It was in the South Carolina Supreme court ruling the father NEVER gave up parental rights, these rights where never terminated. The paps knew Veronica's father was a member of the Cherokee nation and tried to avoid a law to illegally steal another man's child a man who is raising a daughter with his ex who is fully supporting him. His older daughter loves him and her little sister and said in an interview she was scared of loosing her.
Anyone thinking he had to give his consent to the adoption is wrong. If you think he would have wanted this child had he known about the adoption you are wrong. He wanted no part of her life nor any financial responsibility. The minute he signed that contract with the mother his rights ended. Period. It's basic contract law. And common sense. Family court and the SCSC only gave Brown custody because of that asinine law. Yes the judge brought up the contract, but he was clearly posturing to solidify the courts split decision. Make no mistake, if it were not for that asinine federal law this little girl would be where she belongs - with her adoptive parents.
Very simply this case is over as far as South Carolina is concerned. They have ruled that Dusten Brown is the legal and only father of Veronica. That means it is up to him who sees or talks to his child. To call every week for months seemed a bit like stalking, how did they have the number and address should not have all of that gone thru the lawyer. Plus even the man who wrote this law said it works when it is followed as seen here it was not followed. Errors were made on both sides.
Bio mom cut of contact with Dusten did not tell him when she went into labor and that she had chosen adoption for their baby. How could he be there when he was not told she was in labor. And as much as the C's love this child she is NOT their daughter.
Filing with SCOTUS is their right as citizens of US. The odds are really not in their favor that the court will even hear this case.
This articles has skipped many of the facts and really has only shown one side. Dusten Brown has kept him and his daughter out of media and that is his right. The SC Supreme Court has said it all: Father did not consent. They never even asked him to sign a TPR. As I said mistakes were made on both sides and signing something in error should not mean that you lose your child!
And just because this article says she was adopted does not make it true. They are not nor have they ever been her legal parents. As has been said the adoption was never final. Dusten stopped that from happening and fought for his daughter. And insulting her father and their heritage is really in bad taste and that has been SVR stance from the beginning. They have dragged Dusten down just because he had the nerve to ask to parent his own daughter!
Also Julian(MJW), you claiming that "Tell you what...you people stop stealing our children and I'll stop being hateful...deal?" statement that you made is just asinine of you. YOU are NOT my children's father or even remotely related to them (thank god). So just who do YOU think you are? My husband and myself (both of NA decent) will be the ONLY ones making a decision regarding our children (all of whom are enrolled members).
Without addressing anything else in your entire comment, let me just say this about the next to the last sentence:
That is not your call. It isn't their call. It isn't my call. The decision about who his daughter has contact with and ANYTHING else which concerns her is HIS decision and NOBODY else's...PERIOD. Would you want anyone else making decisions concerning your child? I wouldn't want that either. I don't think any of us would. She is his daughter. She is home where she belongs. He loves her and she loves him. Leave them alone.
The story of this family's loss reminds me to savor every moment of my child's life. Every tantrumy, homework-struggling, exhausting moment that all of us parents go through. Hug your kids tight and be glad they are home with you.
Dear Julian, That my dear is like calling the kettle BLACK since I am NA, and you referring to "white people" as "you people". You my dear are not even intelligent enough to distinguish individual people, you just lump them all in to one category of "you people". Not knowing who you are referring to. And your RACIST, THREATENING AND BELITTLING attitude is exactly why many people look down on us NA, it's people like you who give NA bad names. And by the way Julian (Michael J Winterfeldt), you don't even want to go there.
BAD KARMA. Dusten Brown - whether he has the right to parent Veronica (Ronnie Brown) Capobianco or not - is behaving in very bad faith. Cutting off his daughter from the only parents she has known since birth reeks of his vengeful spirit. Dusten Brown's lawyer and her cruelty towards the couple is absolutely mind-boggling. He should have been a FATHER then, and realized the Capobiancos are now a part of his life, his and his daughter's. He has to know they will fight him all the way to SCOTUS, especially when he has poured out so much hatred and cruelty towards this couple. They love his daughter! They have loved her from the moment of her birth. Just look at these pictures of Matt and Melanie, how much they have changed over the past year. They are suffering profoundly. Dusten Brown and his lawyer have lost their humanity by not extending their compassion and respect and GRATITUDE to this family. Whether or not they win in court, the Capobiancos should remain a part of Veronica's life. Veronica deserves that most of all.
Add that to the one you made about my "Indian name" being "one without guts", and it looks more like you're the one who isn't so nice, doesn't it?
That's the kind of comment you elicit when you make a racist comment like the one you made which preceded mine. You telling a Native American to "go sit in your tent" is about like telling an African American to go eat some fried chicken and watermelon. If you don't like my response to your bigotry, don't make racial slurs.
You are incorrect in practically every single thing you stated. (1) He DID have to consent to the adoption, in order for it to be legal. (2) He did NOT voluntarily surrender his parental rights, and any assertion to the contrary is incorrect, and needs to be supported by evidence if you are going to continue to assert it. (3) The law is NOT a "bad law" (Is that a legal term?) and you obviously have no understanding of its purposes if that is your assertion. (4) The judge was not "wrong". The THREE Justices of the Supreme Court of South Carolina correctly ruled to uphold the law in this situation and to protect the rights of the child, the father, the Cherokee Nation, and their respective relationships. (The only parties who legally have any rights in this situation.)
Please provide any evidence whatsoever which clearly supports ANY of your assertions, because so far all you have stated has been your uninformed, incorrect, and biased opinions, which are glazed over with your stupidity. You're very vocal for someone who doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about...a very bad combination...as you, and everyone else, will see if you continue to engage me on this issue, and with no more facts or intelligence than you have. Do yourself a favor...go back to the drunk hillbilly discussion board...before I REALLY help you to make yourself look stupid.
Ned Hill...trying to "reason" with someone like Julian Winnfield aka James Latimer aka Billy Bud and aka about 10 other fake profile (by his own admission) "I've got about ten different FB accounts, each one of them just as fake as all of the the others", is impossible. He is a very bitter person who thinks everyone is an "idiot" (as he is forever claiming) also he admits that he either is a abuser of women or a supporter of abusing women...in his own words
Julian Winnfield Tammy Herman :
"Actually, my Indian name is kinda long. It's "SLAP A RACIST B*TCH IF SHE SAID IT TO MY FACE". That's a loose translation, but you get the idea. I would never hit any woman, but I'd consider making an exception for you". Yeah, so really NOTHING he has to say is really of any important to ANYONE, but his own little ego (sarcasm intended).
Don't forget this part Julian, “We do not take lightly the grave interests at stake in this case. However, we are constrained by the law and convinced by the facts that the transfer of custody to Father was required under the law. Adoptive Couple are ideal parents who have exhibited the ability provide a loving family environment for Baby Girl. Thus, it is with a heavy heart that we affirm the family court order.”
If it weren't for the ICWA this child would still be in South Carolina. The biological father got special treatment because he has some Cherokee blood. His actions leading up to, and following the birth were enough to terminate his rights under SC law.
Sorry everyone but had the bio mom been honest and tell the dad WHERE his baby was going, this would never have happened. Why didn't she tell him that she found a suitable home for their daughter? Because she is a sneaky biotch that's why! They were NOT married, he was not responsible for her, only the child. The adoption was NEVER final. The media has done a fabulous job painting this sad picture of two unsuspecting parents raising their 'adopted' daughter, when all of a sudden, 2 years later this man shows up to reclaim his daughter. Not the case. Veronica is home.
Julian, he didn't have to consent to the adoption. Once you give up your rights you have no say in what the mother does. If I sell you a car I can't tell you how to drive it. If I sell you my business I can't tell you how to run it. The law is a bad law and the judge was wrong. Many laws are bad and overthrown as are judges decisions. He did not request any stipulations when he signed away his rights. He didn't want the mother nor the child and he didn't want to be responsible for child support. As soon as he signed the paper his rights ended. Anything after that is bull shit and a legal tactic.
It is absolutely unbelievable...the sheer number of uninformed and incorrect opinions on this, and every, news article about this situation. Most of them seem to be based upon the incorrect asertion that Father "signed away his rights" or some other ridiculous way of saying he voluntarily terminated his parental rights to his child. Let's put that particular incorrect assertion to rest once and for all, shall we:
"Father DID NOT consent to Baby Girl's adoption, and we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that custody by him would result in serious emotional or physical harm to Baby Girl." (emphasis added) -Chief Justice Toal, South Carolina Supreme Court
Ned Hill, think what you want about ICWA. The case is based on all that ICWA entitles and Congress passed it long ago. That fact is not made up. And yes, you are very right about emotional ties being left out of articles, but i addressed my own personal experience to help my argument in order to show that I could relate to how they were feeling. I really think you should do more research on tribal politics, however, because you do not seem to understand at all how important this case is to Native people and why someone like me would make a big issue out of it. If you could please, cite a few sources of fact rather than opinion on why ICWA law should not even be considered in this case.
I can't believe how many times, over the last 9 months that I have read how the tribe's interests are more important than Veronica's, or any NA child's. It sickens me. The best interests of the children should ALWAYS be first!! I am an adoptee, and SO thankful that my biological parents were not as selfish, and that they made a hard decision and stuck with it. They didn’t change their minds and uproot me from my loving family. They gave me the love and respect to provide the opportunity for me to have the amazing life I have now. I wholeheartedly wish Veronica’s would have had the same love and respect.
Cante, you also keep ignoring the fact that the mother is not an indian. This child was never going to be raised as an indian nor on a reservation till the tribe got involved.
Tiger Woods 1/8 indian. Does a tribe have rights to him too?
This whole thing is preposterous and simply another example of government meddling where it doesn't belong.
Canta, you are a perfect example of why emotions should be left out of these situations and facts and common sense dictate. The law is a bad and stupid law. And you keep making up facts and speculating rather than judge the case on its merits and what was presented in the article. If you think this is a case of a father simply changing his mind you are nuts. I think there is little doubt that the tribe is behind this. The man signed a legal document. He gave up his rights. End of story. Sadly the child is being hurt the most as her best interests are not driving the rulings.
Regarding your sister, you need to chill. I never said she doesn't exist. I said I have no idea if your story is true and I'm sure others familiar with your story would tell it differently. Everyone puts their own bias into things. The bottom line, your story is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this case.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper