Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last year, a South Carolina couple was forced to turn their daughter over to her birth father, a man she had never met. Matt and Melanie Capobianco legally adopted their daughter two years before. They were in the delivery room when Veronica was born. She had been in their care since then. The Capobianco's have an open adoption with the birth mother, Christina Maldonado.
Dustin Brown, Ms. Maldonado's former fiance and biological father signed adoption papers. His ex-fiance had asked for child support and Brown did not want to pay it.
The Maldonados knew that Veronica's mother is of mixed heritage, Latina, African American and White.
The birth father is part Cherokee Indian, and four months after the adoption he had a change of heart. He and his attorney invoked the Indian Child Welfare Act (1978). Little Veronica was removed from the only home she had ever known and placed in the care of two strangers- Dustin Brown and his current wife.
The Capobiancos appealed their case to the Supreme Court of South Carolina which, in a narrow (3-2) decision decided to take Veronica away from her parents.
Some back story- The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in a belated attempt to preserve Native American Families. The United States committed atrocious acts of mortal and cultural genocide against American Indians, forcing Indian children into "boarding schools," which were little more than indoctrination centers designed to adopt White Anglo-Saxon ways and to convert them to Christianity. This chapter in American history is nothing short of deplorable.
However, in the case of Veronica Capobianco, she was not removed from an Indian home, nor was she stripped of her cultural identity. There was no "Native-American" family in this case, ever. None of the adults in her life, her parents or birth mother were Native American.
In addition, Dustin Brown, who signed relinquishment papers, now says that he did not understand what he was doing. If in fact he did not, that does not auger well for parenthood.
When he was informed by his former fiance, Ms. Maldonado, that she would be expecting child support, he was angered. He was told by Ms. Maldonado that if he agreed to adoption there would be no financial responsibility. He then signed the relinquishment papers.
At best Mr.Brown was an ambivalent parent. A capricious parent. However, there was one thing that he was not ambivalent about. He did not want to pay child support.
Mr. Brown's motives and actions are not consistent with those of a loving adult, let alone a mature parent. The same man, who did not want to support his daughter, now wanted to snatch her away. How is it at all coercive for Ms. Maldonado to demand what was rightfully her and her daughter's financial support, at the very least. It seems that he may have had a vendetta against his ex-fiancee, Christina Maldonado, who broke of the relationship with him. Any court in America would have demanded that he support his daughter, and he knew that. Now the case is being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In a year a very young child's life was turned upside down. She has gone through more than some people do in a life time. Will she be the same? Will she be whole and able to trust? Ever?
My opinion is that she never should have been removed. But she was. Reports also say that she has adjusted, Would removing her from yet another home help or hurt? I don't have the answer. I would enjoy hearing all your opinions.
Also, apparently she was not given to her adoptive parents immediately after birth, the father on his way to deployment thought he was signing his rights over to his ex fiancee ALONE while he was overseas, and after learning of the adoption immediately filed legal action (she was barely 4 months old at that point).
I agree, this was is a tragedy for everyone involved, but honestly, if they baby was given back to her father at 4 months old, it wouldn't have been a tragedy for HER.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-06-2013 at 10:11 AM..
Also, apparently she was not given to her adoptive parents immediately after birth, the father on his way to deployment thought he was signing his rights over to his ex fiancee ALONE while he was overseas, and after learning of the adoption immediately filed legal action (she was barely 4 months old at that point).
I agree, this was is a tragedy for everyone involved, but honestly, if they baby was given back to her father at 4 months old, it wouldn't have been a tragedy for HER.
How easy would it be for you to return one of your children? I am thinking about the best interest of the child, and at this point, I don't know what that is either. Do you?
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-06-2013 at 10:12 AM..
How easy would it be for you to return one of your children? I am thinking about the best interest of the child, and at this point, I don't know what that is either. Do you?
I raised children who were not my own for most of their lives. If their mother could have come back for them, I would have given them to her. It would be in their best interest to be with their mom.
I think the best interests of the child would have been best served by being reunited with her father at 4 months old. Her adoptive parents made that choice.
And as for not being cherokee, sheena said there was no "Native american" in her life. Well according to the birth mother and the father's attorney he was on deployment and wanted and expected to marry the mother. He thought he was signing custody over to his ex fiancee until he got back and they could work things out.
As an adoptive parent, could you actual say to your daughter, your birth mother wanted you back, she felt a mistake had been made when you were an infant but we decided you were "ours" and kept you? I am sure you are a loving parent, and could you really tell your daughter, whom you love that your kept her away from birth parents who WANTED her and FOUGHT for her?
Maybe you can, I cannot imagine having to tell an adoptee of any age that.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-06-2013 at 10:12 AM..
How easy would it be for you to return one of your children? I am thinking about the best interest of the child, and at this point, I don't know what that is either. Do you?
The problem is that when there is a claim by the father even as soon as just after the birth, it is actually a common tactic for solicitors to drag out proceedings as long as possible so that they can the use "it would be cruel to remove the child from the only family they have known" argument.
I do know someone (an online AP) who had the father put in a claim and after meeting with the father, she decided that it was in the best interests for the child to go with the father there and then. Her solicitors had in fact advised her to drag out the proceedings as long as possible because of the above argment. She knew that she probably could have done that and maybe even have "won" but she knew it wasn't the right thing to do.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-06-2013 at 10:13 AM..
Naively I think that these things should never wind up in court. Ideally the father should have volunteered support no matter how hurt or tic'd off he was the mom wouldn't marry him. Ideally if the mom didn't want her daughter she would have discussed it with the father. She could have said "if you don't pay support I'm giving her up for adoption".
Assuming the timeline and events are accurate - well the adoptive parents were aware at 4 months that it was contested. Perhaps they were deceived. Perhaps they were complicit with moving things along. We don't know. The child is with her father after 2 court decisions. I wouldn't personally be fighting to remove a child from her father unless she was abused or neglected.
Naively I think that these things should never wind up in court. Ideally the father should have volunteered support no matter how hurt or tic'd off he was the mom wouldn't marry him. Ideally if the mom didn't want her daughter she would have discussed it with the father. She could have said "if you don't pay support I'm giving her up for adoption".
Assuming the timeline and events are accurate - well the adoptive parents were aware at 4 months that it was contested. Perhaps they were deceived. Perhaps they were complicit with moving things along. We don't know. The child is with her father after 2 court decisions. I wouldn't personally be fighting to remove a child from her father unless she was abused or neglected.
At this point, I am not sure that I would be either. Two major upheavals in one short life. The whole thing is tragic beyond belief.
For anyone who wants an understanding of why people go over seas to adopt, this would be why.
If Veronica is happy and well adjusted where she is now, I'd probably leave it alone. I don't know, it's so hard to say. It would be nice if all of the adults could work with a team of psychologists and do what is best for Veronica. It would be nice if they could all be adults. What's done is done.
I think it is very clear that the father did want the child.
I have to say (and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, just a reflection on themes I hear often) that I find it disingenuous when adoption supporters argue the 'only family he/she has ever known' tactic in cases like this. Wouldn't that mean any child not immediately offered up for adoption at birth should never be offered for adoption at all? Wouldn't it mean that children in foster homes should remain there even if an adopter wants them? This child was 4 months old when the father tried to get her back...would you say that was 'too late' if a struggling teen mom decided to give up her child at 4 months? Do these time frames only count when it means an adoptive parent gets to keep a child?
I do not think that is clear at all. I think that he signed a relinquishment document in order to avoid paying child support as he was afraid that it would indirectly benefit his former partner, Christina Maldonado.
The parents did not behave with logical detachment either. If anyone had asked me to surrender either of my children after even a few months of living with me, I would have sought an attorney who would be optimistic about winning this case. If one did not tell DH and I what we wanted to hear, we would have retained another.
Loving and wanting your baby and doing anything possible to keep your child is normal. I think that the Capobiancos behaved as most parents would.
From many people's perspective, Brown appears to be a manipulative and lacking in empathy. He had never seen or known the baby until the night that she was taken from her parents. He had sex with his girlfriend that resulted in a baby.Not in a family.And because HE wanted WHAT WAS HIS - He took her. Why was she his? Because of biology and DNA. She was also yet another tool that he could use against the birth mother.
Note of correction the adoption hadn't been final at the four month mark - hence the reason to serve the father papers.
Four months the transition would have been doable but implicit memories would still be there and it would have affected the baby. Would he have been required to deploy (set to deploy within days of being served the papers) - I don't know but that might have made things worse if he had received custody and then deployed...
Lets say that he did receive custody at four months, deployed, baby stayed with prospective adoptive parents as a foster child. Could he have returned and transitioned the baby to him? Yes, if done correctly and with all adults in the proper frame of mind. Implicit memories would still exist but the prospective parents by doing this could have maintained a role in the child's life such as God Parent status.
The actual custody change at 24 months was abrupt due to litigation. Abrupt transition isn't a great method in my mind, but the mitigating factor is that the adults on both sides most likely would not have been able to maintain the proper frame of mind, and the child would feel the tension, and affect the transition regardless. Perhaps because of this the abrupt transition was the best scenario.
The Supreme Court will hear this case in April and likely publish the ruling in June. The child will be 42 months old (24 months that will hold implicit memories, 18 months of both implicit and explicit memories). Moving the child back in anything other than a shared custody type situation will affect this child at this age but... What needs to be kept in mind is that if the Supreme Court rules the ICWA does not apply (I believe that is the question before the court) the case would be sent back to the SC Supreme Court (?) which if that is the correct sequence, would then likely then kick it back to the lower court (?), and all of that will take even more time, before the question of who the legal parents should be is answered. In that scenario the child will too old to move in my opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
