Baby Veronica

[Mrs Mungo]

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

 

Quote from the decision (bolding mine):

 

 

Congress found that “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families [were being] broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies.â€

 

So, a law that was designed to protect children from being taken away from unwilling tribal families by public AND PRIVATE agencies is now interpreted to only have meant to apply to social agencies? That makes ZERO sense.

 

 

a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families

 

They weren't given these options because the mother intentionally circumvented them in exchange for a payday from the adoptive parents. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A private agency cannot force a removal, so yeah, it does.

[Mrs Mungo]

A private agency cannot force a removal, so yeah, it does.

 

Except that private agency is specifically listed, and it was a private agency that 1) screwed up (intentionally or otherwise) the paperwork that led to tribal agencies not finding the father in tribal databases and 2) has forced this child away from the tribe. 

[mommaduck]

If I wanted to smear them, I would delve into details. Since the details are not out there, I'm keeping them to myself. I'm entitled to my opinion...based upon what I know, both public and private information, I'm glad they do not have her and pray they do not ever have her again.

[Ameena]

The whole thing reeks of the adoptive parents basiclaly have bought the child & bought the court case. The judge scheduled visitation with the adoptive parents for WHEN THE DAD WAS IN NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING for pete's sake, and then held the dad in contempt & ordered for immediate transfer to the adoptive parents for the bio-dad not showing up when he had already notified the court he could not.

 

It was also pointed out in another article I read, that NONE of the typical adoptive stuff has been done - no home study, no screening on the adoptive parents, NOTHING. Oklahoma requires quite a bit to adopt a child and none of it was done. So while the South Carolina court has ordered the child be given to the adoptive parents, Oklahoma pretty much can say NOPE because of XYZ and deny the SC ruling on the basis of the child lives in OK.

 

I really hope both for the little girl's sake and her father's, that somehow they are able to stay together. Even if it means he has to run with her to somewhere that won't enforce the SC court's ruling {like Mexico or perhaps the Navajo Nation}. I wouldn't want my kid anywhere near the adoptive family - they seem cold & heartless snobs.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Except that private agency is specifically listed, and it was a private agency that 1) screwed up (intentionally or otherwise) the paperwork that led to tribal agencies not finding the father in tribal databases and 2) has forced this child away from the tribe.

A private agency has no legal authority to remove a child.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If I wanted to smear them, I would delve into details. Since the details are not out there, I'm keeping them to myself. I'm entitled to my opinion...based upon what I know, both public and private information, I'm glad they do not have her and pray they do not ever have her again.

It is probably best considering you don't know what is or isn't true. Bread crumbling about how awful they are is pretty pathetic though.

[beaners]

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.

 

Don't other sovereign nations have the right to decide whether or not to allow their children to be adopted?

[LaCEmom]

This case got a lot of news coverage where we used to live. I haven't followed it too closely but from what I understand there isn't anybody who was innocent in this whole ordeal other than Baby Veronica. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that:

 

- The father had never even seen the baby when he signed the papers signing away his rights

- He never provided or even attempted to provide financial support to the bio mother during the pregnancy or for the baby after she was born. (The text message incident mentioned in post #24 is where he texted the bio mom that he'd rather terminate his parental rights than pay child support.)

- It was only after he learned that his ex was also terminating her parental rights and giving the baby up for adoption that he filed suit and asserted his parental rights.

 

Honestly I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case. I want to feel sorry for the bio father and it does sound like the bio mom was sneaky in trying to get him to terminate his parental rights and then turning around and giving the baby up for adoption, but at the same time if the bio dad was perfectly fine with letting the bio mom raise the child 100% solo without him in the picture AT ALL (either physically or financially) then is it really SO outrageous for the bio mom to be free to make what she thought was the best decision for her baby and put the child up for adoption? I'm not so sure.

 

At this point after all the little girl's been through, I'm not saying that the bio dad shouldn't get custody, but I don't buy the "He's been fighting for his daughter all along" line either.

[Mrs Mungo]

The whole thing reeks of the adoptive parents basiclaly have bought the child & bought the court case. The judge scheduled visitation with the adoptive parents for WHEN THE DAD WAS IN NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING for pete's sake, and then held the dad in contempt & ordered for immediate transfer to the adoptive parents for the bio-dad not showing up when he had already notified the court he could not.

 

It was also pointed out in another article I read, that NONE of the typical adoptive stuff has been done - no home study, no screening on the adoptive parents, NOTHING. Oklahoma requires quite a bit to adopt a child and none of it was done. So while the South Carolina court has ordered the child be given to the adoptive parents, Oklahoma pretty much can say NOPE because of XYZ and deny the SC ruling on the basis of the child lives in OK.

 

I really hope both for the little girl's sake and her father's, that somehow they are able to stay together. Even if it means he has to run with her to somewhere that won't enforce the SC court's ruling {like Mexico or perhaps the Navajo Nation}. I wouldn't want my kid anywhere near the adoptive family - they seem cold & heartless snobs.

 

He wouldn't have to go so far as the Navajos. He could stay with the Cherokee in Oklahoma or even the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, if the Cherokee don't want to be involved (but the Cherokee Court is already involved).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Don't other sovereign nations have the right to decide whether or not to allow their children to be adopted?

They aren't really sovereign nations and we should quit treating them as such. Giving tribes the authority to trump decisions made by the biological parents was a mistake, and the USSC decision is a step towards rectifying that error.

[mommaduck]

It is probably best considering you don't know what is or isn't true. Bread crumbling about how awful they are is pretty pathetic though.

 

Since you don't know me or who I know, you may want to be careful about making that assumption. Also, I didn't say they were awful. I said I hope they never get her back. I did not say why.

[Mrs Mungo]

They aren't really sovereign nations and we should quit treating them as such. Giving tribes the authority to trump decisions made by the biological parents was a mistake, and the USSC decision is a step towards rectifying that error.

 

Really? Because we have treaties that say that we are. I guess the US government likes being sued. My tribe has beat them in the SCOTUS and/or via settlement 3 times in recent history over treaty violations. 

[mommaduck]

Really? Because we have treaties that say that we are. I guess the US government likes being sued. My tribe has beat them in the SCOTUS and/or via settlement 3 times in recent history over treaty violations. 

 

I don't get people that think that all treaties should suddenly be null and void. It makes me wonder how they truly feel about the attrocities of the past :(

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Really? Because we have treaties that say that we are. I guess the US government likes being sued. My tribe has beat them in the SCOTUS and/or via settlement 3 times in recent history over treaty violations.

Actually you don't. You have domestic sovereign status which is quite different than being a sovereign nation.

Being able to sue the government doesn't mean you are a sovereign nation.

[NatashainDFW]

They aren't really sovereign nations and we should quit treating them as such. Giving tribes the authority to trump decisions made by the biological parents was a mistake, and the USSC decision is a step towards rectifying that error.

 

From what I understand if BOTH parents agree to the adoption then the tribe approves of it but in this case both parents did not agree to the adoption. I am sorry but the bio mom is a piece of work. She didn't even tell him his daughter was born!

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't get people that think that all treaties should suddenly be null and void. It makes me wonder how they truly feel about the attrocities of the past :(

 

1) Plenty of people really have no understanding of a lot of it. That has been proven here time and again. 2) They think it's ancient history. They don't realize there are people carrying living memories of some of these actions, much like the Holocaust.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually you don't. You have domestic sovereign status which is quite different than being a sovereign nation.

Being able to sue the government doesn't mean you are a sovereign nation.

 

http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/

 

What is the legal status of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes? 

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, with the authority to engage in relations with the tribes, thereby firmly placing tribes within the constitutional fabric of our nation. When the governmental authority of tribes was first challenged in the 1830's, U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the fundamental principle that has guided the evolution of federal Indian law to the present: That tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government.

 

 

However, as the foreign powers’ presence expanded and with the establishment and growth of the United States, tribal populations dropped dramatically and tribal sovereignty gradually eroded.  While tribal sovereignty is limited today by the United States under treaties, acts of Congress, Executive Orders, federal administrative agreements and court decisions, what remains is nevertheless protected and maintained by the federally recognized tribes against further encroachment by other sovereigns, such as the states.  Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions about the tribes with regard to their property and citizens are made with their participation and consent.

[FaithManor]

They aren't really sovereign nations and we should quit treating them as such. Giving tribes the authority to trump decisions made by the biological parents was a mistake, and the USSC decision is a step towards rectifying that error.

You are incorrect. I refer you to the following document.

 

http://www.namsinc.org/pdf/Soverign%20nation%20white%20paper%202.pdf

 

The tribe has sovereignty..full sovereignty.

 

The problem in these types of cases is that the child actually has dual citizenship status. The child is a citizen of the sovereign Cherokee Nation, and they absolutely have the right to control the adoptive process of the children of their citizens. The child is also a U.S. citizen. Like any disrupted adoption process between two sovereign nations, it's sticky.

 

The bottom line is the U.S. court, once again, has trampled all over the rights of a Native American nation.

 

Regardless of whether or not the adoptive family is upstanding, and victimized, the reality is the dad got fleeced, and the tribe was equally violated. The adoption attorney, the agency, they ALL were accomplices and did not follow the law, period. Whether or not the dad is an upright person may be questionable, but the tribe should have been given the opportunity to investigate and place the child with an NA family if the dad did not want custody.

 

Lots of laws and protocols broken here. Lots of sneakiness...and the only person who pays a high price is an innocent little girl.

 

We have family living in S.C. who have done foster care, and have had two disrupted adoptions (not disrupted on their end by the way) in that state, and they maintain that the process is HIGHLY corrupt and side with Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation. Knowing what they have gone through, I guess I can say that it jades my view of S.C. courts and social services in this case.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/

 

 

Thank you.  That is domestic sovereign status, but does not mean they are sovereign nations.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You are incorrect. I refer you to the following document.

 

http://www.namsinc.org/pdf/Soverign%20nation%20white%20paper%202.pdf

 

The tribe has sovereignty..full sovereignty.

 

The problem in these types of cases is that the child actually has dual citizenship status. The child is a citizen of the sovereign Cherokee Nation, and they absolutely have the right to control the adoptive process of the children of their citizens. The child is also a U.S. citizen. Like any disrupted adoption process between two sovereign nations, it's sticky.

 

The bottom line is the U.S. court, once again, has trampled all over the rights of a Native American nation.

 

Regardless of whether or not the adoptive family is upstanding, and victimized, the reality is the dad got fleeced, and the tribe was equally violated. The adoption attorney, the agency, they ALL were accomplices and did not follow the law, period. Whether or not the dad is an upright person may be questionable, but the tribe should have been given the opportunity to investigate and place the child with an NA family if the dad did not want custody.

 

Lots of laws and protocols broken here. Lots of sneakiness...and the only person who pays a high price is an innocent little girl.

 

We have family living in S.C. who have done foster care, and have had two disrupted adoptions (not disrupted on their end by the way) in that state, and they maintain that the process is HIGHLY corrupt and side with Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation. Knowing what they have gone through, I guess I can say that it jades my view of S.C. courts and social services in this case.

 

 

You are simply wrong.  Tribal membership is not equivalent to citizenship in a nation.

Tribes are treated on a government to government basis in the same way that local governments are treated, although tribes have more limited rights than local governments (example: tribes are limited in how they can place non-NAs on trial if they commit a crime on tribal lands, while a true local government does not face the same restriction).

 

 

 

[Murphy101]

Humph.

 

Native tribes are sovereign nations in Oklahoma.

 

Until a bunch of wealthy white folks disagree with them or what something from them.

 

Then of course they are just sorta screwed. :/

 

I have no sympathy for the adoptive couple at all and hope they lose their case.

 

I don't think the bio dad is some stellar guy. He doesn't have to be. He is Cherokee and the adoption was screwy from start to not ever really finish and he isn't a dead beat, so yes, poor native American idiot or not, he should get to keep his own daughter.

 

And I feel for him because there is really no way he could have forced himself into the bio mom's life without ending up a bad guy. Piss her off while pregnant - she aborts his baby. Harass her afterwards and she can file a restraining order and claim he stalked her and so forth. There is really no win for a guy whose ex decided to shut him out of the birth and baby. He tried repeatedly to maintain contact and to send gifts or support and hoped that when his deployment was done, they would have time to repair their relationship. That isn't neglecting his kid. Being in the military requires trusting the people raising your kid aren't going to sell them while you are gone and then call you a deadbeat for not being home to stop it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Lol. No, they are not sovereign "nations". Please look up the definition.

 

FTR, I think the father should have won the case without the ICPA, but I do question a lot of his behavior, and his willingness to let the mother bear the entire burden financially helped create this situation.

 

Also, his deployment wasn't until over 4 months after the birth. There was a lot he could have done to protect his rights and he would not have needed to harass the mother.

[Supertechmom]

SC is just a big ole good ole boy network. He's out of the network..... Non white, non old money, non proper social status, non historical SC roots......... he was screwed from the start and the adoptive couple are just a$$hats. They irk me everytime they pop up on my FB feed with the Save Veronica BS and on the news yet again.

 

Baby buying and baby stealing is alive and well in this state. fathers have no rights and the courts barely recognize them. That is slowly changing but basically the woman controls everything and you are out of luck if you are on her bad side. Any couple who can pay medical and throw in some"extras "(20,000 seems to be a popular figure) can buy a newborn. It is disgusting. To the point that I wish they would make all adoptions illegal unless they are through DSS. not a better solution but at least birth moms wouldn't get to leave the father off the birth certificate and sell the baby before he knows one was born. baby selling would stop and adoptive parents would be forced to deal with the state.( who apparently take their sweet time and have one regulation after another after another after another- reason why private adoption is a quicker route, leave the father off the certificate, conceal the birth from him, and the baby can be adopted and out of the state before 48 hours old.). A high school friend did that. the birth father's mom threw a fit. She would have taken the child herself but didn't find out until a couple of weeks after the birth. Something needs to change.

[LaCEmom]

I do question a lot of his behavior, and his willingness to let the mother bear the entire burden financially helped create this situation.

 

Also, his deployment wasn't until over 4 months after the birth. There was a lot he could have done to protect his rights and he would not have needed to harass the mother.

See, this is my thinking too. And I do consider the bio father to have been a dead beat dad for those first 4 months. FWIW my DH is in the military and was involved in a very, very, VERY messy custody battle over an infant daughter whom he'd had minimal contact with (due 100% to him serving his country in my DHs case, not 4 months later like in this case) so I'm aware of some of the military complications, but I fail to see how ANY of them are relevant here! If the bio father had wanted to be a part of his daughters life he absolutely had options available to him before he signed those papers. And he didn't sign over his rights because he was deploying and wanted to make sure his daughter was taken care of, he signed those documents in return for a child support waiver! Several other posts here have mentioned the bio mom accepting money for signing over her legal rights and called it selling the baby, well imo the bio father did the same darn thing. He signed over his rights for money. That just disgusts me.

 

And then to come back with the ICWA, and claim that he should be able to get custody back because he's of NA decent and those procedures weren't followed (which is true!) but no average guy would have had those protections. Someone not of NA decent couldn't have neglected their child the way he did, signed over parental rights in exchange for not having to pay child support and then pull out the ICWA to make everything better. Using that and his military service just seem like ploys he's using in an attempt to make up for his past mistakes.

 

All that being said, I don't necessarily believe that the bio father should lose custody of his daughter now that he's had a chance to form a relationship with her and prove himself as a loving father. I still don't particularly like the guy, but he's obviously stepped up to the plate since he made his original mistakes. It's a shame that he signed those papers originally and shirked his responsibilities....and blessings.

[Cera]

Just give the two parties joint custody and leave the kid alone.  She is the one getting screwed in this, either way at this point.  

 

Millions of kids go back and forth between two families.  The adoptive family has a ton of money and resources and wants to spoil her, great.  The father loves her and wants to raise her, great.  Sounds to me like she would benefit from a relationship with both if they can act like adults and share (which is a terrible to say but really what they need to do).

[Murphy101]

The father offered joint custody and the adoptive family refused. At this point I don't think it work anyways.

[kahlanne]

Got a question for those in the know. Say the parents wants to adopt out their  NA baby because they can't give her the life she deserves but they want it done legally. First the NA council has to clear it, correct? They must attempt to find a NA to adopt child, correct? What if the parents don't wish for the child to be raised in that culture preferring it to grow up in "normal white" society? Do they have this choice? I am not saying it is better, just asking. What if the white couple willing to adopt the child can give her a much better life than the life that the NA couple the council chose. Can they then decide for the white couple? I know in private adoptions you typically get to choose the adoptive couple, correct? I am not saying I agree or disagree with the law, I just want to understand it more. I am fascinated. I realize the law was once extremely necessary. I only wonder how much does it hurt or help in today's time.

[Mom0012]

I think the biggest mistake that was made here for this poor child was returning her to a father that had signed her away and didn't want to support her financially or otherwise prior to all appeals being made. Keeping her with the family that raised her until all appeals had been made seems as though it would have been in this little girl's best interest and saved her much suffering. It is a shame the court's can't expedite cases like this that involve the custody of a child as well.

 

I do know about the injustices committed against the NA's and was shocked when I learned that they were not so long ago. But, to me, it sounds pretty sad to rip a 27 month old from the only home she's ever known because she is 1.2% NA. At a minimum, it shouldn't have happened until the Supreme Court made their decision.

[Scarlett]

I think the biggest mistake that was made here for this poor child was returning her to a father that had signed her away and didn't want to support her financially or otherwise prior to all appeals being made. Keeping her with the family that raised her until all appeals had been made seems as though it would have been in this little girl's best interest and saved her much suffering. It is a shame the court's can't expedite cases like this that involve the custody of a child as well.

 

I do know about the injustices committed against the NA's and was shocked when I learned that they were not so long ago. But, to me, it sounds pretty sad to rip a 27 month old from the only home she's ever known because she is 1.2% NA. At a minimum, it shouldn't have happened until the Supreme Court made their decision.

I think the biggest mistake was made when the baby was 4 months old and he made it clear he would not agree to let her be adopted!

 

As a side question....whatever happened to parents being allowed to change their mind on adoptions with in 6 months?

[Scarlett]

Another question....I thought a father was not allowed to relinquish parental rights (voluntarily for instance to get out of cs) unless there was another man willing to adopt. Is that correct?

[itsheresomewhere]

Another question....I thought a father was not allowed to relinquish parental rights (voluntarily for instance to get out of cs) unless there was another man willing to adopt. Is that correct?

 

I believe that is depends on the state.  

[Danestress]

Another question....I thought a father was not allowed to relinquish parental rights (voluntarily for instance to get out of cs) unless there was another man willing to adopt. Is that correct?

State law varies, but I believe the court held that he hasn't legally relinquished rights. He had just told birth mom via text that he did, but that doesn't make it legally binding. That is one of the things that complicated the case.

[Murphy101]

State law varies, but I believe the court held that he hasn't legally relinquished rights. He had just told birth mom via text that he did, but that doesn't make it legally binding. That is one of the things that complicated the case.

Actually it never complicated the case. The adoptive parents used it stupidly to try to get media pity.

 

In no state ever can a parent text they give up any right and have it legally binding. And they never presented the full text. Just a photo copy of the part they wanted to use do even if it could be used, there's no context to base the decision on.

 

I agree with scarlet. They never from the start the father was NA and would fight this. The mistake was trying to force a parent to give up their child. The little girl should never have lived with them at all.

[melmichigan]

From the NICWA.

 

it is important to note that the Supreme Court held that ICWA’s adoption placement preferences—which require that children who are adopted are placed with family, tribal members, or another Indian family (the “preferred placementsâ€) before other possible placements—do not come into play until a preferred placement actively seeks to adopt the child. As emphasized by some of the Justices, this means that even if the South Carolina court does not place Veronica with her father, their custody determination may be affected if one of Veronica’s family members or a Cherokee Nation citizen files to adopt Veronica. On July 8, 2013 Brown, Veronica’s stepmother, and Veronica’s paternal grandparents filed to adopt Veronica.

 

 

 

So now it's gone to a civil rights suit?  

 

How can they rule that the father guilty of custodial interference if they knew since January that he would be in Iowa with the National Guard?  

 

There is an awful lot of this case that I just cannot understand.

 

[MomtoCandJ]

All I have to say is, poor baby.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually it never complicated the case. The adoptive parents used it stupidly to try to get media pity.

 

In no state ever can a parent text they give up any right and have it legally binding. And they never presented the full text. Just a photo copy of the part they wanted to use do even if it could be used, there's no context to base the decision on.

 

I agree with scarlet. They never from the start the father was NA and would fight this. The mistake was trying to force a parent to give up their child. The little girl should never have lived with them at all.

 

He also signed a document relinquishing rights, and then asked to have it revoked.  Combined with the lack of support, then yes, it was likely a court would rule against him.

[Spryte]

As a side question....whatever happened to parents being allowed to change their mind on adoptions with in 6 months?

 

That would depend on state law.  Different states = different laws regarding time to change minds once papers are signed.  

 

(Or are you saying that there is a law to that effect re: this case?) 

[Lynnae]

That would depend on state law.  Different states = different laws regarding time to change minds once papers are signed.  

 

(Or are you saying that there is a law to that effect re: this case?) 

What I read (and I forget where....I've read so much) is that the document he signed that relinquished his rights also stated that he waived his right to the 30 day period to change his mind.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this case.

 

Morally, the bio-mom should have told the dad about the adoption, but legally, she wasn't required to. She also should have made sure her lawyer followed up with the Cherokee nation after realizing bio-dad's name was misspelled.

 

Morally, the bio-dad should have provided support and registered with the state as the father if he was really interested in being involved in her life. He also should have had legal counsel look at the paper he signed, giving away his rights. Legally, he gave up his rights, and if he wasn't a member of the Cherokee nation, baby Veronica's adoption would have been finalized two years ago. The law in many states is not favorable to birth fathers who are uninvolved during pregnancy and early infancy. 

 

Morally, the adoptive couple really needs to think about the effects of moving Veronica again. That's probably not going to end well. They also should have triple checked that the father was not a registered member of the Cherokee Nation before checking the box "Hispanic" on the adoption form.

 

A lot of people dropped the ball, and I'm having trouble finding sympathy for any of them. I do, however, really feel for Baby Veronica, who is going to have to bear the brunt of the stupidity of all the adults involved for the rest of her life.

[Scarlett]

That would depend on state law. Different states = different laws regarding time to change minds once papers are signed.

 

 

 

(Or are you saying that there is a law to that effect re: this case?)

I probably watched one too many lifetime movies but I thought birth parents had 6 months to change their minds.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

A lot of people dropped the ball, and I'm having trouble finding sympathy for any of them. I do, however, really feel for Baby Veronica, who is going to have to bear the brunt of the stupidity of all the adults involved for the rest of her life.

 

Your whole post was spot on but the last line sums this all up very well.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I probably watched one too many lifetime movies but I thought birth parents had 6 months to change their minds.

 

The length of time to finalize an adoption is 6 months, but generally the time frame a birth parent has to revoke consent is 3-30 days unless fraud can be proven (which generally happens more often with birth fathers).

[Scarlett]

What I read (and I forget where....I've read so much) is that the document he signed that relinquished his rights also stated that he waived his right to the 30 day period to change his mind.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this case.

 

Morally, the bio-mom should have told the dad about the adoption, but legally, she wasn't required to. She also should have made sure her lawyer followed up with the Cherokee nation after realizing bio-dad's name was misspelled.

 

Morally, the bio-dad should have provided support and registered with the state as the father if he was really interested in being involved in her life. He also should have had legal counsel look at the paper he signed, giving away his rights. Legally, he gave up his rights, and if he wasn't a member of the Cherokee nation, baby Veronica's adoption would have been finalized two years ago. The law in many states is not favorable to birth fathers who are uninvolved during pregnancy and early infancy.

 

Morally, the adoptive couple really needs to think about the effects of moving Veronica again. That's probably not going to end well. They also should have triple checked that the father was not a registered member of the Cherokee Nation before checking the box "Hispanic" on the adoption form.

 

A lot of people dropped the ball, and I'm having trouble finding sympathy for any of them. I do, however, really feel for Baby Veronica, who is going to have to bear the brunt of the stupidity of all the adults involved for the rest of her life.

But what about the repeated attempts he made to connect with the bio mom before the baby's birth? Remember he had a very long relationship with this woman and he had no reason to believe she would give their baby away. Agreeing to let her have custody or even sign away his rights to her is COMPLETELY different to me than agreeing to give her up for adoption to strangers in a far away state. He isn't a perfect man for sure....but he did not deserve that sort of underhanded treatment.

 

Also he clearly felt it was completely different because as soon as he realized what she was planning WRT the adoption (when Veronica was 4 months old and he was under military lock down about to be deployed) he immediately began proceedings to stop it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But what about the repeated attempts he made to connect with the bio mom before the baby's birth? Remember he had a very long relationship with this woman and he had no reason to believe she would give their baby away. Agreeing to let her have custody or even sign away his rights to her is COMPLETELY different to me than agreeing to give her up for adoption to strangers in a far away state. He isn't a perfect man for sure....but he did not deserve that sort of underhanded treatment.

 

Also he clearly felt it was completely different because as soon as he realized what she was planning WRT the adoption (when Veronica was 4 months old and he was under military lock down about to be deployed) he immediately began proceedings to stop it.

 

Yeah, except that he was signing away his rights so he didn't have to pay support.  So basically as long as mom was paying the freight for the kid and he thought he could pop in as he chose he was okay with giving up his rights.

[Scarlett]

Yeah, except that he was signing away his rights so he didn't have to pay support. So basically as long as mom was paying the freight for the kid and he thought he could pop in as he chose he was okay with giving up his rights.

Maybe. Hard to say at this point. But if he was really only concerned about not spending money on this baby he would have signed the papers for the adoption before he was deployed. I am just thinking that if he was the deadbeat dad many want to paint him that would have been the easiest thing in the world to do...instead he launched a legal fight that had to be initially carried out while was in Iraq.

[Miss Peregrine]

This is all interesting to me because we adopted a NA child with his tribe's blessing. The parent's rights were not terminated at adoption. The way the tribe presented it was,, and it says in our adoption order, that they believe the link between parent and child and his heritage can never be broken , therefore terminating parental rights can not be done.

 

I wonder if this has been brought up in this case.

[cajunrose]

Like Scarlett, I live in the area this is happening in Oklahoma...I am tending to side with the bio dad but saw an article in which the bio mom was interviewed...painting the bio dad in a horrible light. At this point, I think there are 4 stories here, the bio mom's, the bio dad's, the adoptive parents and the truth. It's really hard to know what side to believe because they all have such different stories.

 

The one that is hurting the most is Veronica.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the reason he didn't fight before deployment is that he wasn't in a place to care for her. He knew he was deploying. If he took her, then he would have needed a family care plan in place and all sorts of complicated legal stuff would have kicked in on the military side.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe. Hard to say at this point. But if he was really only concerned about not spending money on this baby he would have signed the papers for the adoption before he was deployed. I am just thinking that if he was the deadbeat dad many want to paint him that would have been the easiest thing in the world to do...instead he launched a legal fight that had to be initially carried out while was in Iraq.

 

It's not that hard to say.  He was definitely trying to avoid paying support.  He also dd sign his rights away, however he claims he thought he was just giving all rights to the mother.  I tend to believe him, but I don't think well of a father trying to avoid paying for his child.

[Murphy101]

Like Scarlett, I live in the area this is happening in Oklahoma...I am tending to side with the bio dad but saw an article in which the bio mom was interviewed...painting the bio dad in a horrible light. At this point, I think there are 4 stories here, the bio mom's, the bio dad's, the adoptive parents and the truth. It's really hard to know what side to believe because they all have such different stories.

 

The one that is hurting the most is Veronica.

I have zero respect for the bio mom. Whatever she might be saying now, even in court she admitted he was a decent father to his other children. So from that, I don't think she had any valid reason to be such a whatsit about his paternity rights.

 

I don't understand why people are calling him a deadbeat who didn't provide support. Fathers have zero rights before the birth. She could have aborted and never told him about it or just told him afterwards just to rub it in. She did not inform of the baby's birth. She didn't contact him or allow him to contact her and refused any gifts or offers of financial support. The bio father has gone nearly bankrupt fighting for his daughter at his own expense. That doesn't sound like a deadbeat to me who just didn't want to financially support his daughter.