mommaduck Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Supreme Court may have ruled against him and the two portions of ICWA that he used. But, they still haven't dealt with Cherokee Nation and the rest of ICWA. It's not just the father that the C's have to get past. They have to get past the entire Cherokee Nation. Cherokee Nation will not (legally) give up Veronica as long as there are biological family members or others in the tribe that are willing to take her. The tribe gets first consideration when it comes to her care. Non-Native outsiders are a very last resort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songsparrow Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 But it doesn't matter if he didn't give up his rights. The Supreme Court stated that under the law in South Carolina, he wasn't legally able to object because he never had custody, and that the ICWA also didn't apply because he never had custody. I just looked at the SC Supreme Court's opinion, and it states that bio dad's consent to the adoption was not required under SC law. However, it also says that the court did not determine whether his parental rights could be terminated under SC law, which is a separate question (they did not reach the question, because they determined his parental rights could not be terminated under the ICWA, which is what the US Supreme Court reversed). Anyway, I am curious as to which SC statutory grounds the SC court used to terminate the bio dad's parental rights. Does anyone know if there was a written, published decision from 7/31 when the court approved the adoption to the Capobiancos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameena Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I just looked at the SC Supreme Court's opinion, and it states that bio dad's consent to the adoption was not required under SC law. However, it also says that the court did not determine whether his parental rights could be terminated under SC law, which is a separate question (they did not reach the question, because they determined his parental rights could not be terminated under the ICWA, which is what the US Supreme Court reversed). Anyway, I am curious as to which SC statutory grounds the SC court used to terminate the bio dad's parental rights. Does anyone know if there was a written, published decision from 7/31 when the court approved the adoption to the Capobiancos? I believe I read {correct me if I'm wrong} that in SC the father is presumed to not have any parental rights as he was the non-custodial parent. But what I don't understand is how SC could terminate his rights under SC law, when he & the child resided in OK at the time of the birth and he continously resided there from that point on. Again - I am pretty sure from my business law classes, that OK law would apply not SC law, reguardless of the adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songsparrow Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I believe I read {correct me if I'm wrong} that in SC the father is presumed to not have any parental rights as he was the non-custodial parent. But what I don't understand is how SC could terminate his rights under SC law, when he & the child resided in OK at the time of the birth and he continously resided there from that point on. Again - I am pretty sure from my business law classes, that OK law would apply not SC law, reguardless of the adoption. Regarding the first paragraph, the SC Supreme Court's decision makes clear that, at least in this case, the bio dad did have parental rights to this child. The opinion states "Thus, we may only grant Appellants' adoption decree with respect to Father in the absence of his voluntary consent if Appellants can establish grounds for involuntarily terminating Father's parental rights under state law and the ICWA." Regarding the second, the SC Supreme Court's decision states: While the evidence establishes Baby Girl would not be in South Carolina had the Cherokee Nation been properly noticed of her status as an Indian child, we agree with Appellants that the propriety of Baby Girl's transfer to South Carolina was litigated in the Oklahoma action when the Oklahoma court issued an order dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds. Appellants correctly point out that in Father's Response to Appellants' Motion to Dismiss, he argued that the ICPC request form "would not have been processed by Michael Nomura of Heritage Family Services without giving notice to the Cherokee Nation had Defendant not withheld the fact that the baby was part American Indian on the form." After considering this and other arguments, the Oklahoma court issued an order dismissing the action on jurisdictional grounds, and neither Father nor the Cherokee Nation appealed that order. Therefore, because no appeal was taken from the dismissal of the action, that decision remains the law of the case. Because the Oklahoma court declined to exercise jurisdiction in this case, it is now incumbent on this Court to resolve the myriad issues concerning Baby Girl's final placement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertechmom Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Second that SC is playing politics. The Cs are money and upper crust. Officials will bend over backwards and become pretezles to make sure these people get exactly what they want. The good ole boy system really does work here in this state. My daddy knows your daddy who happens to be the judge and both went to school with the lawyer and the decision is made before anyone goes to court. Court is normally just a formality for the sake of saying it was done according to the law. When in reality, the case was decided between friends at the golf course. The Cs mistake is they thought the bio father was someone they could just sweep under the carpet and that he didn't have the money to compete with them. And yea, the timing was done to make sure he couldn't do anything about the baby. Absolutely no accident that they waited until days before he deployed to inform him his kid was being adopted. He probably thought he would come back and she would be over her issues and they would get back together and get married. So while he appears he was being a deadbeat, he may have just been biding time to get back with the woman. Hormonal pregnant woman??? Most likely. He wouldn't be the first to ship out with plans to make things better when he got home and time had calmed everyone down. And in SC unless the father is listed on the birth certificate or married to the mother at the time of the birth, there aren't paternal rights as far as I know. So Sc doesn't consider him a parent. But since this all took place in OK, I don't get how SC laws can apply to him. And I think he still had time to register in OK so even that can't be held against him. Plus, I do feel that the Cs lawyers informed birth mom to not have any contact or accept anything from him or family to show he had not provided financially. I think they purposely constructed this whole mess to deceive him and make him legally look bad. And he just thinks he is dealing with another "off time" with a hormonal pregnant woman and that giving her some space will bring them back to another "on time". When In reality, she is selling his kid to the highest bidder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted August 16, 2013 Author Share Posted August 16, 2013 Supreme Court may have ruled against him and the two portions of ICWA that he used. But, they still haven't dealt with Cherokee Nation and the rest of ICWA. It's not just the father that the C's have to get past. They have to get past the entire Cherokee Nation. Cherokee Nation will not (legally) give up Veronica as long as there are biological family members or others in the tribe that are willing to take her. The tribe gets first consideration when it comes to her care. Non-Native outsiders are a very last resort. I live in OK now but spent most of my life just across the border in AR. It has always been common knowledge that the Cherokee Nation is one of the tribes that will not give up an Indian child to outsiders. I don't see how the SC couple is going to win against the Cherokee Nation. I hope for the sake of all but esecially Veronica they just give it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Jurisdiction moved back to OK because the child is a resident and citizen of OK and CN. OK gave GUARDIANSHIP to the grandparents and stepmother. OK has jurisdiction. SC does not. SC wants to play politics (trust me on this one...). Which state has jurisdiction is not quite as cut and dried as you want to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Supreme Court may have ruled against him and the two portions of ICWA that he used. But, they still haven't dealt with Cherokee Nation and the rest of ICWA. It's not just the father that the C's have to get past. They have to get past the entire Cherokee Nation. Cherokee Nation will not (legally) give up Veronica as long as there are biological family members or others in the tribe that are willing to take her. The tribe gets first consideration when it comes to her care. Non-Native outsiders are a very last resort. The Cherokee "Nation" may get a legal surprise if the case filed asking that the ICWA be ruled unconstitutional goes against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynnae Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 The Cherokee "Nation" may get a legal surprise if the case filed asking that the ICWA be ruled unconstitutional goes against them. I think that may happen if the US courts order Veronica returned to the Cs and the Cherokee courts order differently. At that point, there will probably be a Supreme Court showdown. It would be interesting to see what happens, but I'm really hoping this case gets settled long before it gets to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I think that may happen if the US courts order Veronica returned to the Cs and the Cherokee courts order differently. At that point, there will probably be a Supreme Court showdown. It would be interesting to see what happens, but I'm really hoping this case gets settled long before it gets to that. Tribal courts have already been limited in their power when dealing with non-NAs, so I see little chance that a ruling from the Cherokee Tribal Court being given serious consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynnae Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Tribal courts have already been limited in their power when dealing with non-NAs, so I see little chance that a ruling from the Cherokee Tribal Court being given serious consideration. Thanks. I know quite a bit about adoption law, but I admittedly don't know much about tribal law and how that works in conjunction with US law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Thanks. I know quite a bit about adoption law, but I admittedly don't know much about tribal law and how that works in conjunction with US law. I over stated that a bit as the Cherokee Tribe will have concurrent jurisdiction with either Oklahoma or South Carolina, which will likely lead to conflicting decisions if the South Carolina courts end up having jurisdiction. That would lead to a likely challenge to the USSC again, and as I stated earlier, the ICWA could face a ruling on its constitutionality as a whole. With the current court make up that does not bode well for the ICWA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 The Cherokee "Nation" may get a legal surprise if the case filed asking that the ICWA be ruled unconstitutional goes against them. You really have a strong dislike for Native Americans, don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Today's custody hearing has been going on for three hours... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 You really have a strong dislike for Native Americans, don't you? Not at all. I do have a strong dislike for the ICWA based on how it has been implemented at times. I do not believe one group should have a greater say in adoption matters than all others, and that we would be better off fixing family courts and social services so they work better for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 This entire situation is so confusing. I just hope that whatever decision is finally made, it will be the best one for little Veronica, and that she will go on to live a long, happy, and healthy life with a family that loves and protects her. No child should have to go through something like this. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 There is a mediation agreement in place now so maybe there will be some kind of compromise without the media circus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted August 16, 2013 Author Share Posted August 16, 2013 There is a mediation agreement in place now so maybe there will be some kind of compromise without the media circus. I just saw a local news channel do a story outside the courthouse....all parties are in tribal mediation... Dusten's mother was crying so I'm worried it isn't going well. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I just saw a local news channel do a story outside the courthouse....all parties are in tribal mediation... Dusten's mother was crying so I'm worried it isn't going well. :( It doesn't sound like it's going well. I just cannot fathom that a couple would fight to adopt a child that the bio father has wanted since he was made aware of it. That just seems so wrong to me on every level. They knew all along that he wanted that child, long before the courts took her away from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spryte Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I have not kept up with this case, but am curious: what does the birthmother have to say about all of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I have not kept up with this case, but am curious: what does the birthmother have to say about all of this? She has sided with the Cs and has filed a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the ICWA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spryte Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 She has sided with the Cs and has filed a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the ICWA. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 I have not kept up with this case, but am curious: what does the birthmother have to say about all of this? She sides with the adoptive couple, who admitted in court that they paid for various things, her mortgagae, an SUV, presents for her other children and other undisclosed "items". She also has an open adoption with the couple, where the father is excluded, which only further showcases what is wrong with the adoption laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameena Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 She sides with the adoptive couple, who admitted in court that they paid for various things, her mortgagae, an SUV, presents for her other children and other undisclosed "items". She also has an open adoption with the couple, where the father is excluded, which only further showcases what is wrong with the adoption laws. This. Plus she may have to side with them legally - depending on how the adoption contract was written {assuming it's similar to a business contract} if Baby V is legally given to bio-dad, the adoptive family may be able to sue bio-mom for breach of contract & bio-mom could have to return everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 I just cannot fathom that a couple would fight to adopt a child that the bio father has wanted since he was made aware of it. That just seems so wrong to me on every level. They knew all along that he wanted that child, long before the courts took her away from them. Which can make all us adoptive moms seem like baby-snatchers. Honestly, I feel for ALL parties. But had the Cs been honest all the way around, none of this would have happened. EITHER, they would have adopted the child in an ethical manner OR they would have likely found a legally available child right now. Regardless, VERONICA would not have had to go through what she has or what she may have to in the near future. EVERYBODY *could* have won! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted August 17, 2013 Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 Which can make all us adoptive moms seem like baby-snatchers. Honestly, I feel for ALL parties. But had the Cs been honest all the way around, none of this would have happened. EITHER, they would have adopted the child in an ethical manner OR they would have likely found a legally available child right now. Regardless, VERONICA would not have had to go through what she has or what she may have to in the near future. EVERYBODY *could* have won! Pamela I have thought about you and Monkey many times recently. Certainly YOU aren't a baby snatcher. And your pain at losing Monkey is real....I believe the Cs suffered when they lost Veronica when she was 27 months. It is different though. Monkey was taken from her bio mom for a good reason, no? And the people who ended up with her are not her bio family. YOU had just as much moral right to raise that child as the fictive kin. The Baby Veronica case is different. I hope you don't think unkindly of those of us who believe she should be with her bio dad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdahoHomeschooler Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Which can make all us adoptive moms seem like baby-snatchers. Honestly, I feel for ALL parties. But had the Cs been honest all the way around, none of this would have happened. EITHER, they would have adopted the child in an ethical manner OR they would have likely found a legally available child right now. Regardless, VERONICA would not have had to go through what she has or what she may have to in the near future. EVERYBODY *could* have won! Yes! I'm an adoptive parent, and feel that this case really stresses the importance of ALL adoptions being conducted in a legal and ETHICAL manner. It is the only way for everybody to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 The Baby Veronica case is different. I hope you don't think unkindly of those of us who believe she should be with her bio dad. :iagree: Sadly this case does paint adoptive parents in a bad light, just by association. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Scarlett, thank you. And I got really bad news about my baby last weekend. This case is killing me. Another child going to get hurt because of irresponsible adults (the Cs and biodad included). And then they'll get help, I guess. And play hero to being the parent of a hurt child. When....WHEN do kids interests get to count at all? (add T-lo's behavior due to attachment issues and fictive kin considering placement of my "new" three.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Pamela, I am so sorry.Thank you for working in this grieviously broken system. I am deeply grateful that you and your dh stand in the gap for children who have already suffered horribly in their short lives. Thank you, thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 For those of you still following the case, there have been a couple of interesting articles that came out in the last few days. It seems the guardian ad litem lied profusely to an attachment expert and got her to write some kind of letter stating that Veronica should stay with the Cs, which the expert has since recanted: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/19/baby-veronica-case-capobianco-attachment-and-bonding-expert-recants-150938 And the reality TV star they hired was apparently trolling around a local school trying to find Veronica: https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/16/capobiancos-send-locator-tv-star-take-veronica-school-150907 The more I see, the more I think these people are crazier than a bag of cats. Sending the guy from The Locator to the school to try to find her? That's not only stupid, that's dangerous. If he had tried to snatch her and the guards had went after him, Veronica could have ended up in physical danger. What in the world are these people thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter's Moon Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 For those of you still following the case, there have been a couple of interesting articles that came out in the last few days. It seems the guardian ad litem lied profusely to an attachment expert and got her to write some kind of letter stating that Veronica should stay with the Cs, which the expert has since recanted: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/19/baby-veronica-case-capobianco-attachment-and-bonding-expert-recants-150938 And the reality TV star they hired was apparently trolling around a local school trying to find Veronica: https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/16/capobiancos-send-locator-tv-star-take-veronica-school-150907 The more I see, the more I think these people are crazier than a bag of cats. Sending the guy from The Locator to the school to try to find her? That's not only stupid, that's dangerous. If he had tried to snatch her and the guards had went after him, Veronica could have ended up in physical danger. What in the world are these people thinking? They are thinking only of themselves and what they deem their property. Not of that precious little girl who is the true victim of all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 For those of you still following the case, there have been a couple of interesting articles that came out in the last few days. It seems the guardian ad litem lied profusely to an attachment expert and got her to write some kind of letter stating that Veronica should stay with the Cs, which the expert has since recanted: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/19/baby-veronica-case-capobianco-attachment-and-bonding-expert-recants-150938 And the reality TV star they hired was apparently trolling around a local school trying to find Veronica: https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/16/capobiancos-send-locator-tv-star-take-veronica-school-150907 The more I see, the more I think these people are crazier than a bag of cats. Sending the guy from The Locator to the school to try to find her? That's not only stupid, that's dangerous. If he had tried to snatch her and the guards had went after him, Veronica could have ended up in physical danger. What in the world are these people thinking? Thanks for these updates. I am glad the GAL recanted her report, but it makes me really angry that she did not do her homework instead of relying on the word of the bio mom and the adoptive parents. VERY unprofessional. I heard there was a mediation agreement but no word yet on what that is. So confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Thanks for these updates. I am glad the GAL recanted her report, but it makes me really angry that she did not do her homework instead of relying on the word of the bio mom and the adoptive parents. VERY unprofessional. I heard there was a mediation agreement but no word yet on what that is. So confusing. I think it was the expert that recanted, not the GAL. The GAL lied to the attachment expert to get the report, then when the expert found out the real facts, she recanted. The GAL at one point tried to keep the expert from talking about it, because she knew it was all a load of crap. At least, that's what I got from the article. The GAL apparently works for the adoption attorney, which seems to me a huge conflict of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 Ahhh.....I guess I didn't read it closely enough. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harriet Vane Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 For those of you still following the case, there have been a couple of interesting articles that came out in the last few days. It seems the guardian ad litem lied profusely to an attachment expert and got her to write some kind of letter stating that Veronica should stay with the Cs, which the expert has since recanted: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/19/baby-veronica-case-capobianco-attachment-and-bonding-expert-recants-150938 And the reality TV star they hired was apparently trolling around a local school trying to find Veronica: https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/16/capobiancos-send-locator-tv-star-take-veronica-school-150907 The more I see, the more I think these people are crazier than a bag of cats. Sending the guy from The Locator to the school to try to find her? That's not only stupid, that's dangerous. If he had tried to snatch her and the guards had went after him, Veronica could have ended up in physical danger. What in the world are these people thinking? I am absolutely gobsmacked that the attachment expert provided a report of that magnitude for a child/father she had never personally interviewed. It's unbelievably unprofessional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I think it was the expert that recanted, not the GAL. The GAL lied to the attachment expert to get the report, then when the expert found out the real facts, she recanted. The GAL at one point tried to keep the expert from talking about it, because she knew it was all a load of crap. At least, that's what I got from the article. The GAL apparently works for the adoption attorney, which seems to me a huge conflict of interest. The GAL has admitted to being a friend of the C's for years before Veronica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Thanks. I know quite a bit about adoption law, but I admittedly don't know much about tribal law and how that works in conjunction with US law. Mrs. Mungo would be more familiar with that than most here. If you have questions, Mrs. Mungo would be the one to ask in regards to Cherokee Nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 It looks like it. Putting quotes around the word seems like a slap in the face to Native Americans. She denies Cherokee Nation's sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 She denies Cherokee Nation's sovereignty. They are not a sovereign nation. They have domestic sovereignty - not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeenagerMom Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The families are back in court today. Apparently SC sent deputies there. Speculation is that the adoptive parents are hoping that they will order her to be turned over today and need police escort to make it out of town safely. I just cannot see how taking a child away from a loving, fit home is in her best interests. As a parent, I wouldn't be able to look at my child if I knew I had taken her away from a loving family that had been fighting for her since she was an infant. http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Nowata_court_hearing_in_Baby_Veronica_case_set_for/20130830_800_0_NOWATA158056 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The families are back in court today. Apparently SC sent deputies there. Speculation is that the adoptive parents are hoping that they will order her to be turned over today and need police escort to make it out of town safely. I just cannot see how taking a child away from a loving, fit home is in her best interests. As a parent, I wouldn't be able to look at my child if I knew I had taken her away from a loving family that had been fighting for her since she was an infant. http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Nowata_court_hearing_in_Baby_Veronica_case_set_for/20130830_800_0_NOWATA158056 Yes, SC did. This is how arrogant they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Let me ask this: a drunk couple with extended drunk family and children in the car ran a relative of mine off the road some odd years ago. These three people fled the scene, were chased, were caught. Is this a family that you would place a child with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I think much of this is coming from the Capobiancos and their publicists, but even if it is all true, if everyone who made mistakes as a parent lost custody of their kids, we'd have a lot of wards of the state in this country. He "stepped up" when she was four months old, and he's been fighting for her ever since. It's not as if he was an absentee father for most of her life. But he wasn't even given the chance to.....he missed a visitation before the adoption was even finalized. Him failing to appear is what sealed his fate and the SC judge knew he couldn't legally appear that day I don't see how the argument is at all complicated or murky if the father signed a legal termination of rights. There is no mystical fine print there. When you sign that paper voluntarily and of sound mind, you are out before the ink dries. It's sad that he changed his mind and is pulling out all the stops NOW, and it's sad that the courts shuffled the girl so hastily, but they can't very well set the precedent that possession overrides a legal mistake. Maybe they need a box on the termination form to check if you're Native American so they can make some sort of tribal permission slip part of your packet? Now, my opinion is based solely on this thread. I heard about the case here, but what I'm gathering from the opinions here (and with no emotional opinions about the father, mother, and adoptive parents) is that the father is using his heritage to make an end run around the law and it almost worked. I can't help but wonder if the bio dad works this hard to care for his other child(ren). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeenagerMom Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Actually the original judge who gave him custody back ruled that he did NOT sign a TPR. Period. SCSC ruled that he did not have rights because by THEIR laws (not OK laws) he didn't provide support to the mother for 6 month prior to the baby being born, though by the birth mother's own testimony she cut off all contact with him and did not inform him of the adoption. The SC judge also found that the mother was not a credible witness and had purposely concealed her intentions. The entire testimony of the mother is on the web. She even stated she KNEW he was a NA and that the returned form from the Cherokee Nation was incorrect. Birth Mom also stated he was a good father to his other daughter and his ex-wife has gone to bat for him and testified that he is a good parent to his daughter with her. I don't see how the argument is at all complicated or murky if the father signed a legal termination of rights. There is no mystical fine print there. When you sign that paper voluntarily and of sound mind, you are out before the ink dries. It's sad that he changed his mind and is pulling out all the stops NOW, and it's sad that the courts shuffled the girl so hastily, but they can't very well set the precedent that possession overrides a legal mistake. Maybe they need a box on the termination form to check if you're Native American so they can make some sort of tribal permission slip part of your packet? Now, my opinion is based solely on this thread. I heard about the case here, but what I'm gathering from the opinions here (and with no emotional opinions about the father, mother, and adoptive parents) is that the father is using his heritage to make an end run around the law and it almost worked. I can't help but wonder if the bio dad works this hard to care for his other child(ren). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Actually the original judge who gave him custody back ruled that he did NOT sign a TPR. Period. SCSC ruled that he did not have rights because by THEIR laws (not OK laws) he didn't provide support to the mother for 6 month prior to the baby being born, though by the birth mother's own testimony she cut off all contact with him and did not inform him of the adoption. The SC judge also found that the mother was not a credible witness and had purposely concealed her intentions. The entire testimony of the mother is on the web. She even stated she KNEW he was a NA and that the returned form from the Cherokee Nation was incorrect. Birth Mom also stated he was a good father to his other daughter and his ex-wife has gone to bat for him and testified that he is a good parent to his daughter with her. Well, now, that's a whole different ball of wax. I reverse my original position. I am, however, only following THIS conversation and not the actual events IRL :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Leave that poor baby be! There comes a time when a parent has to do the right thing. If the C's love this child, they need to let her stay with her bio father. Why would they want her to suffer that loss at this point? Mourn her, yes, but let her go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinE Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Well, now, that's a whole different ball of wax. I reverse my original position. I am, however, only following THIS conversation and not the actual events IRL :-) I feel for the Cs but if I were adopting a child and the birth father came forward saying he did not give up his paternal rights, I'd need to reassess the situation, no matter the law. There's legal and then there's moral. Using the law, the Cs have essentially stolen Veronica from her birth father. If the Cs somehow gain custody, how are they going to explain this to Veronica when she's older? I have no doubt Veronica's father will reach out to her as soon as she reaches 18, if not sooner. Veronica's father has already shown for four years he will not abandon his child. He's not going to go away should the C's prevail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertechmom Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Here's what I don't understand...... How is it that both the C"s and the birth mother admit knowing that the paperwork to the Cherokee nation was incorrect - wrong spelling of the father's name and the wrong birth date- which led the CN to believe that the child was not Cherokee and not their concern as to her placement. Isn't that fraud? Lying? Disenfranchisement or something that makes the entire removal of the baby from OK to SC ILLEGAL in the first place? If the info had been correct, the CN would not have approved her adoption and would not have let her leave the state. So how can the C's claim their adoption was legal since their removal of her was illegal in the first place? Supply incorrect info to mislead people is not a wrong? why isn't' it just that simple? They gave the wrong info ( and admit it was wrong and admit they knew it would be trouble). Thus shouldn't the adoption in SC be null and void and the child really belongs to the CN and they decide her fate which is what would have happened had they told the truth at HER BIRTH. Or am i just wrong? Edited: Quite frankly, I hope the Cs never see her again. I hope the grandparents remain so deep in CN that nobody can actually enforce anything for years to come. She can grow up where she would have had the truth been told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 You are correct, supertechmom. It's a known fact that SC is politically and judicially underhanded when it comes to adoption. I've experienced this in my own life. I've recently read more about the original attorney. In fact, Indian Country Today Media Network has learned that Raymond Godwin allegedly told another lawyer in South Carolina, who declined to be identified, that he placed “upwards of 50 Native American children from North Dakota†last year alone. In that conversation, Godwin said that Indian children are easier to place, “because they're lighter-skinned.†Even worse, says Mason, is the blatant marketing and selling of Indian children by lawyers who make anywhere from $25,000 to copy00,000 in legal fees for these children. “Anyone can do the math and realize that this is an enormous industry in the trafficking of Indian children,†says Mason. “And they're preying on poor, uneducated Native women who are in poverty and have no idea what's going on and don't know any better, which is precisely why ICWA was enacted in the first place. They are predators who do everything in secret to prevent the biological fathers and the tribes from blocking the flow of income they receive off these adoptions.†Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/27/underbelly-us-adoption-industry-trafficking-native-children-151006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.