Bio
I have been writing about family, parenting, politics and religion since 2000. My work has appeared on Babble.com, Literary Mama.com, in Adoptive Fam...
 
 
 
 

A Tale of Two Headlines: Adoption and the Indian Child Welfare Act

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 163
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Two-Year Old Illegally Taken at Birth, Reunited with Her Father

Young Girl Taken by Biological Father Two Years After Adoption

Fox News had a choice of headlines here and went with the second. But which is the truth?

 

 

Here are the basic facts:

Baby Veronica was placed at birth with prospective adoptive parents while her biological father was serving the military overseas. He had signed a waiver to his parental rights with the understanding that the baby’s mother would raise her -- not that she would place the baby in a stranger adoption hundreds of miles from home.

The father returned to the U.S. four months after the birth and discovered his daughter had been placed for adoption.* He went to court to stop the finalization and thus began a court battle that ended only recently, returning the girl to him.

The law the father relied on to support his case is not “little known” (as the Fox report claims) but quite well known by adoption professionals. It is called the Indian Child Welfare Act. Since the 1970s, this law has protected tribal rights to American Indian children by giving the tribe ultimate authority over whether or not a child can be placed for adoption outside the tribe. Given that American Indian tribes are sovereign political and legal entities, this is only reasonable. Given the history of Indian children being taken in masses (often without consent) from their families and placed in government “orphanages” and “boarding schools” as a means of willfully undermining Indian culture and social welfare, it is the least the United States can do to uphold this law now.

This is the kind of case that comes up from time to time -- the kind of case that leads people who don’t know anything else about adoption to assume that it’s a risky business in which parents can lose a child they thought was their own after months or even years of living as a family.

The reporter here does nothing to educate people about the falsehood of that fear, but instead keeps exclaiming about how you always have to worry about the adoption being reversed. At any time, someone could come and take your child away!

But not only is this untrue about adoption in general, it does not reflect the facts in this particular case.

The prospective adoptive parents learned at least as early as four months into their custody of Veronica that the law had not been followed. That is sad indeed for them and for Veronica, but it is hardly a case of an adoption being “reversed.”

On average, an adoption is not finalized until a child has been living with a prospective adoptive family for six months. Here, the biological father began his appeal before the adoption was final. It was not reversed. It never happened. From four months old at least, the prospective parents in this case knew that there was a good chance of Veronica going back to her father.

If the adoptive parents had really been concerned about Veronica’s best interest, they would have handed her over right then and there, knowing that they had broken the law and were bound to lose her eventually (let alone that it was, at that point, simply wrong to keep her -- as wrong as it could ever be to illegally take a child from her family). Four months old would certainly have been an easier age than two years for Veronica to transition from one family to another.

Short of returning Veronica to her father, the foster parents might at the very least have allowed him regular visitation so that when the time came he wouldn’t be a stranger and they wouldn’t be “the only family she had ever known.” As it happened, they orchestrated her loss themselves and made it worse for her than it need have been.

(It’s worth noting too, that even if they had somehow won the court battle and maintained custody of Veronica, knowing the biological father who loved her and wanted her in his life would have been a boon to the child. Open adoption, whenever possible, is increasingly acknowledged to be best for adopted people.)

Finally, this report is a glaring example of the double standard that applies to mainstream tales of adoption. If it is a tragedy for a toddler to leave the “only family she has ever known” and go a thousand miles to live with a new one (one she is related to by blood, and with

  • 163
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
MakwaQ 5 pts

Ms. Cate's thoughts and presentation is very good and does not rip into the birth father which most of the newspaper articles, and national media coverage I have read or seen on the Brown case seems to present a unfairly biased view against the father and ICWA. There seems to be an assumption in these presentations and especially in the responding blog postings, that this child would be better off with the adoptive parents. I think that this assumption derives from the idea of white privilage, the belief that because the adopted parents are white, fairly well to do, that they will provide a better life for this child and that the father and his family because they are Indian would not.

It also seems like everytime an non-indian couple gets stoped from adopting Indian babies, there comes this hue and cry to repeal ICWA, with the argument that the law is being abused and not being used the way it was originally intended, well, I believe it is exactly being used as intended. It is state child welfare systems, adoption agencies, and non-indian adoptive parents who are trying to circumvent ICWA that are abusing the law.This law does not need to be revised, it does need to be enforced, with states held accountable for not following it.

Ms. Goldenberg - I am glad to see your posts, your expertise on ICWA throws facts, and analysis at an very emotional issue. From the responses, though I have to say that there seems to be a lot of people who do not appreciate those facts and have no desire educate themselves about ICWA. Miqwetch!

rpgoldenberg 8 pts

Additional comment (in response to several comments in the amazing 154 comments on this blog post. ICWA is not a law based on the race of the child. A child can be an Indian Child and ICWA would not apply. ICWA is a matter of citizenship status (in layman's terms), ICWA applies when a child is enrolled or eligible for enrollment in a tribe - a nation. Just being "indian" alone does not make ICWA apply, but ICWA must always be investigated, in EVERY SINGLE case. The question must be asked. When the question is not asked and not documented.... this is where a problem arises. (This is just a clarification to the previous posts on what ICWA is and how it applies)

ICWA4Cherokee 7 pts

The Bio Mother had know him for years and didn't even know he was Indian He never told her or mentioned the heritage that you all claim this law is to protect. If the heritage was so important to Mr. Brown he would of shared all that with his potential wife before impregnating her with his child to use as an artifact to win custody.

charlietown729 5 pts

There so many inaccurate "facts" in this post that I don't even know where to begin.

1. Bio father was not overseas when Veronica was adopted.

2. He did not support birth mother during pregnancy or after Veronica's birth.

3. ICWA is designed to prevent the break up of Native American families. Mr. Brown has testified in court to having no relationship with the Cherokee or the tribe in any way other than the benefit of using ICWA to gain custody of Veronica. I don't think a small percentage of blood qualifies this as a breakup of a Native American family.

4. He DID sign away his rights and agreed NOT to contest the adoption. He was fully aware of the adoption throughout the pregnancy and there are text messages from him to the birth mother that prove it.

5. He changed his mind when she was four months old, but at that time when the Capobianoc's were notified, paternity of Veronica had not even been established. To expect them to just hand over their baby to some man they had never met before is absurd.

6. This was an open adoption and if Mr. Brown wanted to see his biological daughter he only needed to ask, once paternity was confirmed.

7. It wasn't until Veronica was 22 months old that Mr. Brown's attorney barked across the table during a deposition hearing that he wanted to see her. Seems like asking for visitation might have been a good place to start.

8. They did NOTHING illegal in this process...and to imply they did is completely false.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS! BTW, I am part Cherokee and this particular case is shameful! Our children are not possessions of a tribe, but human beings and I am getting sick and tired of the language of ICWA that regards them as anything less.

rpgoldenberg 8 pts

( Continued from previous post)

The fact is no matter what was signed at the time of the birth, the child is an Indian child, a CITIZEN of another nation. When that child was put up for adoption it is required to notify that nation (Cherokee) that the child is being made free for adoption. In almost all cases, tribes avoid the termination of parental rights, and instead go toward what is called a "customary adoption". It operates much like a traditional adoption, except a link is kept to the biological parents where the child will maintain tribal enrollment/eligibility.

Before you comment and make yourself out to be and expert in Indian Child Welfare, an Expert in Indian identity, and an Expert in the Cherokee Nation, you might want to bone up on some policy. I've done policy in this exact area of work and am considered a national leader in the field specifically around Indian Child Welfare, working with several national and high profile organizations. If you look me up, you'll see my resume... It's a difficult case, it is. It's one of those that makes me as a seasoned professional in this line cringe, because it is so difficult. The Adoptive parents got shafted, but so did the child and the tribe, and the biological family. They all got shafted because someone didn't follow the law from day 1. If they had followed the law from day 1, this would not have happened.

Wanna get a little training on ICWA, check out this guide which is highly regarded both in the state and federal governmental community (as well as amongst tribal programs and community agencies that do ICWA). It's published by NARF (The Native American Rights Fund), it's a good comprehensive guide on ICWA and how the law is to be applied.

http://narf.org/icwa/

I've served as expert witness in numerous cases across the country. I've testified in federal meetings, I've trained thousands upon thousands of people on this.

Are you going to tell me I don't know what I am talking about?

I didn't think so.

Thanks Shannon for your post on this, I think it puts a perspective on the media spin in a way that I haven't seen much in mainstream media. Now I just hope that they will let this family deal with this in the way the laws of our nation created... in confidentiality.

ICWA4Cherokee 7 pts

rpgoldenberg How do you expect a person to be an expert when this man holds secrets and does not share his heritage to the women hes impregnating until AFTER the FACT.

ICWA4Cherokee 7 pts

rpgoldenberg In my eyes that is breaking the law, and I hope the Bio mom sues the hell out of Mr Brown putting her through this without telling her he was Indian.

rpgoldenberg 8 pts

ICWA4Cherokee My comments remain the same. I strongly suggest educating yourself on ICWA before making comments. Basic ICWA would answer this particular question, which is not a situation where ICWA would come into play. The resources were already provided. My comments did not take a side. They simply clarified the Act and how it applies in a case such as this, and how ICWA works. There is much mis-representation about how ICWA works, including in these exact comments I am responding to. Step back and read the response, attacking is unnecessary.

http://www.calindian.org/selfhelppdfs/SelfHelpICWA...

Just reading this basic guide would inform you that ICWA does not apply in cases of custody between parents, for starters.

No disrespect to anyone, but inform yourself on the law before attacking with baseless argument.

rpgoldenberg 8 pts

I usually don't like to directly address people, but I also can't sit back and watch someone get blasted like this. It's just not OK. Just keep in mind, this is what I do in my 40 hours a week.... full time. I serve all 50 states of the nation both state government and tribal governments. It's what I do. I am also a BlogHer member, and proud of this amazing forum that allows for people to share, hopefully without name calling and other uncouth behavior.

deleciam You apparently are not familiar with the law. Whether the father wanted to get his child back or not, the ICWA was not followed by the courts. The only person to determine who an Indian child is is the tribe. If the tribe can enroll the tribe based on their laws, then the child is an Indian child. Who assigned you to be the decider of "real and true" Indians? Am I not "Indian" enough? Truly it's none of your business, but in the case of this child if the child eligible for enrollment in the tribe, the child is an Indian Child. Period.

And, child welfare cases are NOT public record. They are protected cases and the fact that this case was made public was done outside of the law. As a matter of fact the courts put a gag order on this case, not because they want to stop it for publicity sake, but BECAUSE child welfare cases are confidential and only under a court order are able to be put up for public consumption. This is to protect the child.

How would you like to wake up at age 18 and read all of these things about yourself, your parents, etc...

(To Be Continued)

deleciam 8 pts

WOW! You have EVERYTHING WRONG!

1) The biological father DID NOT deploy until 4 months and change AFTER little Veronica was born.

2) The biological father LIVED in OKLAHOMA the ENTIRE pregnancy and 4 + months after.

3) The Capobiancos are ADOPTIVE PARENTS NOT Foster parents - Obviously YOU DON'T know the difference.

4) The biological father signed a LEGAL document WAIVING HIS RIGHTS, saying he WOULD NOT contest the adoption.

5) HE WAS NOT OVERSEAS AT ALL DURING PREGNANCY OR 4 months after Veronica's birth.

6) Little Veronica is NOT an Indian child. She is less than 1% Indian - through her biological father, tracing back into the mid to late 1800's she is related to some Indian. This is SO FAR BACK. EVERYONE of us for the most part can claim 1% Indian heritage.

7) Cherokee Nation ACCEPTS ANYONE in their tribe. They are not accepting REAL and TRUE Indians for the most part. They have a sub par standard for acceptance. But that is because they get FEDERAL money for each member.

So BLOGHER, I urge you to get your facts straight. You and entitled to your own opinion, but as a blogger you must do your own research and due diligence to get the facts straight. MUCH OF WHICH is public record

lara04 9 pts

deleciam MOST OF THE FACTS ARE NOT PUBLIC RECORD. What you and many others are claiming they know as facts of the case, like the % of the child's heritage, what document the father signed, or the basis for the lower and appellate court rulings, are NOT reported as facts in ANY PUBLIC RECORDS. Because NEITHER THE ADOPTION DOCUMENTS NOR THE COURT RULINGS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS. You're repeating information posted on websites with no supporting sources or documents and claiming them to be facts. For the first time in this case a blogger has refused to publish information without credible sources.If you disagree, please list the source in the public record that shows that this child is 1% Native American, or the legal documents the father signed. The only thing we do know is that two courts have sided with the father in this custody case.

You're also wrong in calling the Capobiancos "adoptive parents", until an adoption is finalized, they were the "pre-adoptive parents".

dana2222 7 pts

I posted this below, but maybe someone can answer this: What about the Baby Emma Wyatt case? The Zarembinskis' really wanted a baby (a newborn). The bio father was involved the whole time. The bio mom was coerced by her parents, a nun, A Act of Love Adoption Agency, their lawyers and the Zarembinskis'. Mom let them know that Dad wanted baby Emma. She gave the lawyers his address so he could defend his rights. Lawyers wrote a "?" mark. He was not told of the birth, but figured it out, but the hospital would not confirm that Bio mom was there. The Zarembinskis' helped sneak the mom and baby out the side door of the hospital and stayed in different hotels under assumed names while waiting to get the clearance to leave the state. Dad files in time to protect his rights and before the Zarembinskis' file for adoption. They know it is a contested adoption and no one tells Dad that Emma is now in Utah and he has to follow Utah adoption law until it is too late. Virginia has granted Dad full custody because Federal Parental Kidnapping laws. Utah won't hand Emma over. She is now 2 1/2-3. years old. The Zarembinskis' have a better house, the husband has his PhD, the wife stays at home with Emma (whom they call Gabby). They have bonded with her, they can give her a better life, it will disrupt her if she goes back to Dad. They are the only parents she has ever known. The Zarembinskis' have been unable to adopt her due to the Federal Parental Kidnapping charges. The SCOTUS is reviewing the case. Who should get her?

nikford 19 pts

you know what i love? she claims there is no idea to know the truth in the comments down below in that heap of trash. as if this was the ONLY way to write this blog in the light of the inability to "know." but she writes this article as if the facts she has stated are known: he was deployed for the birth. she duped him he wasn't there know really know, etc. my husband is a journalist. this is the biggest pile of poo i have ever written trying to pass off certain "facts."

there ARE real articles out there that present both arguments with minor facts wrong. this is just wrong and lies form top to bottom.

disgusting.

Sweetbearies 6 pts

nikford I usually do not comment on things like that, but you might want to start your sentences with capitals, and refrain from calling things names if you want readers to take your comment seriously. Calling someone's blog post a piece of poo is not very objective, to say the least.

This comment has been deleted
violetsmom101 12 pts

First of all, the hugest mistake is right off the bat. The bio father was not overseas when Veronica was born. He was in Oklahoma. Was he at the hospital? Nope. Where was he? Who knows, but he sure wasn't there supporting the birth mom. He hadn't supported her from 5 months into the pregnancy on. He didn't even make any attempt to see the child or find out how she was or ask to see a picture or anything. That right there is a huge problem and pretty much invalidates any of his claim to the child in my opinion (also the opinion of SC state law). He signed away the rights to her by doing nothing at all, by not being there and demonstrating that yes he did want to be a father to this child.

violetsmom101 12 pts

It is also laughable that your little headline up there says that she was illegally taken at birth. Are you freaking KIDDING ME???!! The adoptive parents did NOTHING illegal. The father signed away his rights! There were lawyers involved on both sides! Which leads to another question, how in the world could this father have been tricked if he had a lawyer??

lara04 9 pts

violetsmom101 When did he get the lawyer and what did he sign?

stilettosnmud 10 pts

Irregardless of fault or blame...the person who was absolutely failed in this situation was the child!

Embracing Difference 6 pts

Im glad there are FINALLY articles that are showing the Bio father in a different light then has been stated by the adoptive parents army of supporters.. i pray that he is able to keep his daughter and finally have the chance to bond and show her that he did not want to give her up.

fallon113 14 pts

@Embracing Difference Just a question, if he truly wants her why did he not want her during the first 4 months of her life? Why was he not concerned for her when the mother was pregnant? Why was he not present at her birth?

nikford 19 pts

Embracing Difference that light is a total lie.please provide one shred of proof he asked to see her in the 25 months of her life. please. then i might believe you. don't say he filed because that doesn't mean a thing.

violetsmom101 12 pts

Embracing Difference

Problem is, he didn't give a rat's ass until she was 4 months old. Maybe he IS a good person, I HOPE he is. That still doesn't make it right. You can't abandon the mother and your child like that then expect everyone to turn everything around because you changed your mind.

Chris27 7 pts

Im sorry but the father signed his rights away to the child so he should have never been able to take this to court to get the child back. I think the father showed him self on fit to be a parent for the fact he wasnt there the whole time the mother was pregnant and for the four months after the birth.

This comment has been deleted
violetsmom101 12 pts

LadyBugLadyBug

Research FAIL to the author of this article!

nikford 19 pts

violetsmom101LadyBugLadyBug the words research and this article should not be in the same sentence. lol even with the qualifier of "fail." i am just poking but i totally agree. worst piece of irresponsible trash i have ever seen. this is the case of a two year old girl. not some fiction. getting is as close to right matters. this isn't even in the universe or right let alone the ball park.

HShields 8 pts

You should get all your facts staright before blogging. You have several wrongs facts mentioned in your blog. First off, the birthfather knew what he was consenting to, and under state law, never supported the birthnmother before during or after the birth of Veronica. he is using a legal loophole to take an innocent child away from the only parents she has ever known. Is that in the best interest of the child? I think not. The birthfather was not deployed at the time of her birth. He also was not registered in the Cherokee tribe before she was born. The birthmother chose the adoptive family in an OPEN adoption, remaining close with them all along.

As an adopted mother of 2, my finalization for both children was less than 4 months after I took them home (2 days after they were born). You are the one with the facts that are incorrect. The birthfather had 13 months to decide he wanted to parent. He did not and signed over his rights. Are we to believe he didn't understand what he was signing? Please. If he was smart enought to use a law made to protect children, he knew what the paper said. It's pretty clear having done it twice myself. This is an injustice to that sweet little girl and her adoptive family.

dana2222 7 pts

HShields What about the Baby Emma Wyatt case? The Zarembinskis' really wanted a baby (a newborn). The bio father was involved the whole time. The bio mom was coerced by her parents, a nun, A Act of Love Adoption Agency, their lawyers and the Zarembinskis'. Mom let them know that Dad wanted baby Emma. She gave the lawyers his address so he could defend his rights. Lawyers wrote a "?" mark. He was not told of the birth, but figured it out, but the hospital would not confirm that Bio mom was there. The Zarembinskis' helped sneak the mom and baby out the side door of the hospital and stayed in different hotels under assumed names while waiting to get the clearance to leave the state. Dad files in time to protect his rights and before the Zarembinskis' file for adoption. They know it is a contested adoption and no one tells Dad that Emma is now in Utah and he has to follow Utah adoption law until it is too late. Virginia has granted Dad full custody because Federal Parental Kidnapping laws. Utah won't hand Emma over. She is now 2 1/2-3. years old. The Zarembinskis' have a better house, the husband has his PhD, the wife stays at home with Emma (whom they call Gabby). They have bonded with her, they can give her a better life, it will disrupt her if she goes back to Dad. They are the only parents she has ever known. The Zarembinskis' have been unable to adopt her due to the Federal Parental Kidnapping charges. The SCOTUS is reviewing the case. Who should get her?

nikford 19 pts

dana2222HShields have you contacted Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare??? they are online and fb...?

dana2222 7 pts

This has nothing to do with being Indian. A child was abducted and they are using all the same arguments as Matt and Melanie. Most people here think that Matt and Mel should keep V. That's fine. But, what about in the above case? Same arguments. Who should get her?

nikford 19 pts

dana2222 i think there would need to have some established proof of fraud. if there is no proof- adoptive. if there is- biological.it also depends on the state. each law has different ideas as to parental rights. allegations of fraud, etc. i would recommend you look at the state this is happening in. look at rules of civl procedure for family law/ adoptions. i would also search lexisone (create and acct) for case law in your state, preferably, for a case as close to yours as possible. get as amany as you can. any state or higher district or SCOTUS cases are also good. find as many as you can. read them all. t his is how you will now what you're up against.and hope you have a good attny.

ask them to keep you abreast of any new developments, call them from time to time, sk them to explain to you what their plan of attack is? has anything changed? etc.i hope this helps.

dana2222 7 pts

nikford But who should get Emma? The only family that she knows or her father who has wanted her from the very beginning and who's rights are still fully intact?

dana2222 7 pts

nikford Sorry, I didn't see that you did answer it. Let's consider that there was fraud. She doesn't know her dad. She has never met him. She's older. And now we are going to rip her from the only family that she knows? (I feel very strongly that she belongs with her Dad.) How do you make the transition?

nikford 19 pts

dana2222 it was be a long transition period (or should be). i have seen transitions happen before. it should be over a period of AT LEAST 1 month of slowly increasing contact with the bio father until the child is mostly with the bio dad. but i would highly recommend, that the adoptive parents still maintain contact with that child. even if it is supervised once a month. something. they likely did not know of the fraud and they can't be blamed for providing a loving home to that child and the long term cost to her over losing her only bonded relationship will be devastating. she has to keep some contact if you have her best interests in mind. extend the family is her best hope.

dana2222 7 pts

nikford Sadly, during the discovery phase it came out that the Zarembinskis' were in the thick of things and knew exactly what was going on. If someone kidnapped your child from the hospital at birth, would you allow them to become extended family with visitation?

Bennett1 5 pts

nikford,

Check out the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare's FB page and profile picture. They are as dedicated to returning Veronica to Matt and Melanie Capobianco as those of us defending Veronica against this silly blogger.

HShields 8 pts

I don't pretend to know the facts on on this case, but it sounds as if the lawyers are at fault. However, in most states, the birthfather needs to be located (at a minimum) for the rights to be even temporarily transfered to adoptive parents. Regardless, none of us will ever know the true story and who did what. It clearly is not cut and dry. In my opinion, the best case scenario would be the child stays with the adoptive parents, and has visitation with the birthfather. That being said, domestic adoption is a VERY long, tedious process with both parties hoping that lawyers, agencies and the the state are doing due diligence before the adoption. Most states require some kind of rights termination and/or consent from both birthparents prior to the child being placed with adoptive parents. If the birthfather is unknown, agencies/lawyers must attempt to locate them (to what degree varies by state) for a certain period of time, before the consent can be considered final.

.

dana2222 7 pts

HShields The Zarembinskis' knew that John wanted her. Dateline did a huge thing on this case. He protected his rights in a timely manner. I honestly believe that she should be with him (no matter how old she gets) and that they deserve to be in jail. We don't kidnap children. I brought up the case because they are using the same arguments as Matt and Melanie. Adoption agencies advise prospective adoptive parents to hold on to a child as long as possible even when it looks like there is a serious problem-because they hope the bio parent will run out of money or argue "best interest of the child. If you are interested in the Baby Emma Wyatt case, the website it below. It also has court decisions and motions.

http://www.babyemmawyatt.com

lara04 9 pts

HShields You don't know whether this is a "legal loophole" or not. First, it's ridiculous to call the ICWA a "loophole". It's a standard and significant part of the adoption process. It applies in every adoption, in every state. It's not in the fine print on the last page of a legal textbook, it's on the adoption papers, and has been applied in every adoption for decades. Second, you don't know what legal reasoning the courts gave for their decisions because the rulings are not public. If you'd like to go by what was said by those who read the rulings or were a party to the case. Then the Capobianco's lawyer said in an article that the ICWA was the reason the father won. While the father's lawyer said in an article that he would have won under state law also. Third, you claim that the father was not registered with the tribe at the time of the child's birth. Yet the lawyer's father has said in an article that he was a member of the tribe for a decade.

sjk 7 pts

That makes no sense ... why would the father feel the need to sign away his parental rights if the birth mom was planning on keeping the baby? There's no legal or practical reason he would do such a thing. The *only* reason you sign away your parental rights is so that you can clear the child to be adopted. Someone has been sharing a convenient after-the-fact fiction masquerading as truth.

fallon113 14 pts

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have read in several places that this child is something like 0.02% Native American. That may not be the exact number but it's a ridiculously small percentage. So using that is ridiculous from the start. The biological "father" also stated that he wanted nothing to do with the child during the mothers pregnancy and was completely unsupportive. Yes, that seems like a loving daddy interested in taking care of his child. You have greatly twisted the facts of this case. It's shameful. He WAS NOT deployed at the time and was not present at her birth as her adopted family was. DNA does not make parents. This child belongs back with her real family where she has been loved and nurtured from day one. You don't suddenly decide you love your child 4 months later. And this has been an open adoption as the biological mom has a wonderful relationship with her adoptive parents. It's a sad story, even sadder that you try to place blame on the adoptive family. And for the record the person who wrote this law also agrees that it was misused in this case. Talk about going directly to the source.

mbe3204m 7 pts

Shannon, Veronica had a family - after the father and mother had given the baby up for adoption. She's now with strangers. Get the facts right, please.

I have a 2 year old and I can't imagine anyone taking him away from me, for any reason, especially the same people who renounced their parental duties right after birth. Adoptive parents need to be protected too.

Shannon LC Cate 27 pts

If this was "merely" a case of a father using a "legal loophole" to get custody of his child, all I can say is, "thank God for legal loopholes."

Because adoption should never be about obtaining a baby for people who want one, but always about obtaining a family for a child who needs one.

Any child whose father would fight for her in court for nearly her entire life obviously doesn't need a family.

She has a loving parent who wants to--and is able to--raise her.

The most loving thing--the thing in the child's best interest--in this case, would have been to let her father have her as soon as it became clear that he wanted to raise her. That would have cause the child far less trauma.

@call 12 pts

Shannon LC Cate she needed them for the first four months. Apparently, he didn't want her. Therein, lies the difference. There is an opportunity here to have 4 parents that love her. However, it appears that Mr. Brown feels that the world revolves around him.

Sunday 10 pts

Shannon LC Cate loving parent? where was he the first 4 months?

nikford 19 pts

SundayShannon LC Cate further, where was he for the 25 months after? if he was SO desperate to be with her, where is there ANY evidence ANYWHERE he asked to see her, send her packages, anything? he filed papers. any person can file and wait. but if you're a real father with real love, you make official attempt, after attempt, after attempt.there is ZERO proof from his family who *are* available to ask questions to that he did any of that. they keep saying: we don't know he didn't tell us.WHAT?!??!!? you mean all that time he was so loving and hurting he didn't express a SINGLE time to ANY of you how he keeps making requests through the court and they are constantly being denied???!?!? really???loving? hardly. he filed some papers and waited. i hardly call that loving.

lara04 9 pts

nikfordSundayShannon LC Cate You don't know what happened in the 25 months. You don't. You haven't read the court records, you weren't close to the families, you don't know. He could have filed 100 requests or 0, you wouldn't know, and you would not know the reasons why. You ASSUME. It's a good thing that the father doesn't feel the need to prove anything to people online who think they know everything. He proved his case to courts over 2 years. The courts KNOW what happened and they sided with the father.

jennz 13 pts

Shannon LC Cate Why would they hand over a 4 month old to a man who has no history of caring or supporting her? A stork doesn't just drop a baby off in the middle of the night. He had 9 months to act like a caring and supportive father and he didn't. Any excuse is merely that, an excuse. A father that truly loves and wants his child will find a way to be in her life no matter what...even in utero. Where was he? He was out acting like a middle schooler whose girlfriend dumped him.

fallon113 14 pts

Shannon LC Cate A father so loving that he wanted nothing to do w her for the first four months of her life? So loving that he wasn't present for her birth? Or so loving that he basically had no contact with her mother during her pregnancy? Yes, that sounds like a loving, concerned parent to me...ridiculous.

anonytern 12 pts

Do you have any children? You must not, right? Would you have given up your children after loving them for four months? This is a family who was there at the birth, the father cut the cord, and then they took the baby home and raised her lovingly, believing the adoption to have been legally consumated. Then, out of the blue, the biological father came into the picture. This is the biological father who:

A. Had SIGNED AWAY HIS RIGHTS (why is no one focusing on this? Regardless of whether he believed the child to be staying with his mother, -and this is nonsense as there is no procedure to sign away your rights if the child is staying with the biological mother; someone has to step into your shoes legally, like in an ADOPTION- he didn't care about the child. He signed a LEGALLY BINDING document saying "I give up my child. I do not want her.")

B. Sat on his thumbs for FOUR MONTHS after the child was born, allowing her to become attached to her adoptive family;

and

C. Had not even registered with the Cherokee Nation until AFTER the child's birth.

Sweetbearies 6 pts

anonytern It really does not make your case to ask whether someone has children or not. People who do not have kids can still write about these issues. Stick to the facts, and do not disparage someone just because they might not have children. Do you think all teachers without kids are bad? There are good teachers and good parents, and having your own children does not necessarily make you "good" at the job. The adoptive parents seem like good people, but I have a feeling the biological dad is, too. I believe the truth of this case lies somewhere in between these two parties fighting over a child. The best arrangement would have been to let the biological dad have a role in her life, and allow the adoptive parents to keep her.