Romado 
Member since Sep 27, 2012


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Supreme Court sets date to hear Baby Veronica case

She is NOT their "adoptive daughter" the adoption was denied! I really wish you would get the facts straight

22 of 37 people like this.
Posted by Romado on February 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Re: “Baby Veronica case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

Could you please get your facts right. The adoption was never final so therefore she was not legally theirs. Yes they wanted to adopt her but it was challenged by the father (Dusty Brown) and they lost. You give people the impression it was an overturned adoption not a pending one. He filed when she was 4 mths old and it took this long for the decision to be made. For one year he was in Iraq and when he got home in 2010 he continued the fight for his daughter. Even in the SC supreme court paperwork they say they were denied the adoption.

26 of 52 people like this.
Posted by Romado on October 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Re: “Broken Home: The Save Veronica story

Thank you Dara for pointing that out! The law was not followed and that is why this whole mess started. I have always wondered if the C's had thought that Dusten was behind the adoption and that they did not need his contest to have the adoption go thru why did they serve him in the first place?? and why wait 4 mths to do it??? They filed for adoption in Sept 2009 in the first week of Veronica life and if they started this process so fast why the 4 mth wait???

16 of 18 people like this.
Posted by Romado on September 27, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Re: “Broken Home: The Save Veronica story

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!

32 of 42 people like this.
Posted by Romado on September 27, 2012 at 12:42 AM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2016, Charleston City Paper   RSS