Baby Veronica

[mommaduck]

I agree. It's disgusting. How are they going to explain to her that the reason she's adopted is because they fought to keep her away from her father who desperately wanted and loved her and was completely able to take care of her?

 

They won't be able to. Nothing is kept secret in this area. Everyone knows someone else. Honestly, I would not be surprised if they either pick up and leave or become super isolated.

 

[TeenagerMom]

I can't even fathom this. I am devastated.  Her grandfather apparently had a heart attack at the handover also and didn't get to say goodbye to her. I can only pray in my heart of hearts that these people realize the devastation they have caused and that it doesn't one day come back to bite them in the butt in the form of a screwed up, angry teenager who feels like her identity was ripped away from her.

[Kathryn]

THis makes me so angry. My 4yo turned 4 the same day she did. I cannot imagine having to hand him over to these people.

[Spryte]

Heartbreaking. She must feel so lost. :(

[BYE]

I totally disagree. This couple obviously loves and adores her. They raised her for the first two years of her life. What kind of parents would walk away from their daughter because of someone elses opinion? I think it's high time that people let this couple be the parents they have fought desperately to be. I would have done the same thing they did. And for those suggesting that she's doomed to be resentful are just being hateful. If they did their job well in those first 2 years then they hopefully laid a good foundation for her to form attachments. And if she is forming attachments she will be ok.

[Joker]

I totally disagree. This couple obviously loves and adores her. They raised her for the first two years of her life. What kind of parents would walk away from their daughter because of someone elses opinion? I think it's high time that people let this couple be the parents they have fought desperately to be. I would have done the same thing they did. And for those suggesting that she's doomed to be resentful are just being hateful. If they did their job well in those first 2 years then they hopefully laid a good foundation for her to form attachments. And if she is forming attachments she will be ok.

 

Her biological father has had for her two years as well. So, I'm assuming you believe he shouldn't walk away either. Everything I have read says he tried to work out a compromise so both families could see her, but the other side was not willing. He seems to be the only one that right now has her best interests at heart.

 

As far as attachments, do you not believe in the last two years she has also formed attachments to her biological father?

[Scarlett]

I totally disagree. This couple obviously loves and adores her. They raised her for the first two years of her life. What kind of parents would walk away from their daughter because of someone elses opinion? I think it's high time that people let this couple be the parents they have fought desperately to be. I would have done the same thing they did. And for those suggesting that she's doomed to be resentful are just being hateful. If they did their job well in those first 2 years then they hopefully laid a good foundation for her to form attachments. And if she is forming attachments she will be ok.

They are not the parents. They stole that baby from her father.

[BYE]

They definitely didn't steal her. He signed away his rights.

[BYE]

Her biological father has had for her two years as well. So, I'm assuming you believe he shouldn't walk away either. Everything I have read says he tried to work out a compromise so both families could see her, but the other side was not willing. He seems to be the only one that right now has her best interests at heart.

 

As far as attachments, do you not believe in the last two years she has also formed attachments to her biological father?

Yes I believe she has formed attachments to her biological father. And that will help her as she hopefully won't be afflicted with RAD which can destroy a child and their family.

[BYE]

And as to the idea about the biological father waking away. He already did that once.

[Paige]

If the adoption agency, birth mother, and adoptive parents had acted within the law and ethically, she would not have been adopted. I think many people are appalled because we feel it was an illegal adoption. But, beyond that, there's just bad faith. I could never adopt a child who had a biological parent who could and wanted to keep the child. What right have I to keep the child? The father tried to get her back right away- before it was finalized. They never should have had her for 2yrs in the first place. Adoption is painful for children who want to know why their biological families didn't want them, or why they were sent away, or why they were different. My friends who are adoptive parents say it is one of the most painful areas for them to parent through- painful for the child and parent. One day Veronica will ask why her biological parents gave her up for adoption and the adoptive parents will have to say that her father wished to keep her or lie. If they lie, she will of course find out because this is big news. If they tell her the truth...how does that affect a kid? I don't think anybody could just accept that with apathy.

 

I guess they will try to spin it that they loved her soooo much and fought so hard for her because they knew she was meant to be theirs, but I don't think that will make everything ok. IMO, letting her stay with her father would have mostly ended Veronica's pain and trauma. She was happy. She would grow up with a loving family knowing that the other family loved her too but she will have no, "where's my birth family," "why was I adopted," or "Am I different," issues. Giving her back to the C's hurts and traumatizes her now and will continue to hurt her as she grows up and understands what has happened- her parental relationship with the adoptive parents will be a poison tree. She'll love them, of course, and we hope, but will finding out her dad wanted to keep her damage her relationship with them? Will she want to reconnect w/ her biological dad and Cherokee community and will that be a painful, uncomfortable process later? These are issues that can come up for any child adopted, but with Baby Veronica's circumstances, the issues will be bigger, more difficult, and more painful. Keeping Baby V is willfully and selfishly setting her up for guaranteed trauma later and now. I don't get it.

 

This is no better than when international adoption agencies use coercion and underhanded techniques to find babies for people to adopt in other countries. I'm very supportive of adoption and believe all children need a family, but IMO, the C's are doing it wrong.

[BYE]

If the adoption agency, birth mother, and adoptive parents had acted within the law and ethically, she would not have been adopted. I think many people are appalled because we feel it was an illegal adoption. But, beyond that, there's just bad faith. I could never adopt a child who had a biological parent who could and wanted to keep the child. What right have I to keep the child? The father tried to get her back right away- before it was finalized. They never should have had her for 2yrs in the first place. Adoption is painful for children who want to know why their biological families didn't want them, or why they were sent away, or why they were different. My friends who are adoptive parents say it is one of the most painful areas for them to parent through- painful for the child and parent. One day Veronica will ask why her biological parents gave her up for adoption and the adoptive parents will have to say that her father wished to keep her or lie. If they lie, she will of course find out because this is big news. If they tell her the truth...how does that affect a kid? I don't think anybody could just accept that with apathy.

 

I guess they will try to spin it that they loved her soooo much and fought so hard for her because they knew she was meant to be theirs, but I don't think that will make everything ok. IMO, letting her stay with her father would have mostly ended Veronica's pain and trauma. She was happy. She would grow up with a loving family knowing that the other family loved her too but she will have no, "where's my birth family," "why was I adopted," or "Am I different," issues. Giving her back to the C's hurts and traumatizes her now and will continue to hurt her as she grows up and understands what has happened- her parental relationship with the adoptive parents will be a poison tree. She'll love them, of course, and we hope, but will finding out her dad wanted to keep her damage her relationship with them? Will she want to reconnect w/ her biological dad and Cherokee community and will that be a painful, uncomfortable process later? These are issues that can come up for any child adopted, but with Baby Veronica's circumstances, the issues will be bigger, more difficult, and more painful. Keeping Baby V is willfully and selfishly setting her up for guaranteed trauma later and now. I don't get it.

 

This is no better than when international adoption agencies use coercion and underhanded techniques to find babies for people to adopt in other countries. I'm very supportive of adoption and believe all children need a family, but IMO, the C's are doing it wrong.

When you sign away your rights to your child you better be darn sure you mean it. And when you change your mind later don't expect sympathy. My point is that this doesn't have to destroy her and I believe she can do well.

[Paige]

I don't believe he ever did legally sign away his rights. The court (illegally, IMO) terminated his rights when they should not have had any jurisdiction.

 

Here's a good fact sheet from the National Indian Child Welfare Association. Granted, it's biased, but I believe the facts are accurate.

 

http://www.nicwa.org/documents/DrPhilICWAFactCheck_001.pdf

 

I don't believe this has to destroy Veronica either. Children are resilient and I wish her the best. I absolutely believe this is going to make her life a whole lot more painful and difficult than most other children- adopted or not- and it is unnecessary.

[TeenagerMom]

When you sign away your rights to your child you better be darn sure you mean it. And when you change your mind later don't expect sympathy. My point is that this doesn't have to destroy her and I believe she can do well.

 

Multiple courts found he did NOT sign away his rights. His rights were terminated in June when the SC courts finalized the adoption that he has been fighting since she was 4 months old. Go read the court documents where the birth mother admits that she cut off all contact with him and the adoptive mother's testimony that they knew he would probably not consent to the adoption.

[mommaduck]

He didn't sign away his rights. That's a falsehood. He signed custody over to the mother (he was facing deployment and this is normal for military personel). He made EVERY attempt to contact and support the mother throughout the pregnancy and he and his family attempted to also show that support after the birth. SHE rejected and avoided him every time...this is a common tactic that adoption attorneys and adoption agencies will encourage mothers to do in order to later claim that the father "had no interest" and "didn't support". The mother and the C's lied every which way possible to hide Veronica's heritage and avoid coming up against the father and Cherokee Nation. He contacted a JAG attorney IMMEDIATELY after being told that they were planning to use the papers (headed the same as all deploying military must sign granting custody to the other parent) against him for an adoption. He's been fighting since day one. The C's could have dropped it from the beginning, knowing that it was being handled in a shady manner, and found another child that was actually in need and legally available. Their adoption attorney is known to be crooked. And honestly, I would not want any child placed with Mel...between a shady practice, DUI's (and from my understanding, there were children in the vehicle during one of them), to her obsession with dragging the media and media pimps (aka Dr. Phil and Troy Dunn) into this every which way possible. This was also a political issue....and people were being politically bribed ten different ways. It's disgusting.
And yes, this case is way too close to home in how it was handled.

[Mergath]

I totally disagree. This couple obviously loves and adores her. They raised her for the first two years of her life. What kind of parents would walk away from their daughter because of someone elses opinion? I think it's high time that people let this couple be the parents they have fought desperately to be. I would have done the same thing they did. And for those suggesting that she's doomed to be resentful are just being hateful. If they did their job well in those first 2 years then they hopefully laid a good foundation for her to form attachments. And if she is forming attachments she will be ok.

 

I'd suggest you go back and read the previous six pages of this thread, because your information is wildly inaccurate.  Of course, I suppose it's easy to spread that kind of misinformation when you have your own team of publicists, as the C's do.  

 

And I really doubt they want to be parents.  Real parents understand you can't rip a child away from her father and make it all better by "giving her a cookie," the way Mrs. C, the "attachment expert" seems to think.  They paid tens of thousands of dollars to the bio mom, and they want to get what they paid for, pure and simple.

 

You're darn right I'm hateful.  These two pieces of work have proven that you can buy a child against the wishes of the biological parent if you have enough money and connections.  All of us who have children and who aren't wildly wealthy should feel more than a little hateful toward these two for what they've done, and any kid in her right mind would feel the same way after finding out the facts.  This little girl had a father who loved her and wanted to raise her, and she was purchased by strangers against his wishes.

[mommaduck]

Apparently, the C's were threatening to bring in armed men to remove Veronica. For her safety, the Browns turned her over peaceably and tried to prepare her in what time they had. Please pray for the Brown family and specifically for Veronica's grandfather as well.

[Ravin]

This whole story makes me heart sick. I'm not sure which legal issue angers me most--the way they dodged ICWA, the lack of respect for the unwed father's rights built into state law, the way they used his service to his country against him, or how SCOTUS let them do it!

[Scarlett]

When you sign away your rights to your child you better be darn sure you mean it. And when you change your mind later don't expect sympathy. My point is that this doesn't have to destroy her and I believe she can do well.

Have you read this thread? You do not have the facts straight.

 

I am disgusted by the whole thing. That poor child.

 

And the bio mother. I have no words for her.

[FaithManor]

This whole story makes me heart sick. I'm not sure which legal issue angers me most--the way they dodged ICWA, the lack of respect for the unwed father's rights built into state law, the way they used his service to his country against him, or how SCOTUS let them do it!

I agree. Every single service member being deployed must sign a sole custody agreement to either the other biological parent or another entity such as a grandparent or other relative. Once on foreign soil, they can't make decisions for their kids. This paperwork is standard issue. So, he HAD to do it, but that does not EVER mean he intended for the biological mother to put her up for adoption or that he did not want to be involved in her life. Our dear friend in the National Guard just had to sign that paperwork. He won't deploy for three months, but he's being sent out of state for training and it's required. God help him if his wife decides to divorce him and run with that baby. She's got paperwork that would literally allow her to take that kid wherever she wants to go! And no, you don't get to just leave base whenever you want to defend yourself. Your government owns you. Military personnel are government property. They do what is best for the unit and not for the individual. So, you don't get leave just because your significant other ran with your kid. Sometimes you don't even get to make a phone call!

 

Civilians just do not understand the military system or what the custody plan is designed to do and assume this father was literally saying, "I don't want my baby." That is simply not the case. Every single military parent, mom or dad, good situation with the other bio or bad, has to do this. Standard.operating.procedure.

 

We need some legal reforms on this issue.

[Danestress]

Civilians just do not understand the military system or what the custody plan is designed to do and assume this father was literally saying, "I don't want my baby." That is simply not the case. Every single military parent, mom or dad, good situation with the other bio or bad, has to do this. Standard.operating.procedure.

 

We need some legal reforms on this issue.

That isn't the issue upon which the case was decided. Single parents in the military still pay child support. They do not inform the other parent that they would like to terminate parental rights in order to avoid having to provide support, which is part of what has been troubling for this case.

 

I do think the Dad in this case should have prevailed, but I think military people are hammering the wrong issue. The take away point for me is that bio Dads need to provide support immediately at birth - or even before.

 

I still think this guy got screwed.

[FaithManor]

That isn't the issue upon which the case was decided. Single parents in the military still pay child support. They do not inform the other parent that they would like to terminate parental rights in order to avoid having to provide support, which is part of what has been troubling for this case.

 

I do think the Dad in this case should have prevailed, but I think military people are hammering the wrong issue. The take away point for me is that bio Dads need to provide support immediately at birth - or even before.

 

I still think this guy got screwed.

Actually, according to court records, he did try to support the baby. He sent gifts before she was born and money after. The mother had already contacted an adoption attorney and the lawyer told her to refuse the support. The lawyer ought to banned from the bar. He was complicit in preventing the father from exercising his legal rights.

 

What's the guy supposed to do if she refuses his help and then runs with the baby?

[Danestress]

Actually, according to court records, he did try to support the baby. He sent gifts before she was born and money after. The mother had already contacted an adoption attorney and the lawyer told her to refuse the support. The lawyer ought to banned from the bar. He was complicit in preventing the father from exercising his legal rights.

 

What's the guy supposed to do if she refuses his help and then runs with the baby?

Can you find that in a court finding of fact? According to the Supreme Court decision, the father refused any support if the mother would not marry him and then found (quoting here, though bad at doing this in a phone:

 

"it is undisputed that, for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl, even though he had the ability to do so. In- deed, Biological Father “made no meaningful attempts to assume his responsibility of parenthood†during this period. App. to Pet. for Cert. 122a (Sealed; internal quotation marks omitted)."

 

 

There are a lot of conflicting allegations. I haven't read the state court opinions, but I do take the S Ct findings as 'facts' at least legally.

[Scarlett]

Can you find that in a court finding of fact? According to the Supreme Court decision, the father refused any support if the mother would not marry him and then found (quoting here, though bad at doing this in a phone:

 

"it is undisputed that, for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl, even though he had the ability to do so. In- deed, Biological Father “made no meaningful attempts to assume his responsibility of parenthood†during this period. App. to Pet. for Cert. 122a (Sealed; internal quotation marks omitted)."

 

 

There are a lot of conflicting allegations. I haven't read the state court opinions, but I do take the S Ct findings as 'facts' at least legally.

 

 

Yes, I will agree with this.  I do believe that he backed off when she refused to marry him.  Maybe he was even trying to bully her into marrying him by refusing to offer financial support if she wouldn't.   I don't really know....but I do see that she had all the power and he had none. 

 

Additionally, I am fully convinced Brown NEVER expected her to put the baby up for adoption.  The second he learned this, when the baby was 4 months old he began his legal fight. And to me, when a bio parent is ready willing and able to raise his child, it is morally WRONG for ANYONE, including the other bio parent to get in the way of that. 

 

I have no idea how those people in SC sleep at night.  Or how they look at their faces in the mirror come morning. 

[Scarlett]

Actually, according to court records, he did try to support the baby. He sent gifts before she was born and money after. The mother had already contacted an adoption attorney and the lawyer told her to refuse the support. The lawyer ought to banned from the bar. He was complicit in preventing the father from exercising his legal rights.

 

What's the guy supposed to do if she refuses his help and then runs with the baby?

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20 of course....but he should have filed for his paternity rights and set up an account for the baby's support prior to birth.  Then as soon as baby was born there could be DNA testing to prove the baby was his, custody, visitation and child support would have been set. 

 

There is still no justification for what was done 'legally' or morally in this case. 

[BYE]

Have you read this thread? You do not have the facts straight.

 

I am disgusted by the whole thing. That poor child.

 

And the bio mother. I have no words for her.

Don't assume because someone doesn't agree with you that they don't have their facts straight. I have read the thread. But even if I hadn't read the thread I wouldn't have been any less informed. I commented because the case had been updated and she went home. I believe she went to her proper home, you don't. Go figure, two people have differing opinions. My main point is that this isn't a death sentence for this child. She's lucky to have so many people who love and adore her.

[Scarlett]

They definitely didn't steal her. He signed away his rights.

 

 

And as to the idea about the biological father waking away. He already did that once.

 

 

When you sign away your rights to your child you better be darn sure you mean it. And when you change your mind later don't expect sympathy. My point is that this doesn't have to destroy her and I believe she can do well.

 

 

Don't assume because someone doesn't agree with you that they don't have their facts straight. I have read the thread. But even if I hadn't read the thread I wouldn't have been any less informed. I commented because the case had been updated and she went home. I believe she went to her proper home, you don't. Go figure, two people have differing opinions. My main point is that this isn't a death sentence for this child. She's lucky to have so many people who love and adore her.

 

 

The FACT is he didn't sign away his rights to this child. 

 

On November 25, 2011, in SC, the family court judge issued

a Final Order, finding that: … (3) Father did not voluntarily consent to the termination of

his parental rights or the adoption;

 

That is one FACT in this very troubling case.  There are many more.

[Scarlett]

Don't assume because someone doesn't agree with you that they don't have their facts straight. I have read the thread. But even if I hadn't read the thread I wouldn't have been any less informed. I commented because the case had been updated and she went home. I believe she went to her proper home, you don't. Go figure, two people have differing opinions. My main point is that this isn't a death sentence for this child. She's lucky to have so many people who love and adore her.

 

 

Do you have children? 

[BYE]

Do you have children?

I think you should just back off.

[Murphy101]

I think you should just back off.

Or you could. It's a valid question.

[BYE]

Or you could. It's a valid question.

So someone who doesn't have children wouldn't be allowed to have an opinion? Or it would be ok to have an opinion as long as they agreed with you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Or you could. It's a valid question.

 

It is not a valid question.

[Ravin]

Can you find that in a court finding of fact? According to the Supreme Court decision, the father refused any support if the mother would not marry him and then found (quoting here, though bad at doing this in a phone:

 

"it is undisputed that, for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl, even though he had the ability to do so. In- deed, Biological Father “made no meaningful attempts to assume his responsibility of parenthood†during this period. App. to Pet. for Cert. 122a (Sealed; internal quotation marks omitted)."

 

 

There are a lot of conflicting allegations. I haven't read the state court opinions, but I do take the S Ct findings as 'facts' at least legally.

The problem with this is, SCOTUS is not a fact-finding court. All appelate courts have to go on for facts is what made it into the appellate record because it was accepted into evidence lower down. Not all facts are necessarily admitted as evidence, and there are procedural rules for how the appelate court views those facts--usually with deference to the findings of the lower court, where the Capobiancos prevailed.

 

To decide in the father's favor, the Court could have found that there is a presumption of rights for an unwed biological father rather than that he has to jump through hoops to establish his rights. That, however, would mess with a lot of policies in adoption, immigration, etc. Plus the parties didn't raise equal protection of fundamental rights afaik, limiting the Court to ruling on ICWA--which they did by sidestepping it with reliance on state law denying the father's parental rights were ever established.

[mommaduck]

Can you find that in a court finding of fact? According to the Supreme Court decision, the father refused any support if the mother would not marry him and then found (quoting here, though bad at doing this in a phone:

 

"it is undisputed that, for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl’s birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl, even though he had the ability to do so. In- deed, Biological Father “made no meaningful attempts to assume his responsibility of parenthood†during this period. App. to Pet. for Cert. 122a (Sealed; internal quotation marks omitted)."

 

 

There are a lot of conflicting allegations. I haven't read the state court opinions, but I do take the S Ct findings as 'facts' at least legally.

 

He was rebuffed at every turn of attempting to provide support. This was the ploy of the adoption agency, adoption attorney, and the biological mother. This is a common tactic so the court has no option but to rule "he didn't provide support". Unfortunately, you cannot FORCE support on a mother, particularly during pregnancy. There was still hope for him that things could be worked out for the benefit of the child between him and the mother.

 

Parental rights should ONLY be signed over in a courtroom, imo, and I hope someone eventually has the gonads to make that law.

 

[mommaduck]

Btw, they didn't even rule against ICWA. They ruled on a technicality of one portion...the fact that Dusten did not have initial custody and possession of the child. What that says to those in South Carolina is that as long as you grab and run with the child from another state as quickly as possible, regardless of how illegally you do it (and right now, there is another child here that came here with NO paperwork having been done between SC and OK), then you can claim that child as yours. This is scary as hell. Also scary is the fact that Dusten isn't the only military personnel to have lost his child through REQUIRED deployment papers. There are other ongoing cases where deployed people have come home and found that the other party has refused to give them their child back or switch back to shared custody...and the courts side against them because they weren't "present" and were "too busy with work"...they were DEPLOYED by the MILITARY under our GOVERNMENT...there are NO OPTIONS.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He was rebuffed at every turn of attempting to provide support. This was the ploy of the adoption agency, adoption attorney, and the biological mother. This is a common tactic so the court has no option but to rule "he didn't provide support". Unfortunately, you cannot FORCE support on a mother, particularly during pregnancy. There was still hope for him that things could be worked out for the benefit of the child between him and the mother.

 

Parental rights should ONLY be signed over in a courtroom, imo, and I hope someone eventually has the gonads to make that law.

 

 

"Rebuffed at every turn"?  Where is the evidence for that?  He was willing to sign away his rights to avoid paying support, so I find that claim suspicious and have seen nothing from court records stating there was any record of attempted support.

He could have easily prevented all of this by filing for paternity and requesting visitation.  The fact that he did nothing until AFTER he signed paperwork giving up his rights (and yes, he did, and no it was not "standard" custody paperwork filed by service members) was a mistake on his part if he really had intended to be an active father.

 

I do agree that the law in SC is out dated when it comes to paternal rights (and is flat out wrong imo), but I also think this guy was trying to game the situation to his financial advantage.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Btw, they didn't even rule against ICWA. They ruled on a technicality of one portion...the fact that Dusten did not have initial custody and possession of the child. What that says to those in South Carolina is that as long as you grab and run with the child from another state as quickly as possible, regardless of how illegally you do it (and right now, there is another child here that came here with NO paperwork having been done between SC and OK), then you can claim that child as yours. This is scary as hell. Also scary is the fact that Dusten isn't the only military personnel to have lost his child through REQUIRED deployment papers. There are other ongoing cases where deployed people have come home and found that the other party has refused to give them their child back or switch back to shared custody...and the courts side against them because they weren't "present" and were "too busy with work"...they were DEPLOYED by the MILITARY under our GOVERNMENT...there are NO OPTIONS.

 

What he signed were not required deployment papers.

[mommaduck]

It has been found in the evidence of several courts, in the court records, that Dusten did NOT sign away his parental rights. Custody is a separate issue and this is why the SC judge FORCIBLY terminated rights in order to grant the adoption last month.

 

BTW, certain people are on ignore...just so you know that it's possible that I may not see something addressed to me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It has been found in the evidence of several courts, in the court records, that Dusten did NOT sign away his parental rights. Custody is a separate issue and this is why the SC judge FORCIBLY terminated rights in order to grant the adoption last month.

 

BTW, certain people are on ignore...just so you know that it's possible that I may not see something addressed to me.

 

You are  a bit confused.  What at least one court ruled was that Brown did not voluntarily sign away his parental rights as he misunderstood what he was signing.  Based on his trying to revoke the paperwork in less than a week, I tend to believe that is true.  However, he did sign away his rights to the mother, but he thought it was simply giving her sole custody rather than allowing her to place the child up for adoption.  What isn't true is that 1.) the paperwork he signed was standard deployment paperwork, and 2.) that he did not sign anything agreeing to give up his rights to the child.

[Scarlett]

So someone who doesn't have children wouldn't be allowed to have an opinion? Or it would be ok to have an opinion as long as they agreed with you.

 

 

I almost said, 'how would you feel if your 4 year old was taken from you?'....but then I realized you have no signature info and you are new to the board. So maybe you don't have children and lack the natural empathy that most of us feel regarding this case. 

[Murphy101]

So someone who doesn't have children wouldn't be allowed to have an opinion? Or it would be ok to have an opinion as long as they agreed with you.

Anyone can have an opinion.

 

But I think it's extremely inexperienced with children to think that little girl is going to view this as all just bring lucky to be loved by so many. Being bought and sold doesn't usually create that kind of sentiment.

[BYE]

I almost said, 'how would you feel if your 4 year old was taken from you?'....but then I realized you have no signature info and you are new to the board. So maybe you don't have children and lack the natural empathy that most of us feel regarding this case.

I apologize for not having a signature line with my childrens information. And I'm doubly apologetic for being new.

[BYE]

Anyone can have an opinion.

 

But I think it's extremely inexperienced with children to think that little girl is going to view this all just bring lucky to be loved by so many. Being bought and sold doesn't usually create that kind of sentiment.

You don't know my experience. She wasn't bought and sold.

[mommaduck]

She was very much bought and sold. Fact: biological mother had a "plan" for her debts and child support arrears for her other two children. Fact: the Capobianco's paid for these things plus a new SUV and Christmas presents for her and her other children she did not have custody of. Fact: the adoption was handled illegally in several ways and the attorney, the agency, the C's, and the mother should be prosecuted for lying and sidestepping the law. Fact: the agency and attorney make a pretty penny off of the adoption.

 

Yes, she was sold and bought.

 

And, no, she doesn't know your experience; that would be why she asked...she didn't want to presume you had children if you did not. That could be a worse offense than simply asking you whether you have children or not.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

She was very much bought and sold. Fact: biological mother had a "plan" for her debts and child support arrears for her other two children. Fact: the Capobianco's paid for these things plus a new SUV and Christmas presents for her and her other children she did not have custody of. Fact: the adoption was handled illegally in several ways and the attorney, the agency, the C's, and the mother should be prosecuted for lying and sidestepping the law. Fact: the agency and attorney make a pretty penny off of the adoption.

 

Yes, she was sold and bought.

 

And, no, she doesn't know your experience; that would be why she asked.

 

I think you are mistaking "allegations" with "facts".

[mommaduck]

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/09/24/cherokee-nation-mourns-veronica-returned-adoptive-family-151418

 

The C's have no intention of letting Dusten see his daughter.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/09/24/cherokee-nation-mourns-veronica-returned-adoptive-family-151418

 

The C's have no intention of letting Dusten see his daughter.

 

Blog posts (and that is what that site effectively is) are generally not great sources of accurate information.

[Mergath]

Blog posts (and that is what that site effectively is) are generally not great sources of accurate information.

 

Unless the blog post in question provides links and page numbers to Mrs. C's own testimony.  I assume you'll take her word as fact?

 

http://adoptivecouplevsbabygirl.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/melanie-duncan-capobianco-in-her-own-words/?preview=true&previe

[mommaduck]

Unless the blog post in question provides links and page numbers to Mrs. C's own testimony.  I assume you'll take her word as fact?

 

http://adoptivecouplevsbabygirl.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/melanie-duncan-capobianco-in-her-own-words/?preview=true&previe

 

Exactly...and I've been reading the court documents. I actually have not been keeping up with the blogsphere. It's been emotionally exhausting as it is.

[Scarlett]

Blog posts (and that is what that site effectively is) are generally not great sources of accurate information.

 

 

What is?  The SC couple's spokesperson?