Baby Veronica is going home!!!!

[debster812]

The case is going back they havent won yet and I really hope someone kills them first.

Really? You are wishing death on people you do not know, and in relation to what is an emotionally charged case, with plenty of rhetoric to go around on both sides? That to me is completely reprehensible.

Are you personally connected to someone in the case? You really seem exceptionally invested in this.

 

[Poohforyou]

I am infuriated in the wy this couple have behaved and quite frankly I do doubt his desire to own a little indian girl. What if they get her are they going to say sorry honey I know you love your daddy but we paid for you so you are here to do what we want you to. The whole way they acted putting her in a front of a mob shows tey are unfit nd the battle is not over yet

"Own a little Indian girl". WHAT THE HECK???? My dd is adopted from a culture different that dh or mine. She's our child not our property. We adopted her, we didn't buy her. Talk about being offensive and bigoted.

As for the amount of na blood it takes to be considered part of the tribe I'm astounded. My ancestors were here just after the mayflower. I could very well have a bit of na blood in me. The na leaders might want to be careful what precedent they're setting. People might start coming out in droves to stake a claim on casino royalties.

 

[Robbi]

I am infuriated in the wy this couple have behaved and quite frankly I do doubt his desire to own a little indian girl. What if they get her are they going to say sorry honey I know you love your daddy but we paid for you so you are here to do what we want you to. The whole way they acted putting her in a front of a mob shows tey are unfit nd the battle is not over yet

Our adopted daughter is part Samoan. We adopted her because we wanted a baby not because we wanted to "own" a Samoan child.

By the way, I don't know if people in England buy their children when adopting but that's not the way it's done in the US. We paid for our daughter's birth mother's medical expenses-period. It is illegal here to buy a person.

 

[Hrhpd]

This is not a win for the adoptive parents. At least not yet.

This ruling did not take custody away from the father. The state of SC now has to re-look at the custody without using the Native American laws to see if he still should have custody. The dad has not lost custody yet.

And the article I read said that if the state does strip the dad's custody, the child still does not automatically go back to the adoptive parents. Basically she will go back into the system and there will be a period where relatives and even the tribe could petition for custody. Only after all those are exhausted, will the would-be adoptive parents looked at again.

 

[EMom]

"Own a little Indian girl". WHAT THE HECK???? My dd is adopted from a culture different that dh or mine. She's our child not our property. We adopted her, we didn't buy her. Talk about being offensive and bigoted.

As for the amount of na blood it takes to be considered part of the tribe I'm astounded. My ancestors were here just after the mayflower. I could very well have a bit of na blood in me. The na leaders might want to be careful what precedent they're setting. People might start coming out in droves to stake a claim on casino royalties.

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.....

 

[Robbi]

This is not a win for the adoptive parents. At least not yet.

This ruling did not take custody away from the father. The state of SC now has to re-look at the custody without using the Native American laws to see if he still should have custody. The dad has not lost custody yet.

And the article I read said that if the state does strip the dad's custody, the child still does not automatically go back to the adoptive parents. Basically she will go back into the system and there will be a period where relatives and even the tribe could petition for custody. Only after all those are exhausted, will the would-be adoptive parents looked at again.

If SC cannot use Native American laws, how could they be considered?

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

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.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

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.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

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.

 

[PaulaSB12]

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/internat...-in-china-confused-children-in-the-us/247329/

 

[C4talyst]

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.

 

[zippingalong]

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.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

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.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

You ALL seem oddly invested in this in my opinion.

It's the DIS! Haha! You know how it goes.

 

[zippingalong]

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

 

[robinb]

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.

 

[Heidict]

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.

 

[palmtreegirl]

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.

 

[zippingalong]

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]

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.