Is anyone following the Veronica Rose story?

[PaulaSB12]

, But the Father also has 2 other children if I'm not mistaken and he does not have anything to do with them. It is rumored that he only wanted Veronica back to hurt the Mother of his child since she didn't want to be with him again Since Veronica has been back in her father's custody, she has yet to visit with the adoptive family. I don't think they will ever see her again either. If they do, it will be a miracle.

I hope they never see her again, as soon as the father asked for his child to be returned she should have been returned at that time. Instead they started playing games to get sympathy from the public and to make it last as long as possible. They are the ones making the transition hard. Had it happened at 4 months the pain they had could have been helped by counselling. they chose, by fighting for 2 years to put that pain on the child, at 4 months she couldn't have felt the pain she did later. That the adoptive parents deliberately pushed and pushed for 2 years meant that the child did have the pain. Their choice and it doesn't make them look good as parents.

 

[duffy]

I hope they never see her again, as soon as the father asked for his child to be returned she should have been returned at that time. Instead they started playing games to get sympathy from the public and to make it last as long as possible. They are the ones making the transition hard. Had it happened at 4 months the pain they had could have been helped by counselling. they chose, by fighting for 2 years to put that pain on the child, at 4 months she couldn't have felt the pain she did later. That the adoptive parents deliberately pushed and pushed for 2 years meant that the child did have the pain. Their choice and it doesn't make them look good as parents.

Totally agree.

 

[SaraJayne]

I hope they never see her again, as soon as the father asked for his child to be returned she should have been returned at that time. Instead they started playing games to get sympathy from the public and to make it last as long as possible. They are the ones making the transition hard. Had it happened at 4 months the pain they had could have been helped by counselling. they chose, by fighting for 2 years to put that pain on the child, at 4 months she couldn't have felt the pain she did later. That the adoptive parents deliberately pushed and pushed for 2 years meant that the child did have the pain. Their choice and it doesn't make them look good as parents.

Yup, I agree. If I was in that situation, I wouldn't let my child see them, either.

 

[DizBelle]

Again, if he signed a document (what document, does anyone know?) stating that he was waiving his parenal rights to the biological mother with the understanding that she would keep the child and that is not what ended up happening, I think it should matter.

His ICWA claim was a hail mary. I'm not sure how I feel about that but I'd sure like to know what really went on between the two biological parents. Someone is not telling the truth.

Unless it was spelled out in the document that she agreed not to put the child up for adoption, it doesn't matter.

 

[DizBelle]

But don't you see that this is a point that could be hotly debated by legal scholars?

INFORMED CONSENT

Shouldn't he have been informed of the plan before he signed papers terminating his rights?

From what was posted earlier, he says he had plans to marry the mother and presumably, be with the daughter also. (I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.)

This is a LOT different than not seeing the daughter for at least the next 18 years, maybe more.

I say it's one for the courts to decide. (Maybe the lower court has decided but there is such a thing as Appeal.)

If the Indian angle wasn't taken up, perhaps this could have been another argument seeing that he says he wasn't aware of this when he signed his rights away.

The plan was in the papers. The plan was that he would have no rights. That includes any input into the decision to put her up for adoption.

 

[DizBelle]

Me too. He is the bio dad and he can change his mind. The law is in place for a reason. At four months - he can build a much stronger bond with her. He deserves to be able to parent his daughter if he wants to.

If he wanted to parent his daughter, he should not have given up his right to do so.

What if he changed his mind when the girl was 6? What if she was 12? 16? Does he get to take her back then?

 

[PaulaSB12]

If he wanted to parent his daughter, he should not have given up his right to do so.

And to be brutally blunt these people who find themselves infertile shouldn't expect to enjoy the fruits of someone else's reproductive organs. The child is back with her father and I hope she stays there.

 

[Andtototoo]

And to be brutally blunt these people who find themselves infertile shouldn't expect to enjoy the fruits of someone else's reproductive organs.

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[SaraJayne]

The plan was in the papers. The plan was that he would have no rights. That includes any input into the decision to put her up for adoption.

How do you know the "plan was in the papers"? Did you read them?

Because like others, I've searched what I can online and I've yet to see anything un-biased about the case. There is very little info out there.

 

[DizBelle]

How do you know the "plan was in the papers"? Did you read them?

Because like others, I've searched what I can online and I've yet to see anything un-biased about the case. There is very little info out there.

Reports I'm hearing say that he signed a form giving up his rights to his daughter and also agreeing not to contest the adoption.

 

[superme80]

And to be brutally blunt these people who find themselves infertile shouldn't expect to enjoy the fruits of someone else's reproductive organs. The child is back with her father and I hope she stays there.

That has to be the most insensitive rudest comment I have ever seen. You could have stated your opionion without it. I am completely disguested.

 

[Chernabog#1fan]

And to be brutally blunt these people who find themselves infertile shouldn't expect to enjoy the fruits of someone else's reproductive organs. The child is back with her father and I hope she stays there.

I can not believe you can even say something like that. That is extremely cold and heartless. I hope you never are in that situation.

From someone who is, let me tell you that we do not go out and adopt for our own selfish reason, at least not entirely. Tes we wanted children, but we wanted to give a better life to the child. We go through a very grueling process to be able to adopt. 99% of the time, it is in the child's best interest to be adopted. It was in our children's case. Their birth parents were regularly in jail, high, or drunk. My son still worries about me leaving him because that is what his birth mother would do.

Also, enjoy the fruits of other people?? Seriously...They chose to have sex. They even chose to give birth, but they chose not to raise the baby. That was the birth parent's rights. In well over 99.9% of the cases, the child was not kidnapped, it is a legitimate choosing of the birth parents not to raise the child. So they are thankful for the adoptive parents, otherwise the children would end up growing up in a foster care.

Your views on adoption and parents that become parents by adopting is skewed.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Reports I'm hearing say that he signed a form giving up his rights to his daughter and also agreeing not to contest the adoption.

You do realize most of the information out there is coming from the side of the adoptive parents, right?

 

[MnParrothead]

So what's worse - The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), or the Christian Alliance of Child Welfare (CACW)? They are both pushing their agendas down the throats of people who have been victimized enough by this country.

Sometimes I'm downright embarrassed to be a US citizen.

No Schmeck, it's ignorant people like you who are victimizing the rest of us.

Signed,

MNParrothead
Proud member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe

 

[Mickey Fliers]

And to be brutally blunt these people who find themselves infertile shouldn't expect to enjoy the fruits of someone else's reproductive organs. The child is back with her father and I hope she stays there.

Yikes. Teetering on the town line of Crazyville with that one.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Private adoptions can get so messy. Looks like in this one only the attorneys will come out ahead.

So what's worse - The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), or the Christian Alliance of Child Welfare (CACW)? They are both pushing their agendas down the throats of people who have been victimized enough by this country.

Sometimes I'm downright embarrassed to be a US citizen.

Groups, like CACW, that don't agree with laws like ICWA often take extreme positions. The ICWA isn't taking a position in this case. It just is the law that guides.

No. It was what the judge ruled. She had to be returned because of ICWA. Period. The judge ruled that federal ICWA rules overruled SCs state adoption laws. If not, she would have been left with her adoptive parents because, per SC adoption law, her father would not have regained custody of her.

I don't have a problem with a federal law like ICWA taking precidence over a state law, particularly in a situation of interstate adoption. But, I imagine that's a tough sell to traditional South Carolinians

 

[Muslickz]

I was very sad to hear about this.... my heart goes out to all involved

-M

 

[SaraJayne]

Reports I'm hearing say that he signed a form giving up his rights to his daughter and also agreeing not to contest the adoption.

From what I've read (from a biased source admittedly) is his fiance (Ronnie's mother) had him sign a paper giving her POA while he was deployed.

That document was, in fact, a document having him give up all rights to the child. As soon as he discovered the deception on her part, he petitioned the courts when Ronnie was 4 months old for custody.

The adoptive couple are the ones that have chosen to drag this out as long as they have.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

What I think a lot of people don't get is that the moment it became known that this child had eligibility in a recognized tribe, this should have become a tribal matter. The birth parents are choosing to assert that their state law takes precedence over federal law and thus by extension are claiming that the federally recognized rights of the Cherokee tribe to which this child is entitled to membership are irrelevant and invalid.

 

[SaraJayne]

What I think a lot of people don't get is that the moment it became known that this child had eligibility in a recognized tribe, this should have become a tribal matter. The birth parents are choosing to assert that their state law takes precedence over federal law and thus by extension are claiming that the federally recognized rights of the Cherokee tribe to which this child is entitled to membership are irrelevant and invalid.

I think you mean "adoptive parents".