Is anyone following the Veronica Rose story?

Yep, the father who signed away his rights to her so he didn't have to pay child support.

He's a peach.

She's ONLY with him because of ICWA. That was the ruling that returned her. The Supreme Court ruling is about an almost identical case.

It's almost over.
 
Time will tell.

There should be a SC Supreme Court ruling at any time. If for some reason, they ruled against the adoptive parents, it seems like a US Appeallate Court would use this exact ruling to throw it out.

My guess is she's going home.

And I guess we'll agree to disagree. He signed off on her. She was legally kidnapped in my opinion.

You sound like this little girl is a raffle prize to be won or something. You realize this is a little girl and this tug o'war isn't healthy for her, right? You realize that by ignoring the gag order and using the media for sympathy, these people sound like they care more about winning than what is ultimately best for the girl, right?
 
You sound like this little girl is a raffle prize to be won or something. You realize this is a little girl and this tug o'war isn't healthy for her, right? You realize that by ignoring the gag order and using the media for sympathy, these people sound like they care more about winning than what is ultimately best for the girl, right?

I don't think that matters to some. In the end, it's all about winning and proving the other person wrong. Gloating in their victory while a young innocent child is left crying in the corner. It's so horrible how the well being of the child gets pushed to the side so the adults can play at their power games.

I'm sure that the Cabobianco's love this little girl and feel that it is best for her to stay in their family and home. I just think that they are going about it in a way that may very well be damaging to her.



And the kidnapping part? I agree, it's hysterical.:lmao: Has to be the most ludicrous load of hyperbole in this whole thread. :rotfl:
 
I don't think that matters to some. In the end, it's all about winning and proving the other person wrong. Gloating in their victory while a young innocent child is left crying in the corner. It's so horrible how the well being of the child gets pushed to the side so the adults can play at their power games.

I'm sure that the Cabobianco's love this little girl and feel that it is best for her to stay in their family and home. I just think that they are going about it in a way that may very well be damaging to her.



And the kidnapping part? I agree, it's hysterical.:lmao: Has to be the most ludicrous load of hyperbole in this whole thread. :rotfl:
at this point, her dad is the family she knows. so to take her send her back to the other family - that isn't even related to her - would be awful.
 

So its 1st June what is the latest on this case? I tried googling it but nothing past may17 came up.
 
There's still no ruling. Though there's a ruling by the State Supreme Court that child custody cases ( when possible ) be ruled on within 30 days, this case has been an exception.

http://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/displaywhatsnew.cfm?indexID=771

Though the Supreme Court refused to hear and the US Court of appeals ruled against this case recently..

http://64.38.12.138/News/2012/005735.asp

my feelings are that they are shoring up the legal work for overruling the lower court's verdict.

Of course, it's speculation, but with the current ICWA climate, I think if the State Supreme Court was going to rule with the lower courts, it would have happened a long time ago.
 
This is what I found from these supporting the father
1 the parents where engaged and had lived together and the father wanted to marry her on his first leave
2 It was Jag who informed him what the papers actually where (adoption not power of attorney) it says as soon as jag caught the paperwork the military immediately took steps to object on Dusten's behalf he then located his daughter and went to court.
2 It then goes on to this Dusten has been a Cherokee nation member since birth and his family is involved in Cherokee and local native american activities. His oldest daughter knows some of the Cherokee language and Dusten himself even sang at the drum. He also has a job and a home only staying with his parents while it was being remodelled his daughter had a brick thrown through the window with paper signed svr on it. From what I can see the "adoptive" parents have done a good job of lying about everything and slagging off the father and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near another baby.
 
/
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
 
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

Well, if I am reading the attached correctly, she's being returned to her adoptive parents. From pg 72 and 73 of the attached:

IV.
CONCLUSION
I dissent and would reverse the judgment of the family court. I would terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to section 63-7-2570 of the South Carolina Code of Laws and in accordance with ICWA. Additionally, I would hold there is good cause to deviate from ICWA's adoptive placement preferences and remand for an immediate entry of judgment approving and finalizing the adoption of Baby Girl by Appellants. And finally, I would require the immediate return of Baby Girl to Appellants.HEARN, J., concurs.

JUSTICE HEARN: Without hesitation, I join Justice Kittredge's thoughtful, well-reasoned, and excellent dissent. Like Justice Kittredge, I view both the pertinent facts of this case—facts which emanate solely from Father's conduct— and the legal principles underlying termination of parental rights and adoption as requiring judgment in favor of Adoptive Couple. My review of the record convinces me that Father turned his back on the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood at every turn. I would not minimize, as the majority does, the telling fact that Father told Mother in writing after Baby Girl's birth that he would relinquish his parental rights rather than support her and Baby Girl, and I do not join the majority in accepting his laughable explanation that he did this as a way to convince Mother to marry him. In stark contrast to Father's behavior in completely shirking his parental responsibilities, every action taken by Adoptive Couple since they learned she was going to be their child has demonstrated their deep and unconditional love and commitment to Baby Girl. Nevertheless, today, the majority goes out of its way to re-cast the facts in a light unfavorable to Adoptive Couple and overlooks Father's clear course of conduct, affording him a second chance at fatherhood, all at great emotional cost to Baby Girl and Adoptive Couple.
Apart from the human tragedy that Father's reluctance to act like a father until the eleventh hour has wrought on Baby Girl, Adoptive Couple, and their extended family, I profoundly disagree with the majority's elevation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to a position of total dominance over state law and settled principles of the best interests of the child, a position which I find totally unsupported by ICWA jurisprudence. As Justice Kittredge demonstrated, Father's last-ditch efforts to embrace a relationship with his daughter under the cloud of litigation are far too little and much too late. I cannot fathom that Congress intended ICWA to require the return of a child to a parent who consistently, by his words and actions, evinced a desire to forego his responsibilities as a father. I therefore wholeheartedly join Justice Kittredge's dissent and would order Baby Girl's return to Adoptive Couple.
KITTREDGE, J., concurs.

If there is something in there that shows that Bio-Dad is getting her, please let me know what page number that info is found on.
 
The passages cited in PP are from the DISSENT. The bio dad was awarded custody by the majority. For the majority conclusion see page 29.
 
thanks for the explanation. I just figured if I went to the last page that would show the ruling.
 
If there is something in there that shows that Bio-Dad is getting her, please let me know what page number that info is found on.

It's at the top of page 2, on the pdf I linked.
 
That's were I went. Every court document I have had to deal with, always has it at the every end.



Thanks for telling me where I could find it.

You're welcome. :) It's also throughout the document, but couched in lots of legal mumbo jumbo. The easiest part to read/understand is the very first paragraph. :rotfl:
 
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

Goes against what has been said before that she claimed not to know he was a member of the Cherokee tribe doesn't it. For the father I am glad I do feel sorry for the potential adoptive parents but they should have given her back when he asked for her at 4 months.
 
Was just coming to post the ruling:thumbsup2
 
I'm glad this was finally settled in accordance with the law. Hopefully, now the little girl and her family can begin to build a life.
 
Glad this case has finally been settled, and settle in this manner. The birth mother lied to everyone. The father, the attorney, the adoptive parents and this is what it got her. If anyone is to blame for this mess, it is her. She says the father and his mother never contacted her, contrary to what they say. I have a feeling she is probably lying about that also.

I'm sure the adoptive parents are hurting, but the father never voluntarily gave up his parental rights and therefore the adoption was never legal.
 
Glad this case has finally been settled, and settle in this manner. The birth mother lied to everyone. The father, the attorney, the adoptive parents and this is what it got her. If anyone is to blame for this mess, it is her. She says the father and his mother never contacted her, contrary to what they say. I have a feeling she is probably lying about that also.

I'm sure the adoptive parents are hurting, but the father never voluntarily gave up his parental rights and therefore the adoption was never legal.

I agree. The pain the adoptive parents feel must be so awful, I can't comprehend it. But, as you say, the adoption wasn't legal. We have to follow the law, otherwise, it would be an open market on baby-snatching.
 

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top