' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Baby Veronica: How Dusten Brown could prevail in battle over his daughter
Join Jane at the CUB retreat in October. For more, see sidebar.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Baby Veronica: How Dusten Brown could prevail in battle over his daughter

Veronica smiles in a bathroom of the Cherokee Nation Jack Brown Center
 MIKE SIMONS / Tulsa World file
Perhaps there is a light at the end of this long tunnel for Dusten Brown and his daughter "Baby Veronica" (who will be four next Sunday) that would allow them to stay together as father and daughter. The legal trial has been so convoluted and involved so many courts that after the Supreme Court ruling in June against Brown, and the swift action of the South Carolina court in favor of the adoptive parents, it was hard to see how he could prevail, but as this case drags on, I'm having a change of heart.

Three factors give me hope:
While the Supreme Court ruled that Brown could not claim his daughter under the Indian Child Welfare Act, they did not actually rule that he could not challenge the adoption under some other legal grounds, which is apparently what he is doing now in Oklahoma. Because of gag orders and sealed records, it’s hard to follow the legal arguments and know exactly what is going on behind closed doors. Certainly the adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, look way more distressed than Dusten Brown from the photographs I've seen of all them them leaving the courthouse.

Lorraine
One argument Brown's lawyers are likely to make is rooted in South Carolina law that states unequivocally that a child must be “present within this State at the time the petition for adoption is filed, irrespective of place of birth.” The original adoption was filed in South Carolina on Sept. 18, 2009, three days after Veronica was born. Yet she was still in Oklahoma with the Capobiancos, and remained there “about seven days," according to the records. One source also notes that the adoption process didn’t follow other legal norms, in that Veronica was removed from Oklahoma without her father’s consent or knowledge. 

'BEST INTERESTS' COULD PREVAIL
Brown’s attorneys are also likely telling the courts that Veronica herself has a right to have her “best interest” considered before any final custody decision is made, and surely the bond she now has with her natural father, after two years, will be argued. Though it has no legal standing in this case currently, I find solace in the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who noted in her dissenting opinion:
"The majority's hollow literalism distorts the statute and ignores Congress' purpose in order to rectify a perceived wrong that, while heartbreaking at the time, was a correct application of federal law and that in any case cannot be undone. Baby Girl has now resided with her father for 18 months. However difficult it must have been for her to leave Adoptive Couple's home when she was just over 2 years old, it will be equally devastating now if, at the age of 3½, [now a week away from 4] she is again removed from her home and sent to live halfway across the country. Such a fate is not foreordained, of course. But it can be said with certainty that the anguish this case has caused will only be compounded by today's decision."  
Hollow literalism. Don't you like that phrase? Justice Sotomayor also calls the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, a "textually strained and illogical reading of the statute" in question, the Indian Child Welfare Act, which was the legal basis for the case reaching the Supreme Court.

While there have been cases of children returned to their natural parents--even at age eight (Anna Mae He*)--we know of none where a child was removed from a biological family and given to adoptive parents at age four. If anyone knows of any, please let us know.

'WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE'
 And at least one tribal court expert, Jason Aamodt, assistant dean at Tulsa University College of Law, contends that the tribal court will more than likely trump South Carolina and Oklahoma state courts. The girl is now on Cherokee land, and it is hard to imagine that state or federal authorities will invade to grab the child. If that happens, we can expect one hell of a commotion that goes way beyond pictures of a crying child being handed to federal marshals. Brown's attorneys filed a second appeal in the Oklahoma State Court on Friday; there is also the Cherokee Tribal Court which might have a foothold in this case, and it's possible the case will end up in federal court again.

See description below
In the meantime, more support is building for Dusten Brown. Rallies have been held, many adoptive parents have posted blogs in favor of Brown retaining the right to raise his own daughter. But do I think the Capobiancos will ever give up until the very last court decides for Brown? No. The parents who wanted to claim Anna Mae He* as their own did not give up until the Supreme Court ruled, when she was eight years old. I have been unable to find the ages of the Capobiancos, who appear to be in the late 40s or 50s, or when they married, but they are another case of an aging couple using infertility to garner sympathy. From their own blog, Veronica's Story (actually it is more their story):
"Matt and Melanie had been married for several years and after unsuccessful attempts to start a family they came to the realization that adoption was their answer to finally becoming a mommy and daddy. They had actually hoped to one day adopt even if they could have a child of their own. God’s will was for them to begin their steps toward adoption in early 2009."
 It is bizarre how God is involved in so many adoptions, isn't it? He is practically running an adoption service for all those couples who waited too long to have children without his divine intervention. Then He willy-nilly started placing all those babies in the wrong mommy's tummy to satisfy the market for adoptable babies. What a guy! --lorraine
_________________________
SOURCES
Q&A on 'Baby Veronica' legal battles 
Veronica’s Story (Capobianco's blog)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552, 186 L. Ed. 2d 729 (2013) [2013 BL 167706]

FROM FMF
Baby Veronica: Brown released on bail for second time 
Why passions run hot in the Veronica Brown story  
Dusten Brown continues to fight for his daughter; the Capobiancos dig in deeper  
'Baby Veronica' adoption will go forward
 Supreme Court rules against Indian father, limits Indian Child Welfare Act

READING
Two Worlds: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects "...an important contribution to American Indian history. Trace A. DeMeyer and Patricia Cotter-Busbee, the co-editors and adoptees, located other Native adult survivors of adoption and asked them to write a narrative. The adoptees share their unique experience of living in Two Worlds, surviving assimilation via adoption, opening sealed adoption records, and in most cases, a reunion with their tribal relatives. Indigenous identity and historical trauma takes on a whole new meaning in this adoption anthology. This anthology covers the history of Indian child removals in North America, the adoption projects, their impact on Indian Country and how it impacts the adoptee and their families."--Amazon

One Small Sacrifice: A Memoir 
"Award-winning Native American journalist Trace A. DeMeyer has published her updated memoir One Small Sacrifice: A Memoir (Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects), an exposé on generations of American Indian children adopted by non-Indian families. Known for her exceptional print interviews with famous Native Americans such as Leonard Peltier, John Trudell and Floyd Red Crow Westerman, DeMeyer started research on adoptees in 2004, which lead to this fact-filled biography that includes congressional testimony, evidence of Indian Adoption Projects and how the Indian Child Welfare Act came to exist. Her long journey to find and meet her father and other relatives offers the reader a glimpse into the struggle of an adoptee and how to never give up hope."--Amazon

Order by clicking on title or book jacket.

*In the case of Anna Mae He, a couple from China had a daughter born here; but under financial duress, they appealed to Mid-South Christian Services to place her temporarily with another family while they got their finances in order. It is not uncommon for Chinese couples to let the grandparents take care of the children while the parents work. A language barrier and cultural differences, as well as a juvenile court officer typing in a guardianship provision without informing either party, added to the legal quagmire.

No matter Jerry and Louise Baker of Tennessee agreed to initially, they soon wanted to curtail the visits with the girl's mother, known in the U.S. as Casey He. By the time the girl was two the matter was in the courts; a lower court initially granted the Bakers custody, but the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned that decision. However the Bakers appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which denied their petition in mid-2007, thus ending the legal battle. According to Wikipedia: "According to a report from USA Today dated February 21, 2007, Jerry Baker paid Anna Mae $5 for each question she answered, such as "Where do you want to grow up, United States or China?" and "What do you want your last name to be, Baker or He?" The USA Today article noted that she refused to answer the question about her last name. Juvenile Court Judge Curtis Person expressed displeasure that Anna Mae was exposed to this media coverage in the Bakers' home, and threatened to issue a gag order if it continued." Anything sound familiar here?

A Facebook page set up by the Bakers indicates Anne Mae, who went to China with her parents, visited the Baker family and their daughter, born about a year after Anna Mae, in the summer of 2011. Earlier reports indicated that Anna Mae's adjustment to living in China was difficult.

44 comments :

  1. I keep wondering why the Cherokee Nation is waiting to rule on this. I wonder if they are waiting to see if the OK courts, and possibly Federal, will do the right thing. It becomes unnecessary for them if they do?
    One thing that caught my attention, too, is a comment someone made about the fact that the C's would have to file the ICPC paperwork again, and this time correctly, in order to leave Oklahoma with Veronica. They would have to list her as Cherokee correctly. They cannot leave with her without the Cherokee Nation approval. So, it doesn't matter what the OK courts say at all unless the Supreme Court is ready to strike down ICWA in its entirety. I find that hard to believe, but I wonder if whomever is bankrolling the C's fight will take it that far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous said...

    I do not believe that you are correct when you state in paragraph 2: "...the Supreme Court ruled that Brown could not claim his daughter under the Indian Child Welfare Act." The SCOTUS ruled that Brown was not a "parent" under a few provisions of ICWA. However, Veronica is still an Indian child and subject to ICWA placements-- Brown and his parents could ADOPT Veronica under ICWA. Check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous: You may be technically correct but I was using shorthand to make the story understandable without going into the twisted logic of the decision.

    I am unwilling to declare Brown not her "parent" despite "the majority's hollow literalism...." and their
    twisted logic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you! This is a well written article and your assessments are spot-on! One of the best I have read on this case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lorraine, thanks for giving me hope. I have often thought of the implications of taking a child from a biological parent in good standing and placing the child with adoptive parents. That would be tragic for both Ronnie and the family preservation movement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the Terry Achane case, a Utah judge pretty much ripped the adoption agency a new orifice because of their handling of the attempted adoption.

    The would be adopters appealed but then dropped their appeal "in the best interests of the child" not having to be uprooted yet again and stated that they still felt the court had made some significant errors in awarding custody to the father.

    One of their big PR issues was that they truly believed that Terry Achane's daughter was the child that their deity had promised them.

    Delusional to the end - but at least they finally left him alone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are plenty of cases of children being removed from foster parents with whom they had loved almost since birth. I personally have known of the anguish in one little four year old girl, who nightly and screamed for "my family " when removed from foster care to the home of adopting parents.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lorraine, I hope you are right but I am unable to get out of my pessimistic slump over this case. I think the Oklahoma Supreme Court can only reverse a decision based on an erroneous finding of law, they cannot retry the facts. The Oklahoma lower courts pretty much were forced to give full faith and credit to the judgment of the South Carolina court, so I am not sure what the Oklahoma Supreme Court can find that is wrong with what their lower courts did, legally speaking.

    If there is now new evidence suggesting that this adoption might be illegal, it will have to go through the lower courts all over again - but, in the meanwhile, I believe Veronica would have to be handed over to the Capobiancos. Maybe the tribal courts can intervene and somehow work a result favorable to Ronnie and Dusten Brown. I would LOVE to hear that miraculous news! At the very least I hope the nefarious dealings of Nightlight adoption agency and associated folks is investigated and results in abolishing their business.

    Lastly, since you asked, here is another case I found where there was an adoptive placement at birth, the child was returned to the biological family when he was 3 months old, then returned back to the adoptive couple when he was 14 months old. The case was in Nebraska.

    Interestingly, the adoptive couple in this case, Jason and Angela Vesely, unlike the Capobiancos, decided to give the boy back to the biological family after he had been with them for a few days - even though the Nebraska Supreme Court granted them "victory." When the vaselys took the now 14 month old boy to a child development specialist, it appears they realized that the boy had bonded deeply with his biological mother and her parents (his maternal grandparents) in the 11 months he had been away from them. The biological family also vowed to keep fighting and take the case all the way to the US Supreme court. The Veselys decided they wanted no more court battles - so, based on the report from the child specialist and their desire to stop the court fights, they returned the boy to his biological family after they had him for about five days.

    Now the Capobiancos, as you point out, will hound Dusten Brown with their legal maneuvers to the bitter end - they are ruthless in their desire for this child and they have no understanding or empathy when it comes to Veronica's fundamental rights.

    Here are some links to the Nebraska adoption story:

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2008/Nov/21/nebraska-adoption-fight-112108/


    http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9643949



    http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO101452/


    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, if you read the 'Nebraska' story I cited in my earlier post, you will see that the adoption agency sided with the biological mother and joined her in the fight to get back her son! When in the world does THAT ever happen?!!! The biological father passed away so it looks like he wasn't in the picture for this case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Jane and Lorraine!,

    I'm posting this link here for you guys to review as I didn't know how else to send it to you but I thought you'd want to see this from MSNBC this morning. It's about "rehoming" of adopted children.

    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/09/20389254-adopted-girl-says-mother-forced-her-to-dig-her-own-grave?lite

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey! Our email can be found in the sidebar: forumfirstmother@gmail.com

    thanks anon for the link. I'll check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.metafilter.com/131766/Regret-your-international-adoption-Theres-an-app-for-that

    This is the Metafilter link on the rehoming investigation which takes you to the previously linked article.

    It is a real stomach-turner, what happens to kids that adopters get tired of or can't handle. We have known about a lot of these horror stories, but it is good to see it getting out there to the larger world. This is going to be a several part series, 1 and 2 are out already with more to follow.

    About Veronica, hoping with all the rest of you she can stay with her Daddy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here is another case, the "Baby Vanessa" case, involving a protracted, almost 3 year battle between a prospective adoptive mom and the girl's biological father and grandmother:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/21/local/la-me-baby-vanessa-20110321

    In this case, it would appear that the adoptive mom came out on top in a best interests analysis because the biological father had some pretty serious domestic violence issues. The case settled with the adoptive mother retaining full custody while granting visitation to the biological father and grandmother.

    While I can understand why the biological father was not granted custody in this case (why the grandmother wasn't, I don't know), as a general principle I am bothered by the thinking of prospective adoptive parents that there is no need to worry about an unwed birth father and that he will simply go away - and when he doesn't, they fight and fight and fight him because society (adoptive community, professionals, agencies) inevitably paints him as a bad guy. I see that thread in the above link about the Baby Vanessa case and we've all of course seen plenty maligning Dusten Brown.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I will be doing something on the re-homing story in a day or two. Need some time off.

    We did a story about it but did not call it "rehoming." Apparently, as always, Maynard is on trend.

    Joyce Maynard's adoption "disruption"

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think it's important for those of us who support Dusten and Veronica to stay positive. It ain't over till it's over. And it ain't over.

    What I don't get is...What is it about DUSTEN BROWN IS NOT GIVING HIS CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION that the Capos and their supporters don't seem to understand?

    Let's see...Adoption proceedings were begun in a state where the child must be residing and she was 1,100 miles away? Misinformation was given and the child was illegally whisked away from Oklahoma to South Carolina. Then after the SCOTUS ruling a quickie adoption was done with no up-to-date home study and no best interest hearing for Ronnie. And this is considered an ethical, legal adoption in the U.S. I see.

    @Anon 7:17am,
    I'm glad you linked to that MSN story. I was astounded that a major news outlet ran such a negative and truthful report on IA, including details about the underground rehoming network. Let's hope this finally makes a dent in the adoption is so beautiful, wunnerful mindset. Although it does seem that no matter how many adopted kids are abused or killed it never seems to change the prevailing belief that adoption is always a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jay: I was unaware of that first case you cited, and the final result is surly interesting! An interesting aspect of that case is that the biological mother's argument was that she had specifically asked for a family that did not have another child, and the woman was pregnant before the couple acquired the adopted child. So they were not trying to fill an empty nest by the time the child arrived. I fear the Copabiancos would have a hard time giving Veronica back to her daddy, despite the best advice from an outside expert, as that couple got. Instead, they might simply put Veronica in therapy until she "adjusted." Anyway, the longer this drags on, the better for Veronica's chances for her staying with her father. At this point, how can there not be a "best interests" hearing? Hard to imagine. But anything's possible.

    I don't know as much about the law as you, and so I can't imagine what is going on in the OK courts, unless they are proving perjury of the birth mother, Christy Maladondo. But it may be that somehow a Cherokee Nation court will yet prevail.

    In my own life, friends of friends got married late, couldn't get pregnant quickly enough, applied for adoption, but were pregnant by the time the little girl arrived. They decided to go ahead with the adoption, and had another girl. I always liked the woman, but after that I found it hard to talk to her. Incidentally it was not her fault that conception was delayed. It was one of those cases we know all too well today where there was no one else offering to marry her until she was nearly 40, or in her 40s.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lorraine, thanks for pointing out Jane's coverage (and your addendum) regarding the Baby Vanessa case. I misspoke when I called Stacey Doss "adoptive mother" - she obtained legal guardianship of Vanessa. I agree with what you both wrote about the case, and it provided many details that I did not know. I am still puzzled as to why the grandmother did not get custody - probably because the father lived with her and there was the spectre of his domestic violence. The law definitely does not need changing in the way it was applied to this case.

    As for the case with the Veselys, yes, it was fascinating to me on many levels. I am sure the fact that the Capobiancos are childless has increased their ardor and tenacity in their battle. WHY in the world there has been no best interests hearing for Veronica Brown is the one biggest legal issue that floors me - if there is a way to do that after all that has occurred, I would be delighted!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I also wanted to mention that DB has two top-notch attorneys working for him. Shannon Jones in Charleston, SC and Robert Nigh in Oklahoma.

    ReplyDelete
  19. While I understand that we all want Dusten to keep Veronica, let's not celebrate if he wins on the grounds of best interests alone as that has been used to keep children away from biological parents.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Apparently, as always, Maynard is on trend."
    Before Maynard, there was Anita Tidaldi. Jane wrote about it.

    http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2009/09/returning-child-it-happens-more-than.html

    Good that this horrific practice is finally getting major coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  21. lucrezaborgia:

    What you point out about "best interests" is so true, and why we have not trumpeted that here previously. Usually the adoptive parents have the child while the case drags on and on and on and on...and then, it is often too late.

    If Brown wins on that point, this case will not change adoption law. But he is becoming a champion for all fathers who want to raise their children when the mothers do not.

    ReplyDelete
  22. lucrezaborgia, that was an astute observation. Unfortunately, at this stage I think Dusten Brown's shot at victory rests on a best interests analysis, unless new facts are presented in evidence. Maybe there will be other grounds too, like taking a second look (with additional facts) at the circumstances of the adoption. I'll try to be positive like Lorraine and Robin!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jay Iyer, the grandmother did not get custody in the case because the case was settled and the settlement gave custody to Stacey Doss but the adoption was not to be finalized.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I picked this up from someone who seems to know what's what on the Tulsa World Facebook page:

    1. Nowata County - Capobiancos, seeking enforcement of a South Carolina state court judgement. The validity of the state court's action is disputed on a number of grounds.

    2. Sequoyah County - Separate action seeking to extradite Dusten Brown on a South Carolina warrant based on the above case.

    3. Cherokee County - What appears to be a separate state court custody/adoption case. We don't know much, though, because all records have been sealed. The guardian ad litem for Veronica Brown, attorney Angel Smith, was appointed by a judge from this jurisdiction.

    4. Cherokee Nation - Tribal court custody/adoption case. The Cherokee Nation would have been the court of original jurisdiction had the ICWA been followed.

    5. South Carolina - A state court here finalized Veronica Brown's adoption shortly after the Supreme Court's "Adoptive Couple v Baby Girl" decision. While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on one specific point regarding ICWA, there remain a number of other unresolved issues.

    There may be other cases pending in other locations, as well. Family court records are often sealed, and in the Cherokee County case even previously available information has since been redacted from the records. The Nowata County hearing this morning appears to have not been on regular dockets there, with the public finding out about it via second-hand sources.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks Anon 9:46 pm, it looks like the grandmother was happy with the terms of the settlement and did not want to continue a court battle.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This case has me on the edge of my seat with worry about the preservation of Veronica's family. So, instead of going to bed, I read a few more documents and it looks like Dusten Brown's lawyer has argued at the Oklahoma Supreme Court that there was a mistake of law back in 2009 and the adoption should never have gone through. The Oklahoma Supreme Court cannot consider additional facts, I don't think, but they surely can decide whether the law was correctly applied to the facts already in evidence. So maybe there is indeed another avenue besides "best interests" - but for two lower Oklahoma courts to be declared wrong would be surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  27. UN official issues statement on Veronica.

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/UN_official_issues_statement_on_Veronica/20130910_800_0_Drawin386289

    ReplyDelete
  28. The above statement from a UN official makes the South Carolina court look worse than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I thought what the South Carolina Supreme Court did was outrageous. I am glad someone from the UN is pointing out their complete lack of consideration of the fundamental right of a family to be together. At the very least it needs to be considered along with other factors in a best interests analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  30. That statement from the UN official is exactly what you might expect someone in that particular to say.

    The more significant news in that article is that a lower court appears to have ordered the return of Veronica to South Carolina. That order appears to have been stayed pending appeal.

    BTW the Terry Achane case was very different to this one. In the first place, the father never surrendered any rights, secondly he was not only the biological father because he was married to the biological mother, he was indisputably the legal father of the child.

    What the adopters and biological mother did in that case was kidnap the child. They should have been charged with custodial interference and jailed.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I sincerely hope that Dusten Brown is able to raise his daughter. The adoption should be overturned based on the deceipt of the agency, the firstmom and the Cs in obtaining the child, but that's an argument for a different day.

    I wanted to comment too on the Nebraska case tha Jay Lyer linked to. As an AP, am I allowed to be skeptical here? I'm not sure I buy the best interests argument of the APs. They fought for 11 months to bring that boy home and only kept him for a few days. I think because he had bonded with his birthfamily that those few days were very rough for the family and since they had another child, it was easier to send him back than work through it. If they'd truly been concerned about his best interests, they wouldn't have fought it in court. I'm glad they didn't try to hold custody of him during the battle, but please, don't BS me with the now it's in his best interest. No, now it's hard because of the trauma, that's the real reason they sent him back. It was in his best interests to be with him mom, I'm just saying that's not the real reason they gave him back. Let's call a spade a spade here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I do appreciate your clarity, Dmdezigns. :)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Dmdezigns,

    There is a lot out there about the Nightlight adoption agency that merits investigation - unfortunately that investigation would form the basis for a separate lawsuit (if it happens) and is unlikely to have any bearing on the current legal status of Veronica Brown's case. The Oklahoma Supreme Court can refuse to give "full faith and credit" to the South Carolina order of adoption if they find there is a jurisdictional problem, which I hope they do.

    As for the Vaselys, I purposely stuck to the facts and did not mention that they thought it would be in the child's best interests to return him to his biological family. I agree with you and don't believe their primary concern was the child's best interests. Rather, they were overwhelmed with their premature, biological infant and, based on what the child development specialist said, decided it would be too much to handle trying to get the "adopted" child to attach to them. They also didn't want more court fights. Regardless, I am glad of that outcome.

    I don't think the Capobiancos will ever return Veronica to her family (if they get her) - they have no other kids, they are obsessed with her, and they will force her to regard them as her parents.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jay Iyer wrote:"and they will force her to regard them as her parents."

    Imo, it is criminal what the C's are trying to do to Veronica. They think they can force her to love them. But they can't. Love can't be forced. When I see the love and happiness she has with her father, and paternal family, it is so natural, so real, so organic. I just don't see that happening with the Capobiancos. I can't wrap my head around how anyone could try to take a child away from that. Cruel, truly cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yes, Jay lyer, it sounds like we're in complete agreement. I was taking the best interest line from the articles.

    I don't think the Cs will give up either and they should have, at 4 months. It would suck, it would hurt, but it would have been the right thing to do. Adoption shouldn't occur when there is a parent who wants to raise the child.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Judge Roberts took pregnant women out of Ireland so he could ignore the laws saying only irish can adopt irish babies. He should be in an irish prison not the supreme court " 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."

    ReplyDelete
  37. 'Baby Veronica' Case Gets Christian Evangelical Groups Involved In Federal Indian Adoption Policies

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/baby-veronica-christian-evangelicals_n_3916683.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

    Is Melanie Duncan Capobianco related to Representative Jeff Duncan?

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Everyone,

    Please contact the mayor of Charleston, SC regarding Miss Veronica and Baby Desirai. His name is The Honorable Joseph P. Riley. He can be reached at 843-577-6970 or by email at rileyj@charleston-sc.gov

    Let him know of your support for the natural fathers of these 2 children and investigating/closing the Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency. Let him know that South Carolina must not allow trafficking of Native American or any other children.

    ReplyDelete

  39. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/baby-veronica-christian-evangelicals_n_3916683.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

    Oh great, now GOD has become a lobbyist for adoption agencies.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Good news on the Indian adoption front. A judge in Oklahoma awarded custody of four month old Desaray to the Absentee Shawnee Tribe. She was born in OK to an Indian mother who placed her for adoption with a South Carolina couple against the objections of her non-Indian father. The attorney who handled the case, Ray Godwin, is the same one who handled Veronica's case.

    The tribe's attorney, Charles Trip, has called for the U. S. Department of Justice to investigate Godwin. We agree.

    Okla. Custody Dispute

    ReplyDelete
  41. I blame the adoption industry for the whole Veronica Brown fiasco. There is a lot of talk about prospective adoptive parent entitlement and arguments over who are the 'real' parents, but I think the issue is that the adoption industry has brainwashed Americans into believing that adoptive parents and biological parents are EQUAL. And they most certainly are not. That seems to be why the Capos have the deluded notion that they have just as much right to Veronica, as Dusten does, just because they 'want' her. People in other countries without such a pro-adoption mindset must be flabbergasted at watching what is so clearly an attempt at legalized kidnapping.

    As Justice Scalia said, the U.S. Constitution amplies protects a natural parent's right to raise his or her own child.

    Veronica is Home, in Oklahoma.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Good article on the matter here:

    http://www.postandcourier.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130921/PC16/130929823/1009/skeptics-of-veronica-desaray-cases-call-for-closer-look-at-private-adoptions-laws&source=RSS

    ReplyDelete
  43. Deeply saddened by the news that Veronica has been returned to the Capobiancos. My heart goes out to her and her father and all of the Brown family.

    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.