Baby Veronica

[Scarlett]

Anyone following this story? I had not heard until just now that the Supreme Court gave her back to the adopted parents after 19 months with her bio dad. The bio dad has refused to turn her over. This makes me so sad I can barely stand it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57598218/baby-veronica-custody-battle-takes-drastic-turn/

[Mergath]

I'm so outraged over the whole thing I don't even have words.  One of my childhood friends is a lawyer specializing in NA law so I've been able to get her point of view on the story, and it's just disgusting that the courts are going to take this poor kid away from her bio dad.  Whatever one thinks about the adoption, I don't see how anyone can argue that now, after all this time, it's in the girl's best interest to be ripped away from her dad and given to people who she won't even remember.

[PentecostalMom]

Just watched the video and read the article.  Makes me wonder where her bio mom is?

[PentecostalMom]

I'm so outraged over the whole thing I don't even have words.  One of my childhood friends is a lawyer specializing in NA law so I've been able to get her point of view on the story, and it's just disgusting that the courts are going to take this poor kid away from her bio dad.  Whatever one thinks about the adoption, I don't see how anyone can argue that now, after all this time, it's in the girl's best interest to be ripped away from her dad and given to people who she won't even remember.

 

I do agree with this as well.  I remember another baby girl, a number of years ago now, being ripped from her adoptive parents arms and taken to her bio parents.  Makes me wonder what happened to her.  The little girl knows and loves her bio dad at this point and is happy there.  There is a big difference, IMO, of her being transferred at two and transferred at four.  They should leave her alone, even if it hurts.

[Scarlett]

I can't believe they are trying to take her away from her bio dad at this point. Makes me sick.

[Annie G]

Just watched the video and read the article.  Makes me wonder where her bio mom is?

I've read that the biological mom asked for and received an open adoption and she's siding with the adoptive parents. 

 

What I haven't been able to find out is whether the dad willingly gave up parental rights or not. I've read that he willingly gave up his rights knowing she was going to be adopted, and also read he was tricked and didn't know he was giving up his rights. The answer to that question seems kind of crucial to me. 

[Mergath]

I've read that the biological mom asked for and received an open adoption and she's siding with the adoptive parents. 

 

What I haven't been able to find out is whether the dad willingly gave up parental rights or not. I've read that he willingly gave up his rights knowing she was going to be adopted, and also read he was tricked and didn't know he was giving up his rights. The answer to that question seems kind of crucial to me. 

 

Not really.  Back then yes, but now they need to put the best interests of the child first.  And I just don't see how anyone can argue that it's in the best interest of the child to be moved AGAIN.  That poor child is going to end up with some psychological issues if they keep doing this to her.

[Parrothead]

I've read that the biological mom asked for and received an open adoption and she's siding with the adoptive parents.

 

What I haven't been able to find out is whether the dad willingly gave up parental rights or not. I've read that he willingly gave up his rights knowing she was going to be adopted, and also read he was tricked and didn't know he was giving up his rights. The answer to that question seems kind of crucial to me.

I've also read he was in the military or overseas and was in a kind of bad spot to try to stop the adoption.

[Mergath]

I've also read he was in the military or overseas and was in a kind of bad spot to try to stop the adoption.

 

The news articles I've read also said that the bio mom lied in the adoption paperwork to avoid having the father notified, or something along those lines.  Not to mention that the Capobiancos sound like a real piece of work... as soon as the bio dad contested the adoption, they rushed out to hire a PR firm.  I mean, who does that?  And when it was time for them to return the girl to her bio dad, they called the media and turned it into a chaotic nightmare for the kid.  As if it wasn't going to be stressful enough for her, they wanted to throw in flashing cameras and shouting reporters, too.  It's fairly obvious that they don't care about the little girl, only about what they want.

[Sisyphus]

I don't understand how she could be returned to adoptive parents, since her bio dad clearly wants to raise her and gave up parental rights only because he was being deployed. How could the bio mom give her up for adoption in that circumstance!?

[Mergath]

I don't understand how she could be returned to adoptive parents, since her bio dad clearly wants to raise her and gave up parental rights only because he was being deployed. How could the bio mom give her up for adoption in that circumstance!?

 

This five-part series is the most detailed account of what happened that I've been able to find:

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/06/fight-baby-veronica-part-i-149219

[Murphy101]

I'm pretty thoroughly disgusted with adoption in our nation.

 

It's hard not to be lately.

 

:(

[Miss Peregrine]

Radio Lab has a fantastic podcast on this issue here.

http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2013/may/30/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/

[countrygal]

They never should have taken her away from her adoptive parents in the first place, but now they are doing the same traumatic thing again!! The adoptive parents should realize that they are now going to be the cause of the same pain the bio dad caused on them - all at the expense of a little girl. One thing that irritates me is that the bio dad got custody because of some 'Native American law'. I don't care what nationality or color you are - there shouldn't have been an exception in the first place. He gave up his rights. Why can't their be joint custody in situations like this???

[Ottakee]

I don't know much about this case but there IS a federal law ruling over Native American Adoptions.  It is due to the fact that even just 50-60 years ago in our nation Native kids were being taken from their parents without cause other than that they were Native and adopted out.  My MIL was not adopted out but was removed from her parents and placed in a boarding school for several years when she was elementary age.  There are protections out there to prevent this from continuing to happen.

 

We adopted a NA son and girls that are part NA.

[Murphy101]

I disagree with that. There is a history of better off nations stealing the children of other nations, with an attitude of doing those kids a "favor" by doing it even.

 

And nope, I don't think kidnappers should be able to take a baby and then claim that since they managed to keep her for x amount of time, then they should just be given custody. (and if the bio parent did give them up for adoption properly, I'd feel the same way about sending the baby back to her adoptive parents)

 

I think the adoptive parents were either morons or their attorneys were because the second they knew he was native American, they should have dotted every i and crossed every t BEFORE taking her home. Actually they should have done that regardless, but him being native American should have been a red flag to be extra cautious. The tribes here have been known to deny an adoption outside of the the tribe for any years. It's not unusual or unheard of and it's the right of those nations to do it.

 

Frankly, I think they were trying to buy a commodity and just want their product back.

 

Granted, I think the bio dad has relationship issues with the mothers of his children too, but he does seem to care about and provide for his kids and I don't think he deserved to have his paternal rights taken from him without due process and in proper order.

[Scarlett]

This five-part series is the most detailed account of what happened that I've been able to find:

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/06/fight-baby-veronica-part-i-149219

I read part one.. Excellent article.

[Scarlett]

The more I read the more disgusted I am that the adoptive parents kept her at 4 months. At that point, it was clear....if it had not been before, that the bio dad wanted his dd.

[Ottakee]

I think the adoptive parents were either morons or their attorneys were because the second they knew he was native American, they should have dotted every i and crossed every t BEFORE taking her home. Actually they should have done that regardless, but him being native American should have been a red flag to be extra cautious. The tribes here have been known to deny an adoption outside of the the tribe for any years. It's not unusual or unheard of and it's the right of those nations to do it.

 

 

Again, I haven't read the specifics of this case but in our cases we DID get the tribe's approval---easy for ds as dh is from the same tribe and band as ds.  With the girls they didn't have tribal membership but it was still cleared with the tribe and they signed off that they didn't have any rights to the children or their case.

 

Friends of mine adopted an Eskimo (Inuit) daughter.  They are white but the tribe gave special permission for them to adopt her as the bio mom and dad placed her with my friends directly.  They did have to make sure to have the proper permissions from the tribe in order to finalize the adoption.

 

Any adoption case should be handled by someone well versed in the law and specifically ICW if a Native child is involved.  Most of the horror stories you read about are because something was don't properly---like notifying the bio father, etc.

 

Before the adoption of our girls we had to get a release of parental rights on their LEGAL father.  We got it through the court on their biological father but mom was still legally married to another man and we needed him to release his parental rights to the girls---------even though there was no way he was their bio father as he had been incarcerated in another state for several years before they were born.

 

I just feel for the kids stuck in these messes.

[Mergath]

The more I read the more disgusted I am that the adoptive parents kept her at 4 months. At that point, it was clear....if it had not been before, that the bio dad wanted his dd.

 

From what I read in one article, they paid the bio mom ten thousand dollars above and beyond the medical costs and fees.  I guess they just wanted what they paid for.  :glare:

 

On a semi-related note, does anyone know if that's even legal?  Essentially buying a child?  I understand why they'd cover the medical costs, fees, etc., but giving that much extra really does seem like purchasing a baby.

[Scarlett]

From what I read in one article, they paid the bio mom ten thousand dollars above and beyond the medical costs and fees. I guess they just wanted what they paid for. :glare:

 

On a semi-related note, does anyone know if that's even legal? Essentially buying a child? I understand why they'd cover the medical costs, fees, etc., but giving that much extra really does seem like purchasing a baby.

I don't think it is legal but they find loopholes.

[Spryte]

From what I read in one article, they paid the bio mom ten thousand dollars above and beyond the medical costs and fees.  I guess they just wanted what they paid for.  :glare:

 

On a semi-related note, does anyone know if that's even legal?  Essentially buying a child?  I understand why they'd cover the medical costs, fees, etc., but giving that much extra really does seem like purchasing a baby.

 

I think it depends on the state's laws.  From one of the articles I read, it doesn't sound like it's legal in OK, where biodad is.  But if the adoption was finalized in SC (I think it was SC?) it would depend on SC's laws.

 

In VA, it would not be legal.  Absolutely not.  Medical and legal expenses related to the adoption, yes.  But nothing else.  Not even holiday gifts (in one article it mentioned that the adoptive family had given gifts to the other children, etc).  Absolutely nothing that might be construed as a material or monetary gift, that could influence a birthparent's decision.  

 

CA seems to have more liberal laws re: material and monetary gifts.

 

What a mess.  That poor child.  :(

[mommaduck]

I'm local in SC to this and the C's are a piece of work.

 

http://keepveronicahome.com/index.php/fact-check

 

Myth vs. Fact 1. “He signed his rights away.â€

TRUTH:

“It is undisputed that the only consent document Father ever signed was a one-page ‘Acceptance of Service’ stating he was not contesting the adoption, which was purportedly presented for Father's signature as a prerequisite to the service of a summons and complaint. Thus, Appellants did not follow the clear procedural directives of section 1913(a) in obtaining Father's consent. Moreover, even if this ‘consent’ was valid under the statute, then Father's subsequent legal campaign to obtain custody of Baby Girl has rendered any such consent withdrawn. Therefore, neither Father's signature on the ‘Acceptance of Service’ document, nor his stated intentions to relinquish his rights, were effectual forms of voluntary consent under the ICWA.†– South Carolina Supreme Court There is a legal way to “sign away rights†for good reason, Dusten never came close to any legal relinquishment of parental rights.

 

 

2. “He texted his rights awayâ€

TRUTH:

In no state in the country can a father relinquish parental rights by text message. These text messages WERE NOT EVIDENCE at trial because the attorney for the Adoptive Couple would not produce the phone that showed Birth Mother’s messages to father, instead they attempted to introduce photocopies, even though the cell phone was allegedly in a safe at the office of the Guardian Ad Litem’s attorney. The Family Court did not consider these text messages as evidence.

 

 

3. “He abandoned his daughterâ€

TRUTH:

“All attempts to contact Maldonado by Brown and his family members were refused by Maldonado. Shortly after the child’s birth, Brown’s family members purchased some items for the child and attempted to deliver them to Maldonado, but these were rejected. It was clear that Maldonado wanted to have Brown completely and permanently removed from her life and placing the child for adoption without his knowledge or consent would further this goal.†– Family Court “Father testified he asked friends and family if they had seen Mother because she would not reply to his text messages. His mother testified she attempted to contact Mother on several occasions and once left Mother a voice message before Baby Girl's birth to tell Mother she had money and some gifts for the baby, including items she hand-knitted, but Mother never returned her telephone calls. Mother testified that none of Father's family members contacted her regarding gifts for Baby Girl.†– Family Court The Family Court repeatedly stated that it did “not find birth mother’s testimony credible.†– Family Court Bench Ruling, United States Supreme Court Brief

 

 

4. “It is in Veronica’s best interest to be adoptedâ€

TRUTH:

The only findings based on evidence of Veronica’s best interests found that she should be with her father.

“Brown is the father of another daughter. The undisputed testimony is that he is a loving and devoted father. Even Maldonado herself testified that he was a good father. There is no evidence to suggest that he would be anything other than an excellent parent to this child. . . . Brown has convinced me of his unwavering love for this child.†– Family Court

“The family court order stated, ‘[w]hen parental rights and the best interests of the child are in conflict, the best interests of the child must prevail. However, in this case, I find no conflict between the two.’ Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl's best interests are not served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared for if raised by Father and his family.†South Carolina Supreme Court

“Plainly, the family court determined that there was no conflict between Father's best interests and Baby Girl's best interests.†– South Carolina Supreme Court

 

 

5. “He’s not really ‘Indian’â€

TRUTH:

Dusten Brown has been a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation since he was a child. Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court found true cultural ties to the Cherokee Nation:

“The Record establishes that Father's family has a deeply embedded relationship with the Cherokee Nation. For example, not only does the Record indicate that Father and his family are proud of their heritage and membership in the Wolf Clan, the home study performed on Father's parents states the following:

[Father's father] is Cherokee Indian. He grew up knowing he was Cherokee and being proud of who he was. [Father's parents] . . . prepare the following traditional foods in their home: grape dumplings, buckskin bread, Indian cornbread, Indian tacos, wild onions, fry bread, polk salad and deer meat. [Father's mother] state[d] she cooks these foods in her home on a regular basis and all of her children have eaten these items.

[Father's parents] attend the Cherokee Holiday in Tahlequah, Oklahoma[,] when they can and do participate in eating traditional foods, viewing the arts and crafts and watching the traditional games. [Father's father] participates in voting in the Cherokee elections[,] . . . . took part in learning about the Cherokee culture when his children were in high school by learning to make Indian crafts and learning to play the drum[, and] . . . . is sometimes seen at the Nowata Indian Health Clinic but receives the majority of his health care from the Veterans hospital. He claims his family is from the Wolf Clan, and he has been to, as well as participated, in stomp dances.

[H]is family had Indian land which was located in Pryor, Oklahoma and Cayuga, Oklahoma. He claims to have very traditional ties with his extended family and considers geneology [sic] a hobby by researching his Cherokee culture. [Father's parents] have many Native American items in their home. Decorative Native American pieces are scattered throughout their home in nearly every room.

Thus, the Record demonstrates that Father and his family are well-positioned to introduce Baby Girl to her Indian heritage.â€

 

 

6. “He just wants her for money.â€

TRUTH:

As all Cherokee Nation citizens know, we don’t get any money for “being Cherokee†or for having “Cherokee kids.†The only people who have made money in this case are the adoption agencies and attorneys.

 

 

7. “Cherokee Nation paid Dusten’s legal expensesâ€

TRUTH:

Cherokee Nation has never spent a single a dime on attorney fees for Dusten Brown. He and his family used every extra dollar they had to pay for attorneys and after that was exhausted, Dusten’s amazing attorneys donated their time because they believed in him and believed that Veronica belonged with her father.

 

 

8. “We didn’t know Veronica was Cherokee.â€

TRUTH:

“Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this information "important" throughout the adoption process. 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.â€

“Adoptive Mother testified that, because they hired an attorney to specifically inquire about the baby's Cherokee Indian status, ‘when she was born, we were under the impression that she was not Cherokee.’†But, “Adoptive Mother testified that the Nightlight Agency's pre-placement report was ‘probably . . . something I read and didn't think twice about it.’â€

 

 

9. “The Guardian Ad Litem supports the Adoptionâ€

TRUTH:

The Family Court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GALâ€) who has filed a brief in this Court that purports to be on behalf of Baby Girl and asserts that Baby Girl’s interests would be best served by awarding custody to petitioners. In fact, the GAL is not a neutral party. Although appointed by the Family Court, that court noted that the GAL and her attorney both “were unilaterally selected by [petitioners’] counselâ€; the GAL had a continuing business relationship with petitioners’ attorney, with whom she had worked frequently in cases in 2009.

In this case, although the GAL had performed a comprehensive home study of petitioners, she resisted repeated requests from Father’s attorney to conduct a home study of Father. When the GAL finally did conduct such a study, well over a year after her appointment and some five months after counsel’s request, she informed Father and his family that “she knew the adoptive couple prior to the child being placed in their home†and “had worked with them before the child had been placedâ€; that petitioners were a well-educated couple with a beautiful home, could afford to send Baby Girl to any private school that they chose and, when she was older, to any college she wanted; and that there was nothing that Baby Girl needed that petitioners could not buy for her.

The GAL therefore told Father’s family that they “really need[ed] to get down on [their] knees and pray to God that [they] can make the right decision for this baby†(id. at 148), and they “needed to talk to God and pray about taking the child from the only family that she has known.†At trial, Father stated that the GAL treated him and his family as “a bunch of * * * rednecks that can’t * * * afford anything, that we’re not able to provide this child with proper education, schooling * * *. Pretty much that we weren’t fit to love this child and raise her.â€

The GAL’s initial report did not note Baby Girl’s Native American heritage because the GAL thought that was “not something * * * the courts need to take into consideration.†As for the GAL’s view of Native American culture, she stated that the advantages of having Native American heritage “include[ed] free lunches and free medical care and that they did have their little get togethers and their little dances.†Given the GAL’s obvious bias, respondents initially sought her removal.

But rather than delay the proceedings, respondents ultimately withdrew this motion on the understanding that the Family Court would not consider either the GAL’s conclusion regarding Baby Girl’s best interests or the GAL’s custody recommendation. See Pet. Indeed, South Carolina law precludes a guardian ad litem in a private adoption from providing a custody recommendation unless one is requested by the court; no such request was made here. – United States Supreme Court Brief by Father

 

[mommaduck]

The Governor of OK has decided that the legislative and judicial branches should remain separate. The SC governor is up for re-election and is feeding to the voters at the megachurch the C's attend and playing footsies with other politicians. My own adoption by my stepfather was handled in SC and it was also done underhandedly without opportunity for my biological father to contest the adoption. I was kept from siblings, a parent, grandparents, and a multitude of uncles, aunts, and cousins.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/StandingOurGroundForVeronicaBrown

 

We are petitioning the Whitehouse and we are also petitioning Oklahoma to run a full and complete investigation into the intended adoption and the lied and fraud, as well as jurisdictional issues, surrounding it.

 

This father has been fighting for his daughter from the beginning. He has obeyed gag orders...the C's have hired a PR firm and broken gag orders.

[Annie G]

Is the GAL usually a neutral party? I thought they were- but it doesn't appear so in this case.  Dear brother had a GAL appointed during the custody battle with his ex-wife and I thought the GAL was very fair and balanced. 

[mommaduck]

Another thing: Melanie C (though she goes by a different last name) is an attachment therapist. She should know above anyone else what kind of damage she would be doing to Veronica by taking her away. This leads me to one of two conclusions. She's either extremely narcissistic, entitled, and views Veronica as an object to be won or she intentionally wants her damaged so she can "rescue" her and/or look good to clients that may seek her services. The therapies can be very questionable to harmful from my understanding.

[mommaduck]

Is the GAL usually a neutral party? I thought they were- but not in this case! 

 

Exactly...everyone is in bed with everyone else here. Honestly, if it hadn't been so long since I've spoken with my aunt, I'd be calling her and asking her what the heck is going on at the Post&Courier. The one sided reporting here is phenomenol.

[mommaduck]

https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/13/sold-oklahoma-second-indian-infant-adopted-south-carolina-150856

 

Another OK child illegally placed with another SC couple.

[mommaduck]

They never should have taken her away from her adoptive parents in the first place, but now they are doing the same traumatic thing again!! The adoptive parents should realize that they are now going to be the cause of the same pain the bio dad caused on them - all at the expense of a little girl. One thing that irritates me is that the bio dad got custody because of some 'Native American law'. I don't care what nationality or color you are - there shouldn't have been an exception in the first place. He gave up his rights. Why can't their be joint custody in situations like this???

 

He offered joint custody as a way of ending this thing. They refused it. "Open adoption" is not legally recognized in most states and the adoptive parents can end it any time. He fought for her from the beginning. The entire time she was in the adoptive family's care. It's not "some native american law". It's a law that protects families from being torn apart, because that is what happened to Native American families for the past two centuries. We have members here whose parents were taken and placed in boarding schools, if I'm not mistaken.

[mommaduck]

https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/13/sold-oklahoma-second-indian-infant-adopted-south-carolina-150856

 

 

[Spryte]

https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/13/sold-oklahoma-second-indian-infant-adopted-south-carolina-150856

 

Another OK child illegally placed with another SC couple.

 

It's the same adoption attorney!  This is so unethical.  

[countrygal]

I don't know much about this case but there IS a federal law ruling over Native American Adoptions.  It is due to the fact that even just 50-60 years ago in our nation Native kids were being taken from their parents without cause other than that they were Native and adopted out.  My MIL was not adopted out but was removed from her parents and placed in a boarding school for several years when she was elementary age.  There are protections out there to prevent this from continuing to happen.

 

We adopted a NA son and girls that are part NA.

 

Oh that's terrible! I don't see that this case was like that, though, as the father originally gave up his rights willingly (so it seems according to the article.) It'd be different if he didn't know about her or couldn't find her and finally did sorta-thing.

[mommaduck]

Oh that's terrible! I don't see that this case was like that, though, as the father originally gave up his rights willingly (so it seems according to the article.) It'd be different if he didn't know about her or couldn't find her and finally did sorta-thing.

 

Signing custody papers before deployment is expected and necessary. Giving up parental rights is another thing. Please read up a few posts at the myths vs facts. I believe it's #1.

[Mergath]

Oh that's terrible! I don't see that this case was like that, though, as the father originally gave up his rights willingly (so it seems according to the article.) It'd be different if he didn't know about her or couldn't find her and finally did sorta-thing.

 

He didn't give up his rights.  He agreed to let the bio mom have custody.  There's a big difference between letting the mother of your child, who you've known for over a decade, raise your daughter, and letting your child go to complete strangers with the understanding that you'll never see her again.  As soon as he realized it was going to be the latter, he immediately contested the adoption.  Not to mention that the bio mom intentionally lied on the paperwork because she didn't want him to be notified about the adoption.

 

I don't know why people don't understand that.  I would never give up custody of my dd, but if I hypothetically did for some reason, there's a big difference between letting my husband raise her, and having her go to complete strangers and never getting to see her again.

[mommaduck]

OK seems to have a very good Governor. Maybe I should move...I have siblings in OK also :P

[Murphy101]

Is the GAL usually a neutral party? I thought they were- but it doesn't appear so in this case.  Dear brother had a GAL appointed during the custody battle with his ex-wife and I thought the GAL was very fair and balanced.

 

Well I'm going to get all spit faced angry kitten here and say I don't give a damn if she is "neutral" or not, her remarks are bigoted elitist BS stamped in blasphemy and she should lose her license to practice, much less represent a government body if she is one, that unprofessional and two, stupid enough to actually say such sentiments.

 

Btw. The father was arrested for refusing the order today. I don't blame him. I'd fight my baby being sold and kidnapped too.

[Murphy101]

Oh that's terrible! I don't see that this case was like that, though, as the father originally gave up his rights willingly (so it seems according to the article.) It'd be different if he didn't know about her or couldn't find her and finally did sorta-thing.

He did not give up his rights. He was being deployed. When being deployed, it is standard to make sure there is no question who should have custody of your child while you are gone.

 

Just like if someone being deployed signs power of attorney to their wife so she can handle financial and other matters while they are gone, it does not mean they also sign away the right to access their own bank accounts or property.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He didn't give up his rights. He agreed to let the bio mom have custody. There's a big difference between letting the mother of your child, who you've known for over a decade, raise your daughter, and letting your child go to complete strangers with the understanding that you'll never see her again. As soon as he realized it was going to be the latter, he immediately contested the adoption. Not to mention that the bio mom intentionally lied on the paperwork because she didn't want him to be notified about the adoption.

 

I don't know why people don't understand that. I would never give up custody of my dd, but if I hypothetically did for some reason, there's a big difference between letting my husband raise her, and having her go to complete strangers and never getting to see her again.

No, he was not just giving custody to the mom. He was signing away his rights and obligations.

[Mergath]

No, he was not just giving custody to the mom. He was signing away his rights and obligations.

 

Only according to the Capobiancos and their team of publicists and attorneys.  And I'm sure they'd never lie about that, right?

[mommaduck]

Father was not made aware of the

Mother’s intent to adopt out Veronica

until four months after her birth.

Father signed an “Acceptance of Ser

-

vice and Answer of Defendant†which

was not a lawful “waiver†of his rights.

After signing, Father realized that the

paper did not relinquish his rights to

the mother but instead to potential

adoptive parents and immediately at

-

tempted to retrieve it.

Father sought the advice of a JAG

attorney. Five days later, he requested

a stay of the adoption. Eight days

later, he filed official documentation to

establish paternity, child custody, and

support of Veronica.

“...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 adop

-

tion by another family until after he signed the

papers. Upon realizing that Mother had relin

-

quished 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.’â€

After consulting with his parents and a JAG

lawyer at his base, Father contacted a civilian

lawyer the next day, and on January 11, 2010,

he requested a stay of the adoption proceedings

under the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act. On

January 14, 2010, Father filed a summons and

complaint in an Oklahoma district court to estab

-

lish paternity, child custody, and support of Baby

Girl.†(SC Supreme Court Decision, p. 6)

 

http://www.nicwa.org/babyveronica/documents/SCOTUS%20fact%20check_Apr4.pdf

[countrygal]

 Some 'Native American law'.  At the risk of being slapped on the wrist here, you really need to read a bit about the reasons behind this federal law, because your statement says so much...

 

The original article didn't specify what type of law and I'm thankful someone explained it as I wasn't aware of it. I haven't heard this story before. I understood it as the child was taken away from her adoptive parents simply because she was Native American and because her father changed his mind he was able to get her back just because of her nationality. It made it sound like adoptive parents rights aren't final ever just because of her ethnicity, nor did it state that her father was always trying to get custody of her from the beginning.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Only according to the Capobiancos and their team of publicists and attorneys. And I'm sure they'd never lie about that, right?

No, he was definitely signing rights away. He (supposedly) thought he was just signing them over to the mom. It wasn't just custody.

[mommaduck]

The original article didn't specify what type of law and I'm thankful someone explained it as I wasn't aware of it. I haven't heard this story before. I understood it as the child was taken away from her adoptive parents simply because she was Native American and because her father changed his mind he was able to get her back just because of her nationality. It made it sound like adoptive parents rights aren't final ever just because of her ethnicity, nor did it state that her father was always trying to get custody of her from the beginning.

 

No, she wasn't taken because she was Native American, but he did use two portions of that law to gain his daughter. She is a member of Cherokee Nation and because of that, adoption outside of the tribe is not permitted UNLESS there is NO FAMILY or OTHER MEMBER OF THE TRIBE that wants her. It all has to go through the tribe first. The mother lied about this issue and gave misinformation when filling out papers in an attempt to circumvent the law.

 

Based upon certain personal information I was told tonight about the C's, I really, really pray they never regain custody of her again.

[Mergath]

No, he was definitely signing rights away. He (supposedly) thought he was just signing them over to the mom. It wasn't just custody.

 

I'd suggest reading the info already posted, as it discusses this.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'd suggest reading the info already posted, as it discusses this.

I have followed the case closely and he was signing rights away. Whether that was his intention is another matter.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't understand how the federal law cannot apply, even if the father did give up his rights. He CANNOT sign away the rights of the tribe. I'm really fairly shocked at that outcome.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, she wasn't taken because she was Native American, but he did use two portions of that law to gain his daughter. She is a member of Cherokee Nation and because of that, adoption outside of the tribe is not permitted UNLESS there is NO FAMILY or OTHER MEMBER OF THE TRIBE that wants her. It all has to go through the tribe first. The mother lied about this issue and gave misinformation when filling out papers in an attempt to circumvent the law.

 

Based upon certain personal information I was told tonight about the C's, I really, really pray they never regain custody of her again.

Eh, smearing the adoptive family doesn't get you far when the father was willing to not provide support as long as he thought the girl would be staying with the mom. He isn't exactly a winner either.

 

The intention of the law in question was to prevent the removal of NA children by social services. Giving tribes veto authority in all adoptions involving NA children was a massive mistake.

[Mrs Mungo]

Eh, smearing the adoptive family doesn't get you far when the father was willing to not provide support as long as he thought the girl would be staying with the mom. He isn't exactly a winner either.

 

The intention of the law in question was to prevent the removal of NA children by social services. Giving tribes veto authority in all adoptions involving NA children was a massive mistake.

 

Disagree with the intention. In Oklahoma (where the tribe from) children were being "adopted" (actually stolen from their parents) so that the "adopted parents" could steal the mineral rights from the child's portion of lands, then the children were dumped in boarding schools. I personally know older adults who were stolen in this manner. Children were instructed to RUN and HIDE when they saw white people anywhere near tribal lands. It's also why when children are adopted out of a tribe in Oklahoma, then they lose their mineral rights which revert back to their natural parent(s). It is a VERY big and well known issue to people from Oklahoma (especially Native Americans from Oklahoma). 

[Danestress]

I don't understand how the federal law cannot apply, even if the father did give up his rights. He CANNOT sign away the rights of the tribe. I'm really fairly shocked at that outcome.

 

 

The opinion is available here http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-399#writing-12-399_OPINION_3.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Disagree with the intention. In Oklahoma (where the tribe from) children were being "adopted" (actually stolen from their parents) so that the "adopted parents" could steal the mineral rights from the child's portion of lands, then the children were dumped in boarding schools. I personally know older adults who were stolen in this manner. Children were instructed to RUN and HIDE when they saw white people anywhere near tribal lands. It's also why when children are adopted out of a tribe in Oklahoma, then they lose their mineral rights which revert back to their natural parent(s). It is a VERY big and well known issue to people from Oklahoma (especially Native Americans from Oklahoma).

The testimony before Congress in 1978 focused on the actions of social workers and government agencies, so no, I don't believe the federal law was significantly influenced by what you describe.