their page is up and running still calling him a sperm donor.

We live in America where we have the freedom of speech. The gag order does not apply to the general public. It can only apply to the parties of the case. I'm on their support page a lot and I haven't seen sperm donor. I see posts about supporting this family and how people feel about ICWA. And we have a right to support this family. The painting is from Veronica's aunt. The perfume was developed by close friends of the family. All of the proceeds are managed by a nonprofit and paid directly to attorneys. You make this out to be something it's not and your lack of sympathy for this family is disgusting. It's fine to not support them but to be on a rampage to pour salt in their wounds is heartless.

If you experienced something unfortunate adoption-related in your life, please find a more healthy way to deal with your situation. You don't need to take it out on this family.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I did! I cut and pasted that directly from the document. Try reading past the majority ruling. The dissenting arguments does a great job of explaining the situation at hand. The one person that truly didn't act in V's best interest in the first place is the one that won. That's a shame. Had he stepped up in the beginning NONE of this would have happened. I just want PaulaSB12 to stop scouring the Internet for any possible place to post nasty, heartless comments about this family. Their life has been completely turned upside down. Have a heart for God's sake.

If your friends hadn't put their story out to the public there wouldn't be anything to scour the internet for. When you go to the public with something, you have to understand everyone isn't going to see the situation as you do.


The dissenting opinion doesn't matter. The final ruling and majority opinion is what counts.

 

[holcombe5]

How incredibly stupid and selfish. This shows that it was all about ownership rather than care for the child. Someone needs to slap them hard for treating Veronica like a possession. She has been with her father for eight months if they really loved her they would stop this but all they care about is the toy they
Paid for was taken from them, they are obviously not suitable to be adoptive
Parets as its all about ownership not care.

She's been there for 8 months and you question them continuing to fight for their daughter? What about the 2 1/2 years they raised her? He came, picked her up and they haven't spoken to her since. And that's ok???? What about what's best for Veronica? She lost her Mommy and Daddy and doesn't understand why. Everyone seems to argue about how he has rights, they have rights and the tribe has rights. Good lord, what about her rights? Why hasn't anyone done what's in her best interest? To pull her away from the only family she knew (regardless of the circumstances) and to have no transition is not in any child's best interest.

 

[holcombe5]

It's finally over!! Congratulations to the Brown family today! What happy and exciting news for Ronnie's biological father. They can finally get on with their lives in peace.

There are lots of things in that court ruling that paint the adoptive family/bio mother in a very bad light. No wonder they wanted to keep the records sealed.

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

Read the entire case! The adoptive parents didn't ask for the records to be sealed. Birth father and Cherokee Nation did.

 

[SaraJayne]

I did! I cut and pasted that directly from the document. Try reading past the majority ruling. The dissenting arguments does a great job of explaining the situation at hand. The one person that truly didn't act in V's best interest in the first place is the one that won. That's a shame. Had he stepped up in the beginning NONE of this would have happened. I just want PaulaSB12 to stop scouring the Internet for any possible place to post nasty, heartless comments about this family. Their life has been completely turned upside down. Have a heart for God's sake.

I felt sympathy for the family, until I saw how they were (and continue to try) to profit off Ronnie.

THAT is inexcusable. Their facebook page is pretty enlightening, for anyone that cares to check it out.

 

[cornflake]

She's been there for 8 months and you question them continuing to fight for their daughter? What about the 2 1/2 years they raised her? He came, picked her up and they haven't spoken to her since. And that's ok???? What about what's best for Veronica? She lost her Mommy and Daddy and doesn't understand why. Everyone seems to argue about how he has rights, they have rights and the tribe has rights. Good lord, what about her rights? Why hasn't anyone done what's in her best interest? To pull her away from the only family she knew (regardless of the circumstances) and to have no transition is not in any child's best interest.

What was in her best interests was for the adoptive people to not have refused to turn her over in the first place. They thought just keeping her away from him for long enough would give them the ability to argue that it was 'too late' to turn her over and that is ALL ABOUT THEM, not her.

 

[SaraJayne]

She's been there for 8 months and you question them continuing to fight for their daughter? What about the 2 1/2 years they raised her? He came, picked her up and they haven't spoken to her since. And that's ok???? What about what's best for Veronica? She lost her Mommy and Daddy and doesn't understand why. Everyone seems to argue about how he has rights, they have rights and the tribe has rights. Good lord, what about her rights? Why hasn't anyone done what's in her best interest? To pull her away from the only family she knew (regardless of the circumstances) and to have no transition is not in any child's best interest.

I know this seems hard for you to understand, but it isn't about the people that tried (and failed) to adopt her.

It is about what's best for Ronnie ~ and that is being with her birth father.

It's time for the C's to give it up.

 

[holcombe5]

If your friends hadn't put their story out to the public there wouldn't be anything to scour the internet for. When you go to the public with something, you have to understand everyone isn't going to see the situation as you do.


The dissenting opinion doesn't matter. The final ruling and majority opinion is what counts.

I can respect a difference of opinion but this nonsense about buying babies and being baby thieves has got to stop. They didn't go to the media in the beginning. Some friends did and asked the media to be there the night he picked Veronica up and drove off. From there it kept growing and growing. They didn't want any of this. They were desperate. Their daughter was just taken away. Just as Brown's supporters said he fought hard...they were grasping at straws and did the same thing.

 

[holcombe5]

I know this seems hard for you to understand, but it isn't about the people that tried (and failed) to adopt her.

It is about what's best for Ronnie ~ and that is being with her birth father.

It's time for the C's to give it up.

I think Veronica should have a right to have all of them in her life. It's not fair for the man that abandoned her to keep her from the woman that gave birth to her and to completely disregard the people that raised her for the first 2 1/2 years of her life. Not to mention her other siblings and extended family that don't get to be a part of her life anymore either.

 

[mnrose]

I did! I cut and pasted that directly from the document. Try reading past the majority ruling. The dissenting arguments does a great job of explaining the situation at hand. The one person that truly didn't act in V's best interest in the first place is the one that won. That's a shame. Had he stepped up in the beginning NONE of this would have happened. I just want PaulaSB12 to stop scouring the Internet for any possible place to post nasty, heartless comments about this family. Their life has been completely turned upside down. Have a heart for God's sake.

A lot of their heartache is of their OWN making. Even if we accept YOUR version of events (which does not square with the facts as outline in the majority opinion of the court), they knew since the child was 4 months old that there was a problem. They could have acted at that time to minimize the problem, but they did not. They fought tooth and nail for years, and then started arguing that because so much time had passed, they should be allowed to keep the child. I call BS on that.

Look, I have several friends who have had adoptions disrupted. It is heartbreaking for sure. However, it is a risk of adoption, one that is carefully explained by any reputable agency. Once a birth parent (and that's what he is...a birth parent...pretty insulting to call him sperm donor) has asserted their rights, they need to be respected.

It does them no good to carry on this fight. They do not look heroic. They are beginning to look evil. If they cared about that child, they would leave her be in peace and let her get on with her life with the family she should have had from the beginning. That's what's in the best interest of that child.

 

[SaraJayne]

I think Veronica should have a right to have all of them in her life. It's not fair for the man that abandoned her to keep her from the woman that gave birth to her and to completely disregard the people that raised her for the first 2 1/2 years of her life. Not to mention her other siblings and extended family that don't get to be a part of her life anymore either.

Thankfully, the court disagrees with you. And Ronnie does have siblings with her.

 

[holcombe5]

What was in her best interests was for the adoptive people to not have refused to turn her over in the first place. They thought just keeping her away from him for long enough would give them the ability to argue that it was 'too late' to turn her over and that is ALL ABOUT THEM, not her.

What people fail to understand is that they couldn't 'just return her.' First, I don't think they should have been expected to just turn her over. For them, who is this man? After birth and four months old, he decides he wants to be a part of her life. I don't disagree that he should have a relationship with her but just turning her over isn't black and white. They have an open relationship with the birth mother and her opinion would most likely play a role too. But the reality is that V was a ward of the court. They wouldn't have been able to 'just give her' back until the court said so. That day came on New Year's Eve. They plead for the courts to provide a transition period but yet again, our court system let this child down.

 

[holcombe5]

Thankfully, the court disagrees with you. And Ronnie does have siblings with her.

She has a brother and sister with her birth mother. The paternal family members aren't the only people in this child's life! One day V will know that.