The South Carolina Supreme Court declined Wednesday to rehear the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a court battle that began in South Carolina and made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being remanded to South Carolina for a final ruling. The S.C. Supreme Court ordered that the adoption of “Baby Veronica” should move forward in family court. That expected procedural ruling – along with the court’s controversial decision earlier this month to expedite an adoption process that has been drawn out for far too long – is legally sound and is ultimately in the best interest of the little girl caught in the middle of this custody battle.
The emotional case centers around Matt and Melanie Capobianco’s attempt to adopt a girl of Cherokee heritage, now known around the world as “Baby Veronica.” The 3-year-old girl’s biological father, Dusten Brown, and the Cherokee Nation were requesting the new review – and Native American organizations have said that they will sue over the denial, which they see as a test of tribal sovereignty that could set a precedent for other adoptions.
The James Island couple to whom Veronica will now be returned has attempted to adopt her since she was born after supporting her birth mother through pregnancy. After the the baby’s mother turned down Brown’s marriage proposal, he played no role in her pregnancy and provided no support after the child was born. The Capobiancos, in turn, were in the delivery room when the baby arrived and even assisted in cutting the umbilical cord. Brown had already relinquished his parental rights at the time of her birth. It was – and remains – the wish of the child’s biological mother that the Capobiancos adopt Veronica.
When Brown discovered, however, that Veronica was being adopted rather than reared by her birth mother, he attempted to block the adoption under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), passed in 1978 “in response to the alarmingly high number of Indian children being removed from their homes by both public and private agencies.” The federal law seeks to keep American Indian children with American Indian families, and Brown, who lives in Oklahoma, is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Veronica was 4 months old and living with the Capobiancos when Brown first insisted that he wanted to raise the little girl himself.
By the time the case made it to trial in 2011, Veronica was two years old and had been living with the Capobiancos since birth. The original trial court ordered Veronica returned to Brown, holding that the ICWA dictated that the child, who had lived the first 27 months of her life with her prospective adoptive parents in South Carolina, must now live with her biological father in Oklahoma. The South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently upheld that decision, and Veronica has lived with Brown for the past 18 months while the battle between him and the Capobiancos has continued all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court found the decision of South Carolina’s courts to be in error and returned the case to the S.C. Supreme Court. The majority opinion in a 5-4 ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the ICWA protects the rights of Native American parents to have “continued custody,” and because Brown did not have custody of Veronica to begin with, the law was not applicable to his case. Further, the Supreme Court held that “the ICWA’s primary goal is not implicated when an Indian child’s adoption is voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent with sole custodial rights.” Veronica’s birth mother had sole custodial rights because Brown relinquished his – and then changed his mind.
Thus, if not for a a misapplication of the law by the original court, which was then affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court, custody of Veronica would never have been transferred from the Capobiancos to Brown to being with, and her young life would not have been disrupted in such a gut-wrenching manner.
Earlier this month, the S.C. Supreme Court, after being handed the case again by the U.S. Supreme Court, reversed itself in a 3-2 decision and ordered that the adoption be finalized. That was the right thing to do for Veronica.
This is not a case that forcibly removes a child from a Native American family without consent – which there is a documented history of in the U.S., and which the ICWA was enacted to prevent. This is a case where an unwed pregnant woman made a deliberate and difficult decision to give her child a better life than she could provide, chose the family that could provide it, and followed the law in doing so. Veronica’s birth mother remains committed to the adoption of her biological daughter by the Capobiancos.
In this case, a biological father who was not present during the pregnancy and provided no support, who voluntarily gave up his parental rights, decided to disrupt an adoption process four months into this child’s life, after she had already begun bonding with her prospective adoptive parents.
In this case, the original court erred, and because of its misinterpretation of the ICWA, a family’s life was disrupted. In reversing its decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the S.C. Supreme Court made the right call in choosing not to further its own misdeed. Yes, Veronica has lived with Dusten Brown for the past 18 months, but wrongfully so, according to the law. No one is making the argument that Brown is an unfit parent, but Veronica spent the first 27 months of her life young life with the Capobiancos experiencing all the bonding moments of infancy and early childhood, and the importance of that time to the child in question cannot be underestimated. And that time, to borrow the language of Justice Alito, was continued custody – until a court made a terrible mistake.
The goal of adoption law is to establish finality and permanency in the lives of children. That is what is in their best interests, as it is in the lives of children who are not adopted – a final, permanent, stable home. The decision of the S.C. Supreme Court in the matter of Baby Veronica is in line with that goal.
According to a report by NPR, “When Veronica was taken from the Capobiancos 18 months ago, there was no transition period, and she cried and screamed when taken away. The Capobiancos have proposed a one- to two-week transition in Oklahoma before taking full custody and have offered to let Brown visit his daughter in South Carolina.”
This case is not a test of tribal sovereignty because there is no violation of the ICWA. This case is about a child for whom a better life was sought by her birth mother and found in the persons of Matt and Melanie Capobianco. In the words of the majority opinion issued by the S.C. Supreme Court, “There is absolutely no need to compound any suffering that Baby Girl may experience through continued litigation.”
Let Veronica go home to the Capobiancos for good.
Amy Lazenby is the associate opinion editor at FITSNews. She is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz or email her at amy@fitsnews.com.
***
134 comments
Ditto! Also, sorry to say to all you men but unless you are married to the women, the baby is not legally yours.
Why do the unmarried men HAVE TO pay child support?
Becuase they fathered a child. Child support isn’t a divorce settlement. Are you really that stupid?
The most absurd statement considering the request for child support has nothing to do with marital standing. Also it’s funny how everyone has put a halo on this mother who from accounts got over and beyond the amount of money necessary for having a baby in excess of 10,000 from the adopted parent and she also continued to accept aid from the state. She basically sold that baby to them.
Yes Mary that is exactly what she did. I’m sure next time she wants to sell her baby she’ll know better and try not to get impregnated by a native american.
He’s been parenting the child for the past 2 years so obviously he gives a shit. He went all the way to the supreme court to fight for her so obviously he gave a shit. He fought for his child from the moment he found out she was up for adoption, even while he was stationed in Iraq. Even after the supreme court ruling he’s still fighting for her.
The mother does have about 3 other children by different fathers and the Copocabianco were helping her out financially with them. They even said they would adopt her other children if they could. She had a financial stake in this adoption. The adopted parents went immediately on a PR blitz with Dr. Phil with their version of the story to get public sympathy. They shaded the story to their benefit.
But there was no notification with the tribe of the adoption at first because they gave incorrect info on the dad. So they were allowed to leave the state of Oklahoma to go to SC for an adoption. SC is a very popular state for adoptions because they have easy adoption laws where they cut out the father–one of their requirements for fathers is the father has to live with the mother for 6 months before if he wants to contest an adoption. This is a hard requirement to meet considering they weren’t on speaking terms and the dad was in the military. So this ruling is pretty much anti dad rights and anti military father’s rights.
There’s a lot more to this case than presented in this one sided article.
So, “mary,” you seem to have a very personal stake in all this… And the court is aware of all of the evidence.
Not really personal but I’d say it bothers me and I’m pointing out another way of looking at it. I don’t like the idea that money & better PR means you’re automatically the better parent for a child and this guy has taken a beating in the press due to the one sided reporting on this. . In my opinion the SC courts erred when they refused to send it down to family court to evaluate what’s in the best interest of the child now.
Also I might add, several people have posted here including yourself, so I could easily say oh, you must have a personal stake in all this. But I won’t because that sounds like a rude, snarky type of remark.
As Mary points out, he fought for the child from the time he found out she was up for adoption. The point Mary seems to be missing is that this “Dad” made no efforts to be a “Dad” before finding out about the adoption. He had a lot of options. Fathers going off to war don’t just give up their rights to see their children; especially fathers who don’t even know for sure they are going to war. If he wanted to be involved in this kids life why didn’t he ask for visitation rights at least? Why didn’t he ask for joint custody? I sorry but I don’t think this guy really wanted to be this kid’s dad at the time he agreed for the mom to have sole custody.
As for easy SC, and having to live with mom to contest adoption, those rules do not apply if you are exercising visitation rights and paying child support. As for the offers of support being rejected, that has nothing to do with seeking the right to be involved in the child’s life. This dad could have asked the courts to establish joint custody or establish a visitation schedule at any time. It appears to me what this guy was doing is living his life without seeing or being involved in the life of his child and then someone hit him in the face with the reality that he was about to lose his right to pop in and out of this child’s life on a schedule of his choosing, without responsibility.
“He fought for the child from the time he found out she was up for adoption.” No, he said he did not want to be involved in the child’s life, did nothing to support the mom or child in pregnancy, and he signed the adoption paperwork agreeing to everything. After these advocacy groups became involved he suddenly changed his tune. And it is irrelevant if he is a good dad now – he gave up his rights. We don’t let criminals off after they show they are good person for a few years.
He’s not a criminal nor has there been any indication that he’s abusive or harmful to the child so your analogy does not stand. This is not a question of letting some criminal off.
The bio dad has a different version of events. If you’re interested see link http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/dusten-brown-baby-girls-father-speaks-out-i-did-not-abandon-my-daughter2.html
Removing a child from a bio dad who wants her, from a step mother she considers her mom, from grandparents and cousins who live around her and from her sister & also taking her out of state from her rural/farm life in OK to S.C., all that will be a trauma for her. That’s a lot of attachments to take from her life and that really warranted a court at least looking out for what’s best for the child not just what’s best for the adopted parents.
To say nothing of the removal of the child from the people she lived with from birth to 27 months? And the trauma she experienced at that time? Come now, Mary. And you could have provided a link to that widely circulated bio father’s version of events in a less biased place than Native News Network because it’s been published in so many, but at least we now know where you’re getting your one-sided information. And his version of events has been heard by multiple courts, so what’s new here?
So the solution is that she was exposed to trauma at 27 months so she needs to be exposed again? Why exactly? If the child is happy with her father and is not harming her in anyway and she has attachments to family members, who exactly is benefiting from yanking her from a happy home? Because it’s certainly not the child. The point of an adoption is not to make the parents whole but to make the child whole. And there was nothing wrong with another court at least looking at the well being of the child first before deciding. This is a child that’s almost 4 years old now and her attachments will be stronger.
And his version of events is no less credible than the mothers. And no, I’ve read about the case from different places. (That article was originally published in another place–I believe a Tulsa Paper). Some of the facts are a matter of court record and helped the lower courts decide in his favor. When the Supreme Court considered the case they looked only at whether ICWA applied and that’s what they & S.C. decided on only.
Your position is that bio dad has been treated unfairly in the media, and your response to that is to hurl unsubstantiated allegations at the birth mother and adoptive parents. Okay.
He gives a shit because he now has 3 native american advocacy groups behind him. Hell i’d fight a case to the S.C. and US supreme courts too if i had that kind of money. Bio dad isn’t stupid. He is being used to make this a tribal issue – and it certainly is not.
You are an idiot. I wonder how much she walked away with in the end. I have apodted a baby using the same attorney and trust me he is as hard core as they come. Our case was one of the strangest and hardest he has seem. Trust in SC no baby is bought or sold. Head to Kansas and you can do that. And Mary when did you give up a child or were you adopted. Because you seem to just hate the whole process.
Proof or gtfo. This slanderous remark of money changing hands is idiotic. Wado on your stupidity.
Baby is legally yours if you are unmarried but you have to give a shit and step and be a dad. Not like what this guy did. This is all being run by his parents and the Cherokee Nation.
Ditto! Also, sorry to say to all you men but unless you are married to the women, the baby is not legally yours.
Why do the unmarried men HAVE TO pay child support?
Becuase they fathered a child. Child support isn’t a divorce settlement. Are you really that stupid?
The most absurd statement considering the request for child support has nothing to do with marital standing. Also it’s funny how everyone has put a halo on this mother who from accounts got over and beyond the amount of money necessary for having a baby in excess of 10,000 from the adopted parent and she also continued to accept aid from the state. She basically sold that baby to them.
Yes Mary that is exactly what she did. I’m sure next time she wants to sell her baby she’ll know better and try not to get impregnated by a native american.
He’s been parenting the child for the past 2 years so obviously he gives a shit. He went all the way to the supreme court to fight for her so obviously he gave a shit. He fought for his child from the moment he found out she was up for adoption, even while he was stationed in Iraq. Even after the supreme court ruling he’s still fighting for her.
The mother does have about 3 other children by different fathers and the Copocabianco were helping her out financially with them. They even said they would adopt her other children if they could. She had a financial stake in this adoption. The adopted parents went immediately on a PR blitz with Dr. Phil with their version of the story to get public sympathy. They shaded the story to their benefit.
But there was no notification with the tribe of the adoption at first because they gave incorrect info on the dad. So they were allowed to leave the state of Oklahoma to go to SC for an adoption. If the tribe had correct notification through Oklahoma state law they would have prevented the out of state adoption from occurring. They were only given the correct father’s information after the fact.
SC is a very popular state for adoptions because they have easy adoption laws where they cut out the father–one of their requirements for fathers is the father has to live with the mother for 6 months before if he wants to contest an adoption. This is a hard requirement to meet considering they weren’t on speaking terms and the dad was in the military. So this ruling is pretty much anti dad rights and anti military father’s rights.
There’s a lot more to this case than presented in this one sided article. Even saying he waited until 4 months before contesting the adoption neglecting to point out that even though the adoption was in process for several months, the dad was not notified of this until the child was 4 months old. He was unaware she was putting the child up for adoption until then. And he was unable to contact the mother before them because she had moved and refused any contact he or his mother made.
So, “mary,” you seem to have a very personal stake in all this… And the court is aware of all of the evidence.
Not really personal but I’d say it bothers me and I’m pointing out another way of looking at it. I don’t like the idea that money & better PR means you’re automatically the better parent for a child and this guy has taken a beating in the press due to the one sided reporting on this. . In my opinion the SC courts erred when they refused to send it down to family court to evaluate what’s in the best interest of the child now.
Also I might add, several people have posted here including yourself, so I could easily say oh, you must have a personal stake in all this. But I won’t because that sounds like a rude, snarky type of remark.
As Mary points out, he fought for the child from the time he found out she was up for adoption. The point Mary seems to be missing is that this “Dad” made no efforts to be a “Dad” before finding out about the adoption. He had a lot of options. Fathers going off to war don’t just give up their rights to see their children; especially fathers who don’t even know for sure they are going to war. If he wanted to be involved in this kids life why didn’t he ask for visitation rights at least? Why didn’t he ask for joint custody? I sorry but I don’t think this guy really wanted to be this kid’s dad at the time he agreed for the mom to have sole custody.
As for easy SC, and having to live with mom to contest adoption, those rules do not apply if you are exercising visitation rights and paying child support. As for the offers of support being rejected, that has nothing to do with seeking the right to be involved in the child’s life. This dad could have asked the courts to establish joint custody or establish a visitation schedule at any time. It appears to me what this guy was doing is living his life without seeing or being involved in the life of his child and then someone hit him in the face with the reality that he was about to lose his right to pop in and out of this child’s life on a schedule of his choosing, without responsibility.
“He fought for the child from the time he found out she was up for adoption.” No, he said he did not want to be involved in the child’s life, did nothing to support the mom or child in pregnancy, and he signed the adoption paperwork agreeing to everything. After these advocacy groups became involved he suddenly changed his tune. And it is irrelevant if he is a good dad now – he gave up his rights. We don’t let criminals off after they show they are good person for a few years.
He’s not a criminal nor has there been any indication that he’s abusive or harmful to the child so your analogy does not stand. This is not a question of letting some criminal off.
The bio dad has a different version of events. If you’re interested see link http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/dusten-brown-baby-girls-father-speaks-out-i-did-not-abandon-my-daughter.html
Removing a child from a bio dad who wants her, from a step mother she considers her mom, from grandparents and cousins who live around her and from her sister & also taking her out of state from her rural/farm life in OK to S.C., all that will be a trauma for her. That’s a lot of attachments to take from her life and that really warranted a court at least looking out for what’s best for the child not just what’s best for the adopted parents.
To say nothing of the removal of the child from the people she lived with from birth to 27 months? And the trauma she experienced at that time? Come now, Mary. And you could have provided a link to that widely circulated bio father’s version of events in a less biased place than Native News Network because it’s been published in so many, but at least we now know where you’re getting your one-sided information. And his version of events has been heard by multiple courts, so what’s new here?
So the solution is that she was exposed to trauma at 27 months so she needs to be exposed again? Why exactly? If the child is happy with her father and is not harming her in anyway and she has attachments to family members, who exactly is benefiting from yanking her from a happy home? Because it’s certainly not the child. The point of an adoption is not to make the parents whole but to make the child whole. And there was nothing wrong with another court at least looking at the well being of the child first before deciding. This is a child that’s almost 4 years old now and her attachments will be stronger.
And his version of events is no less credible than the mothers. And no, I’ve read about the case from different places. (That article was originally published in another place–I believe a Tulsa Paper). Some of the facts are a matter of court record and helped the lower courts decide in his favor. When the Supreme Court considered the case they looked only at whether ICWA applied and that’s what they & S.C. decided on only.
Your position is that bio dad has been treated unfairly in the media, and your response to that is to hurl unsubstantiated allegations at the birth mother and adoptive parents. Okay.
He gives a shit because he now has 3 native american advocacy groups behind him. Hell i’d fight a case to the S.C. and US supreme courts too if i had that kind of money. Bio dad isn’t stupid. He is being used to make this a tribal issue – and it certainly is not.
You are an idiot. I wonder how much she walked away with in the end. I have apodted a baby using the same attorney and trust me he is as hard core as they come. Our case was one of the strangest and hardest he has seem. Trust in SC no baby is bought or sold. Head to Kansas and you can do that. And Mary when did you give up a child or were you adopted. Because you seem to just hate the whole process.
Proof or gtfo. This slanderous remark of money changing hands is idiotic. Wado on your stupidity.
Baby is legally yours if you are unmarried but you have to give a shit and step and be a dad. Not like what this guy did. This is all being run by his parents and the Cherokee Nation.
So he was pissed when baby’s mom didn’t want to marry him, so he just ignored her and the baby (oh, except to sign away his parental rights) and provided no support until he found out mom was giving the baby up for adoption? And then he wants to change his mind and come in and act like superdad when these other people were trying to adopt her? And to try to act like he’s a persecuted Cherokee Indian who’s having “his” child stolen – no. Natives really did have their kids taken from them in the past, but that isn’t what happened here. This mom made the decision to have this couple adopt her baby. Sounds like some of these groups who are suing may be using this man as a pawn, and the little girl gets jerked around in the process.
“Sounds like some of these groups who are suing may be using this man as a
pawn, and the little girl gets jerked around in the process.”
Sounds about right.
He’s pretty much having his child stolen. If you read his account, the mother deliberately broke off contact with him and left the state to have the baby and refused his offer of support. And when he and his parents tried to contact her they were rebuffed. She even told the hospital if he called to say she wasn’t there. The reason he initially agreed for the mother to have custody was because he was in the military and wasn’t sure if he had to go to Iraq. When he got a notice, he thought it was her requesting custody of the child and since he was going to Iraq he agreed to it. When the process server informed him of what he just signed he immediately tried to take it back & filed for custody of his child.
He has had his child living with him for close to 2 years now. She knows him to be her father and she’s about to turn 4 in September. This child will know that she’s being taken away from her father who wanted her. An adopted child usually eventually seek out their birth parent and want to be assured that their adoption was for the best. I think finding out that she could have been with a father that wanted you will be very troubling for her.
Stolen? The child is being legally adopted.
“If you read his account…” Do you know whether that account is true? If so, how do you know?
“finding out that she could have been with a father that wanted you will be very troubling for her.” The family is offering visitation. They don’t have to do that.
Veronica was born in Oklahoma, one reason why Brown initially filed there, butOK was like…lol, nope.
The adopted parents are from South Carolina. For the out of state adoption for a cherokee nation child in Oklahoma, they were obligated to inform them for it to proceed out of state. Because the mother or the adopted family and their lawyer gave incorrect information about the father, he was not originally found on the Dawes Roll (this list determines Cherokee nation citizenship). Once they received the corrected info, the adoption was already in process in S. C.
Correct. Yet OK has repeatedly declined jurisdiction and SCOTUS gave SC exlusivity…so like l said. Dumbo was an idiot and filed in a state/tribe with no sway
First paragraph, if you really believe that I have land I want to sell to you. Who signs court paperwork about their child without reading it?
As to the second paragraph I agree this is a tough result – caused by incorrect rulings by the state courts. But we can’t let incorrect rulings stand just because the child spends some time with bio dad. What if it were the other way around and the child was was adoptive parents for full four years because of an error of law. Would you say “oh, well the child has been with the adoptive parents so long, even though bio dad should have her, we are just going to leave her where she is?” No. The law is the law.
And the law says best interests of the child. It doesn’t stop 3 years ago, or two years ago. Don’t spout about law if you don’t know law.
This is an adoption case. No notice was required to be given to deadbeat dad.
Looks like “DWC” and “Law Student” are not familiar with a particular statue in the SC Code.
And the best interests of the child were considered as part of the original adoption decree. Dad had no standing to contest after the supremes said ICWA did not provide custody to bio dad. Please tell me where I am wrong on the law.
Ken you are wrong b/c ICWA stil applies to Veronica herself– preferential placement – w/ family, with another Cherokee, then another NDN family- V’s civil rights are being violated- doesn’t matter if dad’s natural rights aren’t recognized by ICWA per SCOTUS decision. (ironically, he could adopt her under ICWA- part of absurdity of SCOTUS decision)
He did not “sign away” his parental rights.
If he had, I don’t think the SC supreme court would have ordered them to be terminated in the same order that finalizes the adoption.
That ain’t right. His parental rights have never been adjudicated, fairly or otherwise, in a court of law.
Let’s just clear this up right now. Bio dad’s consent was not required in this situation under SC law. You can argue that it’s bad law or good law, but it is the law:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t63c009.php
The relevant section is 63-9-310 (4)
Holy crap! LAW! FACTS!
No, consent is not required. No one said anything about consent.
But, what the SC supreme court seems to be doing is ordering a TPR without him being able to present his case.
That is not right.
If it’s legal – sure wasn’t in all the DSS TPRs I had dealings with as a caseworker – it’s another bad law from our legislators.
But SC adoption was commenced before Veronica was in South Carolina- that violates South Carolina law. When are you going to get it? this “adoption” isn’t even cosmetically kosher.
So he was pissed when baby’s mom didn’t want to marry him, so he just ignored her and the baby (oh, except to sign away his parental rights) and provided no support until he found out mom was giving the baby up for adoption? And then he wants to change his mind and come in and act like superdad when these other people were trying to adopt her? And to try to act like he’s a persecuted Cherokee Indian who’s having “his” child stolen – no. Natives really did have their kids taken from them in the past, but that isn’t what happened here. This mom made the decision to have this couple adopt her baby. Sounds like some of these groups who are suing may be using this man as a pawn, and the little girl gets jerked around in the process.
“Sounds like some of these groups who are suing may be using this man as a
pawn, and the little girl gets jerked around in the process.”
Sounds about right.
He’s pretty much having his child stolen. If you read his account, the mother deliberately broke off contact with him and left the state to have the baby and refused his offer of support. And when he and his parents tried to contact her they were rebuffed. She even told the hospital if he called to say she wasn’t there. The reason he initially agreed for the mother to have custody was because he was in the military and wasn’t sure if he had to go to Iraq. When he got a notice, he thought it was her requesting custody of the child and since he was going to Iraq he agreed to it. When the process server informed him of what he just signed he immediately tried to take it back & filed for custody of his child.
He has had his child living with him for close to 2 years now. She knows him to be her father and she’s about to turn 4 in September. This child will know that she’s being taken away from her father who wanted her. An adopted child usually eventually seek out their birth parent and want to be assured that their adoption was for the best. I think finding out that she could have been with a father that wanted you will be very troubling for her.
Stolen? The child is being legally adopted.
“If you read his account…” Do you know whether that account is true? If so, how do you know?
“finding out that she could have been with a father that wanted you will be very troubling for her.” The family is offering visitation. They don’t have to do that.
Veronica was born in Oklahoma, one reason why Brown initially filed there, butOK was like…lol, nope.
The adopted parents are from South Carolina. For the out of state adoption for a cherokee nation child in Oklahoma, they were obligated to inform them for it to proceed out of state. Because the mother or the adopted family and their lawyer gave incorrect information about the father, he was not originally found on the Dawes Roll (this list determines Cherokee nation citizenship). Once they received the corrected info, the adoption was already in process in S. C.
Correct. Yet OK has repeatedly declined jurisdiction and SCOTUS gave SC exlusivity…so like l said. Dumbo was an idiot and filed in a state/tribe with no sway
First paragraph, if you really believe that I have land I want to sell to you. Who signs court paperwork about their child without reading it?
As to the second paragraph I agree this is a tough result – caused by incorrect rulings by the state courts. But we can’t let incorrect rulings stand just because the child spends some time with bio dad. What if it were the other way around and the child was was adoptive parents for full four years because of an error of law. Would you say “oh, well the child has been with the adoptive parents so long, even though bio dad should have her, we are just going to leave her where she is?” No. The law is the law.
And the law says best interests of the child. It doesn’t stop 3 years ago, or two years ago. Don’t spout about law if you don’t know law.
This is an adoption case. No notice was required to be given to deadbeat dad.
Looks like “DWC” and “Law Student” are not familiar with a particular statue in the SC Code.
And the best interests of the child were considered as part of the original adoption decree. Dad had no standing to contest after the supremes said ICWA did not provide custody to bio dad. Please tell me where I am wrong on the law.
He did not “sign away” his parental rights.
If he had, I don’t think the SC supreme court would have ordered them to be terminated in the same order that finalizes the adoption.
That ain’t right. His parental rights have never been adjudicated, fairly or otherwise, in a court of law.
Let’s just clear this up right now. Bio dad’s consent was not required in this situation under SC law. You can argue that it’s bad law or good law, but it is the law:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t63c009.php
The relevant section is 63-9-310 (A) (4)
Holy crap! LAW! FACTS!
No, consent is not required. No one said anything about consent.
But, what the SC supreme court seems to be doing is ordering a TPR without him being able to present his case.
That is not right.
If it’s legal – sure wasn’t in all the DSS TPRs I had dealings with as a caseworker – it’s another bad law from our legislators.
I disagree. And if you’ve never met the child, then you are not in a position to opine as to what’s in her best interest. You seem to discount the last 18 months the child was in the custody of the putative father, based on the notion that the order granting him custody was based on a flawed interpretation of the ICWA. Do you really think that the almost 4 year old child knows about the legal error in the decision. Has she been unhappy in Oklahoma? Is she doing poorly in Oklahoma? Is she receiving appropriate care in Oklahoma? Is she thriving, or she doing poorly? You really don’t think any of that is relevant?
Do you really think she remembers the Capabiancos? If a birth parent is fit to raise his child, and is committed to raising the child, his parental rights should not be terminated, especially if he has had custody of the child for the last 18 months, and the child likely does not recall the nice couple in Charleston really genuinely wanted to adopt her.
The South Carolina Supreme Court is making a mistake here, assuming that protracting litigation is going to be contrary to the best interests of the child without inquiring as to what’s actually in the child’s best interest a year and a half later. This is a sad situation, and the South Carolina Supreme Court is making it much sadder.
I can’t believe people are chastising a birth parent and his family for seeking every possible legal remedy to keep his child. The deck is clearly stacked against him and this point, and it sounds to me like they’re the only ones concerned with the child’s best interest.
My gut tells me the potential adoptive parents were at one point very concerned for and committed to the child. If they cared about her best interests, then they would agree that the court should weigh whether stripping her from her family and her roots is really in the child’s best interest. It may be. But the South Carolina Supreme Court’s haste is unjustified. Nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision compelled the South Carolina Courts to dispense with further hearings on the child’s best interest.
I don’t know the facts. No one knows what the consequences will be.We will find out when the child is older, and hopefully it works out well for her.
This blind allegiance to findings made over a year and a half ago is not consistent with protecting the best interests of the child.
So let me get this straight – custody should be awarded based on who the child remembers? So if I snatch a 18 month old child and keep her for 2 years and she thinks I am her dad when she is almost 4 then I get to keep her? Like I said above, this is a tough result, but the law is the law. And the Capobiancos were there during pregnancy, at delivery, and after. Family roots are more than sperm.
No. Your illogic hypothetical does not follow my reasoning at all. When the child is legally in the custody of her father and is raised by her, and he’s the only parent she knows, that should be a factor taken into account in determining what’s in her best interest, particularly if the parent she remembers is raising her will, is fit, and is her biological parent.
That’s the point, the child was improperly in custody of bio dad. One may say it was not legal custody.
I disagree. And if you’ve never met the child, then you are not in a position to opine as to what’s in her best interest. You seem to discount the last 18 months the child was in the custody of the putative father, based on the notion that the order granting him custody was based on a flawed interpretation of the ICWA. Do you really think that the almost 4 year old child knows about the legal error in the decision. Has she been unhappy in Oklahoma? Is she doing poorly in Oklahoma? Is she receiving appropriate care in Oklahoma? Is she thriving, or she doing poorly? You really don’t think any of that is relevant?
Do you really think she remembers the Capabiancos? If a birth parent is fit to raise his child, and is committed to raising the child, his parental rights should not be terminated, especially if he has had custody of the child for the last 18 months, and the child likely does not recall the nice couple in Charleston really genuinely wanted to adopt her.
The South Carolina Supreme Court is making a mistake here, assuming that protracting litigation is going to be contrary to the best interests of the child without inquiring as to what’s actually in the child’s best interest a year and a half later. This is a sad situation, and the South Carolina Supreme Court is making it much sadder.
I can’t believe people are chastising a birth parent and his family for seeking every possible legal remedy to keep his child. The deck is clearly stacked against him and this point, and it sounds to me like they’re the only ones concerned with the child’s best interest.
My gut tells me the potential adoptive parents were at one point very concerned for and committed to the child. If they cared about her best interests, then they would agree that the court should weigh whether stripping her from her family and her roots is really in the child’s best interest. It may be. But the South Carolina Supreme Court’s haste is unjustified. Nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision compelled the South Carolina Courts to dispense with further hearings on the child’s best interest.
I don’t know the facts. No one knows what the consequences will be.We will find out when the child is older, and hopefully it works out well for her.
This blind allegiance to findings made over a year and a half ago is not consistent with protecting the best interests of the child.
So let me get this straight – custody should be awarded based on who the child remembers? So if I snatch a 18 month old child and keep her for 2 years and she thinks I am her dad when she is almost 4 then I get to keep her? Like I said above, this is a tough result, but the law is the law. And the Capobiancos were there during pregnancy, at delivery, and after. Family roots are more than sperm.
No. Your illogic hypothetical does not follow my reasoning at all. When the child is legally in the custody of her father and is raised by her, and he’s the only parent she knows, that should be a factor taken into account in determining what’s in her best interest, particularly if the parent she remembers is raising her will, is fit, and is her biological parent.
That’s the point, the child was improperly in custody of bio dad. One may say it was not legal custody.
Actually, the state Suoreme Court tossed the “best interests of the child” standard in the trash in this opinion.
Ironically, ICWA essentially says the best interest of the child is trash. ICWAs stand is that best interest is virtually always served by being raised by someone in the tribe. And unfortunately, because of the paucity of Indian foster and adoptive homes, that means lots of Native kids are put into very dangerous situations after being taken out of very dangerous situations.
Actually, the state Suoreme Court tossed the “best interests of the child” standard in the trash in this opinion.
Ironically, ICWA essentially says the best interest of the child is trash. ICWAs stand is that best interest is virtually always served by being raised by someone in the tribe. And unfortunately, because of the paucity of Indian foster and adoptive homes, that means lots of Native kids are put into very dangerous situations after being taken out of very dangerous situations.
If Brown and the Cherokee don’t relent, then we’ll just take their land and force them to move.
It’s been 175 years, still too soon…
If Brown and the Cherokee don’t relent, then we’ll just take their land and force them to move.
It’s been 175 years, still too soon…
The first 27 months are key.
The first 27 months are key.
He’s one percent Cherokee. I have blonde hair and blue eyes and I’m more Indian than that. This whole thing is a joke and would have been tossed if the dipshits on the SC Supreme Court knew how to read the law. I guess that’s asking too much.
mph – same with me, and hey! could you be my long-lost brother? Actually, sometimes I’ve wondered (when thinking about some of the stunts & pranks from my youth) why my parents kept me around. Grand Dad would tell me it was for amusement.
THANK YOU
He’s one percent Cherokee. I have blonde hair and blue eyes and I’m more Indian than that. This whole thing is a joke and would have been tossed if the dipshits on the SC Supreme Court knew how to read the law. I guess that’s asking too much.
mph – same with me, and hey! could you be my long-lost brother? Actually, sometimes I’ve wondered (when thinking about some of the stunts & pranks from my youth) why my parents kept me around. Grand Dad would tell me it was for amusement.
THANK YOU
“The goal of adoption law is to establish finality and permanency in the lives of children – a final, permanent, stable home. ”
Amy, that says it all – and thanks for addressing this situation.
So you think efficiency is more important than a natural parent’s parental rights? Let me guess, you are a woman. You never experienced the inequity of what it means to be an unwed father. Unwed fathers are experiencing the discrimination women experienced and are still trying to overcome today.
“Unwed fathers are experiencing the discrimination women experienced and are still trying to overcome today.”
Yeah, you’re definitely a law student – at CSOL if you think the types of discrimination you mentioned are in any way analogous.
“The goal of adoption law is to establish finality and permanency in the lives of children – a final, permanent, stable home. ”
Amy, that says it all – and thanks for addressing this situation.
So you think efficiency is more important than a natural parent’s parental rights? Let me guess, you are a woman. You never experienced the inequity of what it means to be an unwed father. Unwed fathers are experiencing the discrimination women experienced and are still trying to overcome today.
“Unwed fathers are experiencing the discrimination women experienced and are still trying to overcome today.”
Yeah, you’re definitely a law student – at CSOL if you think the types of discrimination you mentioned are in any way analogous.
Why is AL even writing on this? I don’t get the point to the article really.
Why shouldn’t she? There’s been tons of press on this – most of it slanted to the dad’s side from what I’ve seen. As to the point of this article, I think it’s pretty clear:
“The goal of adoption law is to establish finality and permanency in the
lives of children. That is what is in their best interests, as it is in
the lives of children who are not adopted – a final, permanent, stable
home. The decision of the S.C. Supreme Court in the matter of Baby
Veronica is in line with that goal…. In the words of the majority opinion issued by the S.C. Supreme Court, “There is absolutely no need to compound any suffering that Baby Girl may experience through continued litigation.”
Let Veronica go home to the Capobiancos for good.”
Well, yeah it was news 3 or 4 weeks ago when it was decided. And it was news 2 weeks ago when the SCSC basically ended the case, but this has been written on 100 times, it affects the lives of 4 people and there merits of it will always be up for debate. Read the dissent of the USSC and you will see the flaws exposed in the majority’s opinion as to how the statute should be interpreted based upon statutory interpretation. It is just a fact driven result that will not likely be repeated in 10 years that has been written about to death. There is nothing new in this article. It is old news.
That was my point.
You’re aware that several groups announced today that they are filing lawsuits, right? Maybe not. The particular case may have essentially ended, but the larger issue of the birth father’s rights is still being litigated by the Native groups who think this is setting a precedent. It will be in the news for quite some time. Also, are you the editor of FITSNews? If not, I’m not sure why you think you get to decide who writes what here. Based on this discussion, people are obviously interested.
Yeah about 12 people have responded..over and over and over.
The press I saw was always slanted to adoptive parents’ side. We must read different press.
Oh look, it never ends. I doubt these women have standing. She should have raised this issue earlier when her case was going forward.
But it is an interesting argument, which would probably be the better article to write about
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130725/PC16/130729617/1177/eronica-x2019-s-mother-others-assert-rights-ask-that-icwa-provision-be-deemed-unconstitutional
Why is AL even writing on this? I don’t get the point to the article really.
Why shouldn’t she? There’s been tons of press on this – most of it slanted to the dad’s side from what I’ve seen. As to the point of this article, I think it’s pretty clear:
“The goal of adoption law is to establish finality and permanency in the
lives of children. That is what is in their best interests, as it is in
the lives of children who are not adopted – a final, permanent, stable
home. The decision of the S.C. Supreme Court in the matter of Baby
Veronica is in line with that goal…. In the words of the majority opinion issued by the S.C. Supreme Court, “There is absolutely no need to compound any suffering that Baby Girl may experience through continued litigation.”
Let Veronica go home to the Capobiancos for good.”
Well, yeah it was news 3 or 4 weeks ago when it was decided. And it was news 2 weeks ago when the SCSC basically ended the case, but this has been written on 100 times, it affects the lives of 4 people and there merits of it will always be up for debate. Read the dissent of the USSC and you will see the flaws exposed in the majority’s opinion as to how the statute should be interpreted based upon statutory interpretation. It is just a fact driven result that will not likely be repeated in 10 years that has been written about to death. There is nothing new in this article. It is old news.
That was my point.
You’re aware that several groups announced today that they are filing lawsuits, right? Maybe not. The particular case may have essentially ended, but the larger issue of the birth father’s rights is still being litigated by the Native groups who think this is setting a precedent. It will be in the news for quite some time. Also, are you the editor of FITSNews? If not, I’m not sure why you think you get to decide who writes what here. Based on this discussion, people are obviously interested.
Yeah about 12 people have responded..over and over and over.
The press I saw was always slanted to adoptive parents’ side. We must read different press.
Oh look, it never ends. I doubt these women have standing. She should have raised this issue earlier when her case was going forward.
But it is an interesting argument, which would probably be the better article to write about
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130725/PC16/130729617/1177/eronica-x2019-s-mother-others-assert-rights-ask-that-icwa-provision-be-deemed-unconstitutional
I suggested to Amy that she give us an article on this case because as a mother I felt that she could give us a concise opinion piece. She did an excellent job with it. I’ve followed this case for several weeks reading all sorts of comments from other authors. She obliged us.
Glad she did.
Is she a lawyer?
I suggested to Amy that she give us an article on this case because as a mother I felt that she could give us a concise opinion piece. She did an excellent job with it. I’ve followed this case for several weeks reading all sorts of comments from other authors. She obliged us.
Glad she did.
Edited to add: I don’t think her opinion should have anything to do with her being a mother. It should be about her understanding of the law and issues in this case. And I’m glad she understands them.
Is she a lawyer?
Oh my God. This article is wrong on so many levels. I can’t even begin to explain… So disappointing. The ignorance in this state literally makes me sad. I need to stop reading news articles.
IF you really are a law student, you make me sad for the ignorance in this state. Literally. Go ahead and begin to explain. Cite statues and cases, please. Start with state and move on up to federal. Once you do that, you’ll realize where the law is on this.
How is the article “wrong”? Does it misstate facts or law? I’d love to hear the legal reasoning behind your comment. Perhaps a result was reached by the court that you don’t agree with. If that’s the case we have several wrong laws out there.
Oh my God. This article is wrong on so many levels. I can’t even begin to explain… So disappointing. The ignorance in this state literally makes me sad. I need to stop reading news articles.
IF you really are a law student, you make me sad for the ignorance in this state. Literally. Go ahead and begin to explain. Cite statues and cases, please. Start with state and move on up to federal. Once you do that, you’ll realize where the law is on this.
How is the article “wrong”? Does it misstate facts or law? I’d love to hear the legal reasoning behind your comment. Perhaps a result was reached by the court that you don’t agree with. If that’s the case we have several wrong laws out there.
And the battle continues —
Her biological mother Christy Maldonado is Hispanic and was unmarried when she got pregnant and gave birth to Veronica – since then she has worked closely with a non-Indian couple hopeful of adopting her daughter.
Yesterday it was revealed that Christy Maldonado is suing the federal government, saying a law governing the placement of Indian children is unconstitutional.
In her lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in South Carolina, Christy Maldonado asks U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder for a declaration that parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act are illegal.
Those measures – which include a preference for ‘other Indian families’ over prospective non-Indian adoptive parents
should be nixed because the law uses race in determining with whom a child should live and therefore violates equal protection provisions, Maldonado argues.
The act was passed in 1978 to reduce the number of Indian children being removed from their homes by public and private
agencies and placed with non-Indian families.
And the battle continues —
Her biological mother Christy Maldonado is Hispanic and was unmarried when she got pregnant and gave birth to Veronica – since then she has worked closely with a non-Indian couple hopeful of adopting her daughter.
Yesterday it was revealed that Christy Maldonado is suing the federal government, saying a law governing the placement of Indian children is unconstitutional.
In her lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in South Carolina, Christy Maldonado asks U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder for a declaration that parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act are illegal.
Those measures – which include a preference for ‘other Indian families’ over prospective non-Indian adoptive parents
should be nixed because the law uses race in determining with whom a child should live and therefore violates equal protection provisions, Maldonado argues.
The act was passed in 1978 to reduce the number of Indian children being removed from their homes by public and private
agencies and placed with non-Indian families.
This father has been railroaded by the legal system since it allowed his child to be taken from Oklahoma without any meaningful legal action to adjudicate his parental rights.
If this goes on in baby-buying cases – and THAT is what this case is – across the nation, it is nothing short of evil.
This father has been railroaded by the legal system since it allowed his child to be taken from Oklahoma without any meaningful legal action to adjudicate his parental rights.
If this goes on in baby-buying cases – and THAT is what this case is – across the nation, it is nothing short of evil.
“The Court’s opinion, it seems to me, needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood. It has been the constant practice of the common law to respect the entitlement of those who bring a child into the world to raise that child. We do not inquire whether leaving a child with his parents is “in the best interest of the child.” It sometimes is not; he would be better off raised by someone else. But parents have their rights, no less than children do. This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to do so. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection.” -Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion.
He hit the nail on the head in my opinion. If a man is willing and wants to raise his child, he should have that opportunity.
“The Court’s opinion, it seems to me, needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood. It has been the constant practice of the common law to respect the entitlement of those who bring a child into the world to raise that child. We do not inquire whether leaving a child with his parents is “in the best interest of the child.” It sometimes is not; he would be better off raised by someone else. But parents have their rights, no less than children do. This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to do so. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection.” -Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion.
He hit the nail on the head in my opinion. If a man is willing and wants to raise his child, he should have that opportunity.
If everyone would have gotten together and smoked a peace pipe the outcome would have been much better.
If everyone would have gotten together and smoked a peace pipe the outcome would have been much better.