' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Adoptive father John Roberts: Not impartial in the Baby Veronica case
Join Jane at the CUB retreat in October. For more, see sidebar.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Adoptive father John Roberts: Not impartial in the Baby Veronica case

Adoptive father John Roberts
Judges are supposed to be impartial and immune from cronyism but Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have crossed that line in joining the majority in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. In a five to four decision, the Court gutted the Indian Child Welfare Act, ruling against father Dusten Brown. Brown, who is part Cherokee, lives in Oklahoma, and sought to stop the adoption of his daughter Veronica by Matt and Melanie Capobianco in South Carolina.

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in Brown's favor and Veronica, went to live with her father. In June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Brown and for the adoptive parents, the little girl--now almost four--had been living with her father for the past 18 months. Since the Supreme Court held the ICWA gave Brown no right to oppose the adoption, the South Carolina court approved Capobianco's petition to adopt Veronica and ordered that Brown transfer custody to them. Brown has applied for a stay from the Supreme Court. The justice who has jurisdiction in that case? Roberts, who oversees emergency petitions for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes South Carolina.

Chief Justice John Roberts who sided with four other justices isn't a disinterested jurist when it comes to adoption. He is an adoptive father and his acquisition of two children known to be Irish--via adopting them from a South American country--has raised a lot of questions. Irish law allows only people living in Ireland to adopt Irish children. They cannot be adopted internationally, as would have been the case--if not for whisking the birth mothers to a third country not bothered by prohibitions against adoption for foreigners.

There's no public record of how or why these children got to South America, but the facts suggest it was to circumvent Irish law. When The New York Times began looking into his adoptions during his appointment hearings, there were charges of "violation of privacy", as Wikipedia noted--until recently when this data was scrubbed from his Wikipedia page. Now it simply says he has two adopted children. Roberts and his wife, a lawyer with We note here that he and his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, married in their forties, and tried to have children but were unable to and so turned to adoption, but after several failed adoption attempts, "got lucky," according to the New York Times. Mrs. Roberts comes from an Irish Catholic family, and a source close to the Roberts family, who requested anonymity in order to discuss judicial deliberations, told The Huffington Post that the justice's wife, Jane, exercises a "heavy influence" over her husband.

Jane
The fact that the Court agreed to hear the Capobianco's appeal of the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision in the first place seems strange since the Court already had its hands full with gay marriage and voting rights cases. Roberts' extra-judicial connection with the case goes even farther than merely his status as an adoptive father. Veronica's birth mother, Christy Maldonado, was represented by Lori Alvino McGill, who filed a brief in support of the Capobianco's. McGill, it turns out, is a friend of Roberts. He attended her wedding to Matthew McGill in 2006. If that weren't enough, Matthew McGill was a law clerk for Roberts in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although a South Carolina court finalized the adoption July 31, the case is not over, according to Indian Country. The case now moves to Oklahoma where Veronica lives with Brown. Brown can contest enforcement of the South Carolina order in the Oklahoma courts. The Native American Rights Fund has also filed a civil rights action in federal court on behalf of Veronica's right to due process to determine her best interest.

Jeffrey Toobin

The Supreme Court is a "political body" writes legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker (7/8/13),  and this certainly seems true in this  case.

"'Dusten Brown never had a chance' said a source quoted by Indian Country. "'His biggest sin was that he got on the wrong side of the billion dollar adoption industry and he was winning....But it was stacked against him from the beginning....To Matt and Melanie Capobianco I want to say this: Please for Veronica's sake, just stop. Stop, and ask yourself if you really believe this is best for her.'"

We at FMF hope that the Capobianco's and the courts come to their senses and leave Veronica with her father. And we hope Congress takes action to fix the ICWA so that another Indian father does not  lose his child to the rapacious adoption industry.--jane
____________________________ 

To sign a petition for Dusten Brown and his daughter: We petition the Obama Administration to intervene in the adoption of Veronica Brown and to uphold the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Click on link.

SOURCES 
John Roberts  (Wikipedia)
Media Failures Lead to Flawed Understandings in Cherokee Adoption Case
John Roberts Supreme Court nomination
Indian Country: The Gloves Come Off: Civil Rights Suit Filed as Adoption of Veronica Finalized
Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law
FROM FMF:
Supreme Court rules against Indian father, limits Indian Child Welfare Act
'Baby Veronica' adoption will go forward

37 comments :

  1. Veronica's father has been fighting for her since she was a tiny baby. Her adoption was never finalized and the S.C. courts ruled that she belonged with her natural father 2 years ago. The same court is now reversing their ruling to the hurt of Baby Veronica. She is being reduced to a commodity.
    The adoption industry in America is big business. The money involved sets up an environment for coercion and conflict of interest. Human rights are violated and birth father's rights are brushed aside. Even the "counseling" to birth mothers provided by adoption agency employees is a conflict of interest because it is coercive. Their paying customers are prospective adoptive parents and they must have a continual supply of babies to meet demand.
    Countries such as Australia have completely removed money/marketing from adoption. They have restored adult adoptee's civil right to identity in obtaining their original birth certificates. Several US states have passed this legislation, supported by The Child Welfare League of America. Kansas has never sealed original birth certificates from adult adoptees. Adoptees are not commodities or perpetual children, but unethical adoption laws treats us exactly as that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is absolutely true that Roberts would not have been able to adopt from Ireland (depending on how old his children are). Since the early 1970's, Irish Adoption Law specifies that prospective adopters must be resident in the country for at least two years. If these children were trafficked to SA and Roberts acquired them there, then it is highly illegal and should be exposed. However, it could be that the relinquishing parents were resident in SA from Ireland. Interesting though...would love to know more about his background and how he adopted! And absolutely, as an adoptive father, he should've recused himself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The unverified (but probably accurate) account is that the pregnant Irish women were flown to a South American country where the children were born, and thus not subject to the embargo on adopting "Irish" children. He probably checked their health and IQ as if he were acquiring the offspring of a brood mare.

    Chief "Justice" John Roberts got the bloodlines he wanted by circumventing Irish law.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As an Irish adoptee, I am glad I came the the USA for adoption. Ireland is still a place where unmarried mothers are shamed and children like me are called bastard. When poeple stop judging each other and adoptions are open then you can judge Roberts. BTW, I am a Roosevelt Liberal and I have been trying throughout my life to find my birthmother. But to have grown up back in the place that made her give me away - NO.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Far to many interested parties making important decisions because they can, example Roberts. Illegal adoption is child trafficking and he is a involved in some pretty
    shady things adopting Irish babies from South America...hmmm

    Baby buying and selling is alive and well guess this guy couldn't buy the old fashioned way. Put order in like Rosie for a tummy mommy and viola a baby appears in record time.

    here's to hoping his adopted adult children can uncover the trail I am sure that's another reason he did it that way to make sure mother wouldn't come knocking on his door.

    Dirty politics, and money, go hand in hand...

    ReplyDelete
  6. While I am not a fan of Robert's politics, nor his ways of building his family, I take issue with the fact that an adoptive father can't be impartial. It's like saying that women can't be impartial on women's issues or that someone who is gay can't be impartial on gay rights.

    And, just because he voted against the father doesn't mean he was biased. Most everyone who has read anything about this case will tell you that it's legally convoluted and emotionally fraught.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ahhhh the bitter-train is out in full force I see. I'm not sure which disturbs me more: your attitude of seeing conspiracy everywhere or the fact that your claiming that one of the top jurists in the country can't be trusted to be impartial.

    Not everyone who has adopted is evil Jane. I didn't miss you one bit while you were gone. But, here you are, back again with your crazy talk and harshness. Of course you probably won't publish this, but at least you'll see it.

    And I know you'll ask: I'm a first mom, relinquished in 1968, and reunited in 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Pippa,

    There certainly was nothing in the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court that made me feel the decision was biased or not legally sound. I actually am more upset by the South Carolina Supreme Court responding to the opinion by immediately awarding custody to the adoptive parents, without a best interests consideration of Veronica as she is today.

    What bothers me about the US Supreme Court considering this case, however, is what might have pushed the Supreme Court to take this case in the first place. I think many family law scholars were wondering whether there was enough of a question of law to merit review by the nation's highest court. That's where I wonder if the Chief Justice's close ties to the birth mother's lawyer, Lori Alvino McGill, and her husband might have swayed the court in some way.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps Roberts can be impartial, but the birth mother's lawyer is married to a former law clerk of his, and Roberts attended their wedding. That's awfully cozy to his personal life and friendships.

    He might have recused himself to avoid even a whiff of impropriety.

    When his relationship with people involved in this case is added to his own position in the adoption triad as the adoptive father whose children are here because he circumvented Irish law, that whiff of impropriety begins to get a tad stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Lorraine. I actually think the US Supreme Court should not have granted certiorari in this case. I am concerned that the Chief Justice's personal ties may have swayed that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And I don't understand how blood quantum levels became a part of the ICWA discussion. We don't question how other nations define their citizen criteria to judge whether someone should be a citizen or not. If they're French citizens by french law, they're French citizens. There's no reason for Roberts to question whether Veronica and her father should belong to the Cherokee Nation or not. They are citizens/members. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As an adoptive father and attorney, there will be those who will believe the following comments are biased. They are, however, based on a knowledge of the ways in which our legal system operates and some understanding of the laws at issue before the Supreme Court.

    First, Roberts' status as an adoptive father is no more a disqualier than is the fact that other members of the court have biological children. While some may believe the adoption of his children was illegal, I've read no evidence of that to date. Unethical? Irish children being adopted from South America does raise some questions. (As for Obama blackmailing him: give it up.)

    Second, as to granting cert: there was a split in decisions from various federal appellate courts on the issue presented by this case. That's precisely the type of thing that qualifies a case for certiorari. It was a pretty important issue, as well, which we can see simply from the uproar the decision has created.

    Do I agree with the decision? No, but there's little I or anyone else can do about it, other than Congress. Given the influence of the adoption industry there, don't hold your breath waiting for a change in the law.

    In regard to blood quanta: an argument was made by the appellants that the provision of the ICWA at issue was unconstitutional. That argument,as I recall, involved blood quanta. There is a legal principle that says, in essence, that where a statute reasonably can be interpreted in such a way as to avoid having to reach a constitutional issue, that interpretation should be used. This influenced the decision in this case, even though the reasonableness of the majority's interprestation is open to question. (In essence, the majority wrote new conditions into the ICWA's adoption provisions - again, in my view.)

    I can't speak to whether his clerk had any influence in the decision to grant cert. Perhaps the clerk influenced Roberts, but Roberts couldn't do it on his own. He had to convince others it was merited. The nature of the case, and the split at the circuit court level, was enough to convince other judges to grant cert, regardless of Roberts' position. (Yes, I know he's chief justice, but that obviously doesn't mean much if anything to the other justices when it comes time to decide what to hear and how they'll rule.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. This, from Sotomayor's dissent, accurately summarizes the basis of the majority opinion and why it was wrong, in my view:

    The majority, reaching the contrary conclusion, asserts baldly that “when an Indian parent abandons an Indianchild prior to birth and that child has never been in theIndian parent’s legal or physical custody, there is no ‘relationship’ that would be ‘discontinu[ed]’ . . . by the termination of the Indian parent’s rights.” Ante, at 12. Says who? Certainly not the statute. Section 1903 recognizes Birth Father as Baby Girl’s “parent,” and, in conjunction withICWA’s other provisions, it further establishes that their“parent-child relationship” is protected under federal law.In the face of these broad definitions, the majority has no warrant to substitute its own policy views for Congress’ by saying that “no ‘relationship’” exists between Birth Father and Baby Girl simply because, based on the hotly contested facts of this case, it views their family bond as insufficiently substantial to deserve protection.3 Ibid.

    The majority opinion echoed the Supreme Court's decision in Lehr v. Robertson, a 1983 case which upheld New York's putative father registration statute. In Lehr, the court held that "the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent protection. If the natural father fails to grasp the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, the Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie." Pp. 463 U. S. 256-263.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi James,

    I tried to respond to your posts earlier, but don't think my comments went through. I am an attorney too, although not a family law expert. My interest in this case is as an adoptive parent who is concerned about many procedures and laws that result in unethical practices in the adoption industry.

    I think the US Supreme Court ruling in the Baby Veronica case could have gone either way. When I tried to argue the issues in my head (with my limited understanding), it felt as if I was having a "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" discussion with myself. The ruling certainly was narrow, so I am not sure if it managed to resolve a federal circuit split. I was unaware that there was a split in regard to the meaning of "parent" and of "existing custody" under ICWA.

    My disappointment is more with the South Carolina Supreme Court, for failing to order a best interests hearing that takes into account Veronica's current situation. I also am astonished at how seemingly easy it is to terminate the parental rights of unwed fathers.

    Lastly, I believe that adoption should be a last resort only, when there is no possibility of a safe biological placement. Dusten Brown is a fit parent within the standards of most family courts. Had I been in the Capobiancos' shoes, I would have walked away when he opposed the adoption action unless I had reason to believe he would compromise the baby's safety. I would not have played the legal trump card they did, and I certainly could not have lived with myself knowing I fought a competent biological parent for the privilege of raising their child.

    I also believe that Veronica is being deprived of a fundamental right here that is sad. Once upon a time, my husband and I were in a similar position as the Capobiancos, except with a different end result. Seeing our former foster daughter's connectedness with her biological family, her identity, has been a thousand times more gratifying than our adopting her ever could have hoped to achieve.

    ReplyDelete
  15. P.S. James I also agree with you about the limited legal and Congressional avenues available at this stage. I had hoped the Capobiancos would do the human thing, the right thing for Veronica, regardless of their legal win. That, sadly, is not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you Jay and James M. Hamilton, for your comments.

    We appreciate being able to post comments from people who come to these issues from a different perspective. And we appreciate that you understand all the issues involved in an adoption, and when the biological connection should trump legalistic concerns. Thank you both for your thoughtful comments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anyone who believes there was no bias involved in this case, either never learned the meaning of the word bias, or they need to refresh their memory.

    You can't have a personal connection to adoption, and not be biased, either in favour of it, or against it.

    The case that went to the supreme court was brought by a couple who want to adopt a child not available for adoption, because the child has a father who wants her, was proven fit, and has been taking care of her.

    So for a case that is about adoption, to be reviewed by judges who have either adopted, or know someone who has and likely thusly don't see it for the immoral man created institution it is, are thusly biased in favor of adoption.

    And for those who think that opinions of peers don't matter, did you skip youth and morph directly from newborn to adult? Because anyone who grows up in a normal environment knows that people will often taken on the view of their peers. Why would you think people who hold the same line of profession, who share the same work space, reviewing the same case, wouldn't have enough knowledge as to the character of their co judges, to have a pretty good idea as to how a certain judge would rule, and thusly that would influence their own decision! And when you know that a winning judgement is based on majority, that influences a person even more to vote one way or another, if they feel more of their peers will be voting one way, thus to be alike, they vote the same way even if a decision was left solely up to them, and they truly considered what they believed would be the right decision, and it wouldn't concur with their peers!

    Sure, judges are SUPPOSED to be impartial, 100% of the time, but if you believe that is what happens, you are EXTREMELY naive or just plain willfully choosing to deny that ALL people are born hardwired to do wrong more than right, in addition, that the supposed justice system is corrupted, it's full of back doors, closed courts to prevent fairness, and loop holes in laws, to allow injustice to flourish!

    And all the arguments about Indian law, and him not supporting the mother in anyway before their daughter was born, and about him signing away his rights, are all COMPLETELY irrelevant. Why? Because the only questions that should be asked and answered to determine what the right/moral, decent, kind, LOVING, answer is, is this: 1.Is he her parent, her father? Yes. 2.Does he want her, to take good care of her like a parent/father should? Yes 3.Did he truly neglect or abuse his daughter before or after birth, before he asserted his position as her father, and his desire for his daughter? No 4.Can he provide for her? Yes 5.Is he and has he been proven to be, fit? Yes 6.Is his daughter thriving with him, has she shown she has an awareness of her inherent natural bond with him, and is it evident she loves him and wants to be with him? Yes.

    Then that is all that matters, that is all the evidence, the truth, required to deem the right answer to be that a father and daughter shouldn't again be ripped apart.

    Period!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Supreme Court won’t stay Baby Veronica adoption

    A family court in SC finalized the adoption this week, and the Supreme Court on Friday declined without comment Brown’s request to stay the action. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented in the June decision, said they would have granted the stay.

    It is unclear whether Brown has any remaining legal options or when the transfer of the child might take place. Counselors are at work on a transition plan to minimize the adjustment problems such a move might cause.

    Pathetic. But who is surprised. This was never about the best interests of the child. This was about the vested interests of the adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco. I am sorry for Veronica tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jane Sullivan Roberts did not marry until she was 42 years old. She is the classic case of a woman who pursues a demanding career during her most fertile years, marries late and then most likely becomes too old to have children naturally. She adopted her children when she was 46 and 47 years old.

    I can see why Chief Justice Roberts is biased towards prospective adoptive parents with this kind of personal background.

    " and when the biological connection should trump legalistic concerns."

    I didn't know we put any importance on the biological connection in this country. What with the 13 billion dollar adoption industry brainwashing us that adoption is the same as biology and is a wonderful way to 'build a family'.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Pippa,
    I don't agree with your logic. No one chooses to be a man or a woman or whether or not to be gay. And these are things that for most people can't or won't be changed. But a person does, in fact, choose to be an adoptive parent. It is a conscious decision and even if one is infertile, he or she can choose whether or not to adopt.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Robin,
    There are so many things we CHOOSE to do: be married, own a car, have children, own a pet, buy a house. Are you saying that a judge can't be impartial on anything they choose to be or have?? That doesn't make any sense. Being an adoptive parent (or in most cases a first parent) is something that is chosen. In fact, most of the things we are identified by are things that we choose to be identified by.

    I am a first mother. I am a mother. I am a professor. I am a home owner. I am married. Most judges on the Supreme Court have chosen something that they have to rule on every day.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have to agree with LuLu. Most of who we are are things that we have chosen. Even as an adoptee, I still am mainly identified as a married man, a father, and an engineer.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A~!Robin: what would you have women do? Stop their career just to have children? Please! At least for me, it wasn't practical to stop my studies/career in my 20's. If I had, I would never have been able to get back into the field! Hence the reason I relinquished. Yes, I chose my career over a child, but it was my dream. I would have had an abortion if it was open to me, but it wasn't.

    If we demanded that women only have babies in their 20's (and raise them) there wouldn't be female CEOs, doctors, lawyers, or in other high powered positions.

    Please, don't set women's rights back 40 years by suggesting such.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anon 11:33, Are you saying women cannot be mothers AND pursue education/career ? Hmmm, Wendy in Texas may beg to differ. If anyone demands women have babies when they're young, it's Mother Nature.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am a feminist and I do support women having whatever type of career they want. And I do think there needs to be more flexibility in terms of careers that are still based on the male model. I would like to see it be easier for a woman to start a career in her forties or even fifties and not be penalized for getting such a 'late' start. As it stands now, in most cases, anyone, male or female, who hopes to be successful in a demanding, competitive career does have get their training in their twenties and begin building their careers no later than their thirties. And as maryW pointed out, it is biology that requires women to have children when they are still so young.

    So no, I do not support women devoting their young adulthood to their careers because they take for granted that they will still have the opportunity for motherhood in middle age through adopting someone else's child.

    I agree with JL's comment "So for a case that is about adoption, to be reviewed by judges who have either adopted, or know someone who has and likely thusly don't see it for the immoral man created institution it is, are thusly biased in favor of adoption."

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Anon 11:33am,
    At first I was annoyed by your comment but re-reading it, I find it tragic. You felt, and it may very well have been real, that you had to choose between your child and your career. Perhaps you need to read "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan which was published in 1963. It is about the false dichotomy women were faced with between choosing to be mothers or having a career. I have sensed hostility in your comments directed to me and, reading between the lines, it does sound as if you did not want your child.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Justices are people first and of course allow their personal biases to influence their decisions. Roberts should have recused himself from the case and it's not at all foolish to think that he may have been blackmailed. There's a reason he voted yes for the monstrous unaffordable health care act. Children have the legal right to be with their natural parent(s) and in Veronica's case I do believe the real father will get Veronica back someday. She is legally allowed to be an emancipated minor as a teen and hopefully she will be allowed to have a voice in her upbringing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Women’s fertility begins to decline as early as their late 20s and early 30s. The decline is accelerated around age 35 and continues through the early 40s until menopause. For women trying to have children in their 30s or over, this means it will likely take longer to get pregnant. Some women may end up having fewer children than they had hoped to have. With advanced maternal age, there is an increased risk of miscarriage (50% for women 44 years of age), more complications during pregnancy (e.g. gestational diabetes; pre-eclampsia), more premature births, and higher rates of chromosomal abnormalities such as downs syndrome (1 in 30 for women 45 years of age) among babies born to older mothers who use their own eggs."

    http://myfertilitychoices.com/fertility-information/fertility-history-and-life-span/

    Translation: Women who wait past 30 may experience fertility issues related to their age. Like it or hate it, biology governs reproduction.

    ReplyDelete
  29. On another note, if people did not have personal biases when determining how they might feel about something, there would be no reason to have voir dire when choosing a jury.

    I was just called for jury duty in a drunk-driving case. After I said that our car had been totaled on a nearby road by a man who had three-times the legal limit of alcohol in his system, and was on a cell phone to boot--guess what? I was excused.

    Of course judges have biases. We all do. We try to rise above them at times, but that doesn't mean that bias still exists within us. I have a friend who is extremely biased against what I do here (and the fact that I found my daughter) because...he has a friend who got a son from Gladney. Period. Oh yeah, his father was the Guardian ad Litum in the Jessica DeBoer/Anna Schmidt case, arguing the girl at two should stay with the adopters. My acquaintance is intelligent, articulate and an attorney. Would you put him on a jury deciding anything about adoption? I will continue to maintain that particularly after it was clear that good friends of Roberts were involved personally in this case, the Chief Justice should have recused himself--and possibly he should have done that anyway because of his biases that were a result of his personal life, that is, that is an adoptive parent himself. That he might be biased in the Baby Veronica case doesn't make Robert a bad man; it makes him human. His error was in not recusing himself.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I cannot believe anyone is still ranting about blood quantum when THE CHEROKEE NATION DOES NOT DETERMINE MEMBERSHIP BY BLOOD QUANTUM. THEY DETERMINE IT BY ANCESTRY.

    Dusten Brown's Cherokee, right? Do a DNA test if one's not been done already. If it comes back a positive match, that is the end of it. Are we supposed to believe a little girl who got half her DNA from a man is not that man's daughter? Next you people will tell me pigs can fly. (Outside of being airline cargo, that is.)

    By the way, Native Americans themselves are in disagreement about blood quantum. You know how you white people think it's racist against you? They think it's racist against them. Because all it takes is people of other races "breeding in" to the tribe over several generations and the tribe will be wiped out. Considering the practice was invented by whites, that was likely the idea.

    I'm tired of seeing people of color being called racist for reacting to the racism from whites. Fed up, sick, disgusted. Quit it.

    I also distance myself from so-called "feminists" who insist that having a career and having children in your 20s are mutually incompatible. Why? Men do it. Lazy, complacent, apathetic fools who refuse to continue fighting the good fight so that women can have economic security without having to sell out everything that is important to us. I'm fed up with you, and if there were such a thing as an Official Feminist Card, I'd take it from you and burn it.

    For crying out loud, marry a stay-at-home dad. Anything. Quit expecting people like me to applaud you for choosing your career over your child. I hope your son or daughter never reads your words.

    GAH. Sorry Lorraine... I just can't... too many credulous fools are just sitting by letting this garbage go unopposed. Families are being torn apart daily because of the stupid ideas people get. THIS IS NOT WHAT FEMINISM WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.

    As for Roberts being biased, it's an entirely different thing to adopt than it is to have a child. It does indeed bias you, because you didn't make your own child, you took someone else's. If it weren't called "adoption" it would be called kidnapping UNLESS they were abandoned. "His" weren't. Most American adoptees weren't. And deep down, Roberts knows he did wrong, and he'll do anything to justify it, including empowering other child thieves in their thievery.

    It is not like that when you are a natural parent. There is nothing to justify.

    But even without that, his friendship with the husband of Maldonado's lawyer is suspect enough to me. And this is not the first time Supreme Court justices have failed to recuse themselves for conflict of interest. See also Bush vs. Gore and every Monsanto-related case over which Justice Thomas has ever presided.

    We are allowed to impeach Supreme Court justices for flagrantly abusing their power and I suggest we start doing so. Right now it's not hurting them enough to step over that bright line. They need to start losing jobs.

    ReplyDelete

  31. Dana,

    Thank you for speaking out about many things here.

    Our Supreme Court Justices NEED to recuse themselves when they are involved deeply with an issue. Just totally wrong and I would love to get rid of them all.

    When the Supreme Court of the land cannot and does not rule without bias it time to retire them.

    I am a rocket scientist part time lawyer. Aren't we all just so intelligent....please

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well said, Dana.

    For those celebrating careers and brain power over family relationships, have at it. So many of us got sold on the idea that careers are oh so great only to be down-sized, right-sized, over the hill-sized, or whatever.

    Unless you really are a rocket scientist or the next Jonas Salk the only people who are going to remember your contributions to this planet are the people with whom you nurtured loving relationships. Most of those people will be relatives, war buddies, and (possibly) a few close friends. The folks you worked with will have forgotten you within a few hours of your funeral, after which they will dump the contents of your desk to make room for your replacement.

    I wish I had stopped to consider the nature of work and what it's really good for...paying the bills and getting out of the house, but not much else, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I agree that a woman can have it all. I had my 1st child at 26yrs old with a B.Sc. degree completed and then went on to do a M.Sc. while pregnant with the 2nd child. You can have a career and blossoming family with both working in harmony. Its all up to the individual. I will however always put a family 1st because I can't turn back my biological clock when time is wasted in a job making the boss rich and his company flourish. As one nicely put when you drop dead your company will have a Help Wanted ad circulating in next weeks newspaper after you just gave that company 20 yrs of your life while giving up your youth to start a family.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I just wanted to let the readers here know about the latest piece I have written about this case. It's at BlogHer.com, here:

    http://www.blogher.com/baby-veronica-growing

    Fingers crossed for a King Solomon miracle here. Obviously the would-be adoptive parents are happy to split this poor child in half.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This should not have happened--Single Fathers have no rights--I hope some day--this all changes--Fathers can raise their children just as well as mothers--sometimes they r much more involved in their childrens lives -- school- church-extra curricular activities--they have friends and family to support them-- with the Veronicas case ---she had biological family--The Cs had connections and Money -money-money-- and now they r suing Dusten--they need to do their -bracelet-perfume fundraisers and Christian alliance buddies --have money too --certainly they will kick in--$$$$$$$

      Delete
  35. New Wikipedia insertion re Roberts adoption:

    Adoption records

    While investigating Roberts' life, the New York Times was accused of attempting to unseal records detailing the 2000 adoption by Roberts and his wife of two infants born in Ireland[6] via a Latin American country.[7] The Times denied any attempts to unseal legal records and stated that "[o]ur reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions" and "[t]hey did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

    The Times was condemned by the National Council for Adoption, "NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts' two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents."[8]

    The reasons for the adoption happening in the unnamed Latin American country remain unclear, though it was noted that the Irish 1991 Adoption Act only allows adoption of children born in Ireland by people resident in Ireland.[9]
    Federalist Society

    ReplyDelete

We welcome comments from all, and appreciate letting us know how you relate to adoption when you leave your first comment.

COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish or not. Anonymous comments from the same individual are more likely to be NOT POSTED. Select the NAME/URL selection, add a name. You do not need a URL. Fine to use a nom de plume.

COMMENTS AT POSTS OVER 30 DAYS OLD LESS LIKELY TO BE PUBLISHED.

We aim to be timely but we do have other lives.

For those coming here from Networked Blogs on Facebook, if it does not allow you to make a comment, click the "x" on the gray "Networked Blogs" tool bar to exit out of that frame and it should then let you comment.

We are unlikely to post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.