Baby Veronica

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

Sure.  I would also wonder why said blog would think a DUI 20 years ago was somehow relevant.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What is?  The SC couple's spokesperson?

 

Something other than an opinion piece dressed up as an "article".

[Danestress]

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.

 

  Again, I am asking you for a citation.  You are saying that "according to court records" he made attempts to support her during the first four months of her life.  Can you tell me where a court found this?  Or where it was entered as evidence in court?

[mommaduck]

Court testimony.

[Scarlett]

Something other than an opinion piece dressed up as an "article".

 

 

I am not a fan of the media reporting on anything.  Information is not confirmed, facts are twisted, and since it is humans writing an article there is rarely a time it isn't slanted one direction or the other. 

 

However, if a person listens to many many sources and uses some discernment it is not that difficult to figure out who is trustworthy and who is not.  It also isn't that difficult to see the faults and mistakes of all parties and in this case that includes Dusten Brown.  He isn't perfect.  Yet he is Veronica's father and he has had basic parental rights denied him from the very beginning.

[Scarlett]

  Again, I am asking you for a citation.  You are saying that "according to court records" he made attempts to support her during the first four months of her life.  Can you tell me where a court found this?  Or where it was entered as evidence in court?

 

 

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

 

 

The above link is helpful I think.

[Mergath]

Sure.  I would also wonder why said blog would think a DUI 20 years ago was somehow relevant.

 

There's a lot of other relevant information in there that backs up many of the "allegations."

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am not a fan of the media reporting on anything.  Information is not confirmed, facts are twisted, and since it is humans writing an article there is rarely a time it isn't slanted one direction or the other. 

 

However, if a person listens to many many sources and uses some discernment it is not that difficult to figure out who is trustworthy and who is not.  It also isn't that difficult to see the faults and mistakes of all parties and in this case that includes Dusten Brown.  He isn't perfect.  Yet he is Veronica's father and he has had basic parental rights denied him from the very beginning.

 

I agree.  I place him partly to blame, as I do believe he was looking for away to avoid paying support OR was using it as leverage to continue a relationship with the mother that she did not want.  While I disagree with a large part of the ICWA, the greater issue to me is the flaws in the SC (and many other) state adoption laws that do not adequately protect the rights of fathers.

 

[Danestress]

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.

 

 

I posted in response to a statement to the effect of, "You obviously haven't been reading this thread closely, because you don't know the facts."  

 

If I really want to know facts, this thread is not actually the place I would look.  I would look to the court opinions for those facts.  I haven't actually gone to that effort.  I read the Supreme Court opinion (including the dissent), but have not read the lower court decision.  While of course the Supreme Court isn't really taking evidence and determining facts, it often (as in this case) lays out what the basic facts of the case are as determined by the trial court, and that is the source of my information. 

 

It's not perfect, but it beats reading blogs and relying on posts on a homeschool board claiming special inside information, lol.  I don't really know where else to turn.  I have not found a reliable source saying that the father of this child was trying at send money during the late pregnancy or the first months of this child's life.  I seem to recall that after he became aware of the adoption, THEN the tried to send gifts and they were turned away.  I would have to check that.  But I take it as a "fact" that the father did not attempt to support the child through those four months because that's what the Supreme Court took as a fact.  If it's good enough for Scalia, it's good enough for me.  

 

If the father failed to enter evidence at the trial court level, that's a shame - truly.  I do think that would have made a difference in the final resolution of his case.  I tend to think he had very bad legal advice, and my sympathies are with him.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The above link is helpful I think.

 

The only reference I can find is regarding "presents" brought to the deposition which would not be considered support.

[Murphy101]

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

I don't know anyone who actually has children who would write that, even the ones who are pro the SC side.

 

And obviously I disagree that she was bought and sold.

 

So yes you can have all the opinion you want and so can others.

[BYE]

I don't know anyone who actually has children who would write that, even the ones who are pro the SC side.

 

And obviously I disagree that she was bought and sold.

 

So yes you can have all the opinion you want and so can others.

What?! I don't believe that saying she was bought and sold is an accurate description of what happened so therefore I couldn't possibly be a mother? Well heads up...you're wrong. I am a mother and I would die for my children. And that is the very reason I have NO sympathy for the bio dad. You don't give away your rights to your daughter and then get to change your mind in my eyes.

[mommaduck]

What?! I don't believe that saying she was bought and sold is an accurate description of what happened so therefore I couldn't possibly be a mother? Well heads up...you're wrong. I am a mother and I would die for my children. And that is the very reason I have NO sympathy for the bio dad. You don't give away your rights to your daughter and then get to change your mind in my eyes.

 

Apparently you are not military and have never had to sign papers as preparation for deployment.

[Murphy101]

No. I was referring to you saying she is just lucky to be loved by so many. She might be, but I think it's long odds against her viewing it that way when she is grown.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Apparently you are not military and have never had to sign papers as preparation for deployment.

 

Those are not the same papers he signed and that has never been his claim.  That is simply an elaborate backstory put together by some of his supporters.

[momto2Cs]

Well. it's all over anyhow. I sided on the biological father's side, fwiw, as there was so much confusion and misunderstanding around his parental rights, and I think it is tragic she is being removed from a home where she has so much love AND full access to her heritage. Having said that, I applaud Dusten Brown for his peaceful surrender.

[Scarlett]

I posted in response to a statement to the effect of, "You obviously haven't been reading this thread closely, because you don't know the facts."  

 

If I really want to know facts, this thread is not actually the place I would look.

 

 

I said that....to clarify I didn't really mean that the 'facts' were coming from this thread....but there have been links to the court documents and other more trustworthy sources. 

[BYE]

No. I was referring to you saying she is just lucky to be loved by so many. She might be, but I think it's long odds against her viewing it that way when she is grown.

She is lucky to be loved by so many. The odds will only be stacked against her if people tell her for her whole life that she was bought and sold. This is so silly. Because I believe this experience does not have to destroy her then I'm ignorant about the details and I couldn't possibly be a mother. Sorry but I think we should spend more of our outrage on the children is foster care who have NO attachments and nobody to love them. Baby Vs mother gave her to a couple that clearly loves her. It's been decided and everyone can go on and find something else to be outraged about.

[Scarlett]

Well. it's all over anyhow. I sided on the biological father's side, fwiw, as there was so much confusion and misunderstanding around his parental rights, and I think it is tragic she is being removed from a home where she has so much love AND full access to her heritage. Having said that, I applaud Dusten Brown for his peaceful surrender.

 

 

Certainly unlike the emotional and public surrender the Cs did in SC 2 years ago. 

 

But I don't think it is over.  The CN is suppose to issue a statement this afternoon regarding plans moving forward, if any.

[Ravin]

Just because it's good enought for Justice Scalia does NOT mean it's good enough for me. I seldom agree with him, mostly because his "consistent" philosophy on how to interpret the Constitution tends to take a back seat to a modern conservative stance on issues when it's suddenly inconvenient, and his inability to defer to evidence from other branches of government in statutory construction even in situations when it's clearly standard practice to do so.

 

 

[Mergath]

She is lucky to be loved by so many. The odds will only be stacked against her if people tell her for her whole life that she was bought and sold. This is so silly. Because I believe this experience does not have to destroy her then I'm ignorant about the details and I couldn't possibly be a mother. Sorry but I think we should spend more of our outrage on the children is foster care who have NO attachments and nobody to love them. Baby Vs mother gave her to a couple that clearly loves her. It's been decided and everyone can go on and find something else to be outraged about.

Perhaps the C's should have adopted one of those children instead of ripping away a little girl who already has a large and loving family.

[ErinE]

She is lucky to be loved by so many. The odds will only be stacked against her if people tell her for her whole life that she was bought and sold. This is so silly. Because I believe this experience does not have to destroy her then I'm ignorant about the details and I couldn't possibly be a mother. Sorry but I think we should spend more of our outrage on the children is foster care who have NO attachments and nobody to love them. Baby Vs mother gave her to a couple that clearly loves her. It's been decided and everyone can go on and find something else to be outraged about.

 

Have you ever talked to a child who was denied (by the biological mother) access to the biological father? Have you ever spoken to a biological father who loves his child but since he was too poor, he was unable to fight the biological mother in court? Have you ever had to explain to a teenager why the biological father wasn't in the teen's life until the teen found out the truth and fought to see the biological father? Have you ever talked with a child who has been lied to about the circumstances of the child's birth and infancy? 

 

I am very familiar with these exact circumstances and I can tell you there isn't gratefulness for all the love shown. There's a sense of betrayal, and there's a ridiculous amount of emotional turmoil. Veronica will find out the truth and if the C's think there won't be a reckoning for what they've done to this girl, they are kidding themselves.

[mommaduck]

She is lucky to be loved by so many. The odds will only be stacked against her if people tell her for her whole life that she was bought and sold. This is so silly. Because I believe this experience does not have to destroy her then I'm ignorant about the details and I couldn't possibly be a mother. Sorry but I think we should spend more of our outrage on the children is foster care who have NO attachments and nobody to love them. Baby Vs mother gave her to a couple that clearly loves her. It's been decided and everyone can go on and find something else to be outraged about.

 

I'm guessing you are against adoptee rights. Or rather the right of a child to stay with a biological family that wants and loves her. Apparently, the rights of those that have money should be given first priority on who this child goes to, correct? Perhaps the C's, being such loving and caring people, should have helped one of those children in the foster care system who didn't have anyone.

 

Outraged? Yes, given what adoptees go through as children and as adults, yes, we should be outraged.

[mommaduck]

Have you ever talked to a child who was denied (by the biological mother) access to the biological father? Have you ever spoken to a biological father who loves his child but since he was too poor, he was unable to fight the biological mother in court? Have you ever had to explain to a teenager why the biological father wasn't in the teen's life until the teen found out the truth and fought to see the biological father? Have you ever talked with a child who has been lied to about the circumstances of the child's birth and infancy? 

 

I am very familiar with these exact circumstances and I can tell you there isn't gratefulness for all the love shown. There's a sense of betrayal, and there's a ridiculous amount of emotional turmoil. Veronica will find out the truth and if the C's think there won't be a reckoning for what they've done to this girl, they are kidding themselves.

 

Thank you for saying this. THIS, exactly THIS. :(

 

[Danestress]

Just because it's good enought for Justice Scalia does NOT mean it's good enough for me. I seldom agree with him, mostly because his "consistent" philosophy on how to interpret the Constitution tends to take a back seat to a modern conservative stance on issues when it's suddenly inconvenient, and his inability to defer to evidence from other branches of government in statutory construction even in situations when it's clearly standard practice to do so.

Haha. I guess I picked the wrong justice! I am not a fan of him or his constitutional theories either.

 

My point was merely that when trying to determine what the facts of this case are, I find it fairly persuasive that certain facts are cited in the Court's opinion. I keep reading things in this thread as 'true.' I don't know what is true. But I do find court findings, as recited in the opinion, more persuasive than just reading here.

 

That is not to say I think anyone is being deceptive. It's just an emotional case for a lot of people, and I find some of the posting to appear inaccurate.

[BYE]

You all are right. Baby V was snatched out of her loving fathers arms. The bio father supported the baby from day 1 and never wavered in his devotion to his newborn. He never signed away his rights. The only thing he signed was a military document. And we all know he was forced to join the military. And now Baby V will undoubtedly become a train wreck and karma will come and get the adoptive family.

 

All hail the bio father. No dissenting opinions allowed here.

[Scarlett]

You all are right. Baby V was snatched out of her loving fathers arms. The bio father supported the baby from day 1 and never wavered in his devotion to his newborn. He never signed away his rights. The only thing he signed was a military document. And we all know he was forced to join the military. And now Baby V will undoubtedly become a train wreck and karma will come and get the adoptive family.

 

All hail the bio father. No dissenting opinions allowed here.

 

 

:001_rolleyes:

[Mergath]

You all are right. Baby V was snatched out of her loving fathers arms. The bio father supported the baby from day 1 and never wavered in his devotion to his newborn. He never signed away his rights. The only thing he signed was a military document. And we all know he was forced to join the military. And now Baby V will undoubtedly become a train wreck and karma will come and get the adoptive family.

 

All hail the bio father. No dissenting opinions allowed here.

 

You can dissent all you want.  But if your dissent is based on propaganda from the C's team of publicists, expect there will be some counter-dissent.

[ktgrok]

She is lucky to be loved by so many. The odds will only be stacked against her if people tell her for her whole life that she was bought and sold. This is so silly. Because I believe this experience does not have to destroy her then I'm ignorant about the details and I couldn't possibly be a mother. Sorry but I think we should spend more of our outrage on the children is foster care who have NO attachments and nobody to love them. Baby Vs mother gave her to a couple that clearly loves her. It's been decided and everyone can go on and find something else to be outraged about.

 

I disagree. If they loved her they would have left her with her father. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You can dissent all you want.  But if your dissent is based on propaganda from the C's team of publicists, expect there will be some counter-dissent.

 

There has been just as much propoganda from the father's side.  He *did* sign away custody (his legal team stipulates that) but is questionable as to whether or not he knew the full ramifications of what he signed at the time,

He did *not* provide financial assistance during the pregnancy or take any steps to assert his rights as the father.

 

Personally, I believe the SC law is flawed in how it treats unmarried fathers, but at the same time I do believe that had Mr. Brown made mistakes that helped cause this mess.

[Scarlett]

There has been just as much propoganda from the father's side.  He *did* sign away custody (his legal team stipulates that) but is questionable as to whether or not he knew the full ramifications of what he signed at the time,

He did *not* provide financial assistance during the pregnancy or take any steps to assert his rights as the father.

 

Personally, I believe the SC law is flawed in how it treats unmarried fathers, but at the same time I do believe that had Mr. Brown made mistakes that helped cause this mess.

 

 

I don't think there has been as much propoganda on the Brown's side.  I do agree he didn't do everything just right in the beginning. 

 

I do think that when she refused to talk to him and refused the gifts he or his family offered, he just sort of shrugged and said oh well, she will come around.  And then he was distracted by the whole deployment thing....and while the papers that he signed might not have been the same kind soldiers sign before deployment wouldn't he have needed to sign those regular deployment papers?  I don't know all the terms so I know I sound kind of clueless....but the fact is his deployment DID make it more difficult for him to fight for custody....once he started fighting that is...once he realized his baby's mother was giving her away to strangers.

[unsinkable]

At what age was the baby placed with the adoptive family?

 

How old was she when the biological dad told them he wanted her and had not given up his rights?

[Pamela H in Texas]

This is another case where I have to hold out hope that though I believe none of this would have been God's will, He can work with whatever we mere humans, dust as we are, throw at him.  I hope the very best for little Veronica despite what has been done to her so far.  

 

Thinking of all the little people I've been so fortunate to have known.  Hoping they are all healing, happy, healthy, and safe today.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think there has been as much propoganda on the Brown's side.  I do agree he didn't do everything just right in the beginning. 

 

I do think that when she refused to talk to him and refused the gifts he or his family offered, he just sort of shrugged and said oh well, she will come around.  And then he was distracted by the whole deployment thing....and while the papers that he signed might not have been the same kind soldiers sign before deployment wouldn't he have needed to sign those regular deployment papers?  I don't know all the terms so I know I sound kind of clueless....but the fact is his deployment DID make it more difficult for him to fight for custody....once he started fighting that is...once he realized his baby's mother was giving her away to strangers.

 

They tried to give gifts at the depositions - a bit too late.

 

Considering he was not legally considered the father at that point, no there was no paperwork for him to complete.  The deployment did have an impact on the battle but would not have if he would have acted immediately instead of waiting four months.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

At what age was the baby placed with the adoptive family?

 

How old was she when the biological dad told them he wanted her and had not given up his rights?

 

1.) Shortly after birth (I think).

 

2.) Sometime, but not long, after 4 months.

[unsinkable]

1.) Shortly after birth (I think).

 

2.) Sometime, but not long, after 4 months.

So, it was clear to the adoptive parents by approximately 5 months the baby's father was contesting the situation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, it was clear to the adoptive parents by approximately 5 months the baby's father was contesting the situation.

 

Yes.

[Mergath]

So, it was clear to the adoptive parents by approximately 5 months the baby's father was contesting the situation.

Yes, but they and the birth mother took steps from day one to ensure he remained unaware of the adoption, so it does seem as if they knew he would oppose it before V was even born. He contested it as soon as he became aware of it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, but they and the birth mother took steps from day one to ensure he remained unaware of the adoption, so it does seem as if they knew he would oppose it before V was even born. He contested it as soon as he became aware of it.

 

He also took zero steps to assert his parental rights or provide for his child.

[songsparrow]

He also took zero steps to assert his parental rights or provide for his child.

 

Except, of course, for wanting to marry Veronica's mother.

[BYE]

Except, of course, for wanting to marry Veronica's mother.

Shame on her for refusing his marriage proposal. We all know woman have no choice in who they marry. And if they refuse a proposal then they deserve no support for the child.

[songsparrow]

I didn't say or imply that. But the fact that he wanted to marry her shows that he was not totally avoiding responsibility, as people like to imply.

It is clearly a step to provide for his child, even if it was refused by the mother, contrary to the assertion that he took ZERO steps to provide for his child.

He and his parents claim that they also tried to provide money, medical care and tangible gifts, all of which were also refused by the mother.

[Mergath]

Shame on her for refusing his marriage proposal. We all know woman have no choice in who they marry. And if they refuse a proposal then they deserve no support for the child.

So what you're saying is the only acceptable form of support in your eyes is piles of cash flung at the birth mother from a safe distance. No wonder you're such a fan of the C's.

[Scarlett]

So what you're saying is the only acceptable form of support in your eyes is piles of cash flung at the birth mother from a safe distance. No wonder you're such a fan of the C's.

 

 

Yep.  I saw the birth mom on a clip she did for a Dr. Phil show she is going to be on....ugh.  Just ugh.

 

And she doesn't have custody of her kids from her first marriage. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Except, of course, for wanting to marry Veronica's mother.

 

And saying he didn't want to pay support if she didn't marry him.  Great guy.

 

BTW, just wanting to marry the mother doesn't mean he can't exercise his rights if she refuses.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So what you're saying is the only acceptable form of support in your eyes is piles of cash flung at the birth mother from a safe distance. No wonder you're such a fan of the C's.

 

Way out of line. 

[songsparrow]

And saying he didn't want to pay support if she didn't marry him.  Great guy.

 

That's the one non-commendable thing this dad is alleged to have done.  I think it's greatly outweighed by his other actions.  

 

If the bio mom didn't want to marry him, she could - and should - have filed for support.  It didn't matter what he said he did or didn't want to do, he was legally obligated to provide support and she could have pursued that.  She knew he was employed and who his employer was.  But instead she chose to do everything in her power, and according to the advice of the C's attorneys and/or adoption agency, to deceive him and hide the adoption proceedings from both him and the Cherokee Nation.  She was willing to allow his child to be adopted without his knowledge or consent.  Great gal.

[Mergath]

Way out of line. 

 

I disagree.  No matter what Dusten does, he can't win.  He offered to marry the birth mom, and thus support her and the baby.  She turned him down.  So he tries to send gifts.  His family tries to help with the medical care.  She turns that down.  Then, when he finds out she's going to sell their baby to strangers, he objects.  So naturally, everyone freaks out about how he never offered any support and shouldn't be allowed to call himself a father.

 

So apparently, the only acceptable form of support from a father is monthly checks in the mail.  Actually wanting to be a full-time husband and father doesn't count when you stack it against child support checks, it would seem.

 

And that viewpoint lines up with everything I've read about the C's.  Throw enough money at a problem and you're bound to get whatever you want, no matter who you hurt.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I disagree.  No matter what Dusten does, he can't win.  He offered to marry the birth mom, and thus support her and the baby.  She turned him down.  So he tries to send gifts.  His family tries to help with the medical care.  She turns that down.  Then, when he finds out she's going to sell their baby to strangers, he objects.  So naturally, everyone freaks out about how he never offered any support and shouldn't be allowed to call himself a father.

 

So apparently, the only acceptable form of support from a father is monthly checks in the mail.  Actually wanting to be a full-time husband and father doesn't count when you stack it against child support checks, it would seem.

 

And that viewpoint lines up with everything I've read about the C's.  Throw enough money at a problem and you're bound to get whatever you want, no matter who you hurt.

 

Where is the proof that the family did anything for her before the pregnancy?  Or made any effort to do anything before more than 4 months after the child was born? 

 

BTW, the offer of marriage (according to the mom) was "Marry me or I won't provide support."  If that is true, and you think somehow that equates to him actually wanting to support his child, I am gobsmacked. 

 

He knew when the child was born. He did nothing legally to assert his rights. Nothing.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's the one non-commendable thing this dad is alleged to have done.  I think it's greatly outweighed by his other actions.  

 

If the bio mom didn't want to marry him, she could - and should - have filed for support.  It didn't matter what he said he did or didn't want to do, he was legally obligated to provide support and she could have pursued that.  She knew he was employed and who his employer was.  But instead she chose to do everything in her power, and according to the advice of the C's attorneys and/or adoption agency, to deceive him and hide the adoption proceedings from both him and the Cherokee Nation.  She was willing to allow his child to be adopted without his knowledge or consent.  Great gal.

 

The one thing?  I would say doing nothing to support his child qualifies as well. 

 

He said he didn't want to support the kid.  She didn't want to raise the child alone.  Adoption seems like a reasonable option, no? Odd that no court has ruled there was fraud on behalf of the attornies or adoption agency.  You think with all these "alleged" facts that fraud would pretty eacy to prove, no?