Adopting a Native American baby can be full of uncertainty (certificate, children)
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.
There are two sides to every story and we don't really know what Dusten Brown's intentions, thoughts and plans were. According to one article he and the mother, Maldonado, was in fact in contact via text messages throughout most of the pregnancy and he did go to her house late in the pregnancy after the messages stopped, but she didn't open the door. His mother was also in contact with Maldonado. After that, according to the article, he followed his mother's advice to give Maldonado space and wait for her to come around, hoping that she would come around and marry him. If that is in fact true I don't think that shows that he was a deadbeat who didn't care but was a guy about to go to Iraq who was dealing with an ex who had broken up with him and was following the advice of others regarding a difficult situation.
Whether the message to the mother that he would only pay for the baby if she married him and would otherwise give up custody to her was meant literally or was something that was said in anger or in hopes of pushing a marriage - which I think shows that he wanted to take care of his baby and be a family - only Brown knows. But even if it was meant literally at the time does that mean that he has to be held to that forever, even after the baby is here in the world and the circumstances changed? We don't hold mothers to that standard at all. They are free to change their minds after birth even thought they had decided to give the baby up before birth.
I would have liked to have seen some action being taken by Brown in the four months after birth when he should have known that the baby had been born even if he didn't know exactly when. It doesn't help his case that he didn't. Maybe he didn't really care and had just planned to sign over custody to the mother and go about his merry life. Or maybe he was following the advice of his mother and thought he had time to repair things in time.
The thing that really bothers me about SC law and the claims of those who support the adoption is that Brown should never have had any say at all because he didn't take sufficient action before birth. Supposedly he abandoned the baby in utero. Life and relationships aren't that cut and dry though. The amount and type of action and man can take depends on how cooperative the mother is. I personally know of women who have actively worked to keep the father of their baby away with various underhanded tactics and lies. Should he then not have any rights because he didn't develop a relationship with the baby during the pregnancy or supported the mother when she made both impossible? Apparently, in SC, a father's rights are protected if he lives with the mother and holds the child out as his or if he signs the birth certificate. How would he do that if the mother is actively trying to keep him from doing either?
Whatever Brown's intentions where during the first four months of Veronica's life it's clear that he did in fact want his baby on several occasions throughout and as soon as he found out that the baby was not going to be raised by her mother he immediately wanted to step up and not only support the baby but take care of her including changing smelly diapers, sleepless nights and constant work. That doesn't sound like a deadbeat to me and I don’t understand how wanting to raise your baby is an ugly thing to do.
His decision to not consent to an adoption and fight for custody was made pretty much immediately once he had been approached with paperwork he was asked to sign in front of a mall, pretty much out of nowhere. How much that decision was influenced by his girlfriend and her desire to have an instant family with someone she had just met (if they had even met by then which I have been unable to verify) is hard to know but I find it unlikely that it played much or any role at all considering how quickly he spoke up to object to the adoption.
I also highly doubt that any financial incentive was at play either. From what I’ve been able to find there are no financial benefits from having another Cherokee member in the family. There is some free/low cost health care for the child, help with school clothes and some other benefits for low income families. Mr. Brown was in the military at the time so he had a decent income and military benefits. Any benefits he may get from the child from the tribe would most likely not even cover the cost of raising a child. Not to mention the constant work and major self sacrifice of taking care of a small child. Getting a second job would have gotten him much more money and given him more time to himself. I’m sure that the legal case has been very costly financially and emotionally too even though he got help.
Considering all of this the argument that Brown contested the adoption for any other reason than wanting his daughter just doesn’t hold up, imo.
Last edited by Jaded; 06-28-2013 at 03:28 PM..
Reason: fixed broken HTML brackets for ease of reading.
Mr. Brown DID sign relinquishment papers and agreed to the adoption initially. It was his marriage that prompted his change of mind...and possibly his mother and new wife.
If he knew he'd be deployed, who would be caring for Veronica in his absence? Also, each Native American family member in a household qualifies for benefits if they are a registered tribal member, every one. Veronica would receive more than what you've suggested in your post. Her benefits will now include college tuition and other aid...which I have no problem with. However, Mr. Brown did NOT consider any of his daughter's losses when he was willing to relinquish. He only considered his liability to pay child support. Pretty sad.
As far as his legal costs, the case was fought to apply ICWA, as a Native American himself, his costs were minimal if anything.
My strong guess is that if there wasn't a new wife to "care" for Veronica, his original desire to relinquish would have never changed.
Just my .02 cents.
Last edited by Jaded; 06-28-2013 at 03:31 PM..
Reason: added sentences.
Mr. Brown DID sign relinquishment papers and agreed to the adoption initially. It was his marriage that prompted his change of mind...and possibly his mother and new wife.
Bingo. This is why he was held to have abandoned his child and to not have continuous custody of her within the meaning of the ICWA.
Mr. Brown DID sign relinquishment papers and agreed
to the adoption initially. It was his marriage that prompted his change of
mind...and possibly his mother and new wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Bingo. This is why he was held to have abandoned his child and to not have continuous custody of her within the meaning of the ICWA.
I'm going to believe the South Carolina Supreme Court document vs articles - which clearly identifies he had not previously signed surrender documents or knew about the adoption.
The prospective adoptive parents filed the adoption petition in SC on Sept 18, 2009, three days after the birth, but no papers were served, or other notification made to the father about adoption - until January 6, 2010 days before the father was scheduled to be deployed. The papers were titled "Acceptance of Service and Answer of Defendant" - which stated he was not contesting the adoption to which he testified that he believe he was relinquishing his rights to the mother - not about adoption by somone else. Before the process server even left he attempted to get the papers back. After talking to his parents and the Jag lawyer on January 11th, 2011 he requested a stay of the adoption proceedings under the Serviceman Act. On January 14th, 2011 he filed for paternity, custody and child support in Oklahoma. He deployed on January 18, 2011.
I'm going to believe the South Carolina Supreme Court document vs articles - which clearly identifies he had not previously signed surrender documents or knew about the adoption.
The prospective adoptive parents filed the adoption petition in SC on Sept 18, 2009, three days after the birth, but no papers were served, or other notification made to the father about adoption - until January 6, 2010 days before the father was scheduled to be deployed. The papers were titled "Acceptance of Service and Answer of Defendant" - which stated he was not contesting the adoption to which he testified that he believe he was relinquishing his rights to the mother - not about adoption by somone else. Before the process server even left he attempted to get the papers back. After talking to his parents and the Jag lawyer on January 11th, 2011 he requested a stay of the adoption proceedings under the Serviceman Act. On January 14th, 2011 he filed for paternity, custody and child support in Oklahoma. He deployed on January 18, 2011.
I'm going to believe the South Carolina Supreme
Court document vs articles - which clearly identifies he had not previously
signed surrender documents or knew about the adoption.
The prospective
adoptive parents filed the adoption petition in SC on Sept 18, 2009,
three days after the birth, but no papers were served, or other notification
made to the father about adoption - until January 6, 2010 days before the
father was scheduled to be deployed. The papers were titled "Acceptance of
Service and Answer of Defendant" - which stated he was not contesting the
adoption to which he testified that he believe he was relinquishing his rights
to the mother - not about adoption by somone else. Before the process server
even left he attempted to get the papers back. After talking to his parents and
the Jag lawyer on January 11th, 2011 he requested a stay of the adoption
proceedings under the Serviceman Act. On January 14th, 2011 he filed for
paternity, custody and child support in Oklahoma. He deployed on January 18,
2011.
Your dates were wrong:
served papers Jan 6, 2010
requested stay Jan 11, 2010
filed Jan 14, 2010
deployed to Iraq Jan 18, 2010
Thanks. This is helpful but still irrelevant.
Regarding news articles vs the court documents: Mr. Brown relinquished his parental rights via "text message" and this was proven in court. The only reason he was granted custody was because he applied ICWA. How or when he was served papers formally wasn't what the SCOTUS decision was about. It was about how he and the SC courts applied ICWA to the adoption.
His use of ICWA was overturned because he had already relinquished his rights and was no longer in a relationship (marriage or otherwise) with the birth mother at the time of birth and attempted adoption. Therefore, there was no "Native American Family" to keep in tact; there was no Native American child being removed from a Native American home without a proper search for another Native American home for adoption in lieu of a non-Native American home, which is the purpose of ICWA. It was essentially a private adoption initiated by a birth mother of non-Native American decent.
One question though. If Mr. Brown was okay with relinquishing his parental rights when he assumed the birth mother would raise baby Veronica without any child support from him, so that he could visit periodically, without paying any support, why would he care if she decided to place the baby for adoption? Did he not understand what "relinquishment" was? Why wouldn't he just ask his mother to care for his daughter during his deployment? Just wondering.
Regarding news articles vs the court documents: Mr. Brown relinquished his parental rights via "text message" and this was proven in court. The only reason he was granted custody was because he applied ICWA. How or when he was served papers formally wasn't what the SCOTUS decision was about. It was about how he and the SC courts applied ICWA to the adoption.
His use of ICWA was overturned because he had already relinquished his rights and was no longer in a relationship (marriage or otherwise) with the birth mother at the time of birth and attempted adoption. Therefore, there was no "Native American Family" to keep in tact; there was no Native American child being removed from a Native American home without a proper search for another Native American home for adoption in lieu of a non-Native American home, which is the purpose of ICWA. It was essentially a private adoption initiated by a birth mother of non-Native American decent.
One question though. If Mr. Brown was okay with relinquishing his parental rights when he assumed the birth mother would raise baby Veronica without any child support from him, so that he could visit periodically, without paying any support, why would he care if she decided to place the baby for adoption? Did he not understand what "relinquishment" was? Why wouldn't he just ask his mother to care for his daughter during his deployment? Just wondering.
Jaded I believe you maybe confusing two separate issues.
Your first paragraph is about the text message and the court opinion states this: "In June 2009, Mother sent a text message to Father asking if he would rather pay child support or surrender his parental rights. Father responded via text message that he would relinquish his rights." (from the link to the court record above). I would point out that even in that text message by the Mother she clearly indicated her intent was parenting - not considering adoption. He did not say he did relinquish - rather he would relinquish.
Your second paragraph relates to the papers served in January of 2010 - not the text message. Which within days as noted in the same court record he revoked and that is was also the first he had heard of adoption.
Your final paragraph about being fine relinquishing his parental rights - my guess is that he knew it wasn't that easy seeing as he already had a child with a child support order and that a father can't just relinquish his rights to avoid child support. That back and forth text message was a tit for tat spat between two who until recently had been engaged to be married - a pretty common response to hurt feelings.
The Supreme Court decision was very limited. It didn't address text messages, relinquishment, or anything else. All it said was that it interpreted the term parent in one part of the ICWA to mean that the child was in physical custody of the person at some point. Thus he was not a 'parent'. Even one of the assenting justices had some problems with that - -
Let's be clear.
>Both he and Veronica are recognized Native Americans, whether or not people outside their tribe want to base it on % of blood etc -- it is not arguable. The ICWA, like it or not, gives preference to NA 'parents', extended family, even NA adopters and foster families for NA children.
>IF proper notice was served the tribe - [which it wasn't - identifiable info was incorrect]
- Veronica would not have been allowed to go to South Carolina
- His parents would have had a valid claim to their grandchild even if he did not pursue it
The mother made repeated attempts to 'hide' the Native American tie - which then allowed Veronica to be removed from Oklahoma, delayed notification to the father and the tribe and the grandparents. which effectively cut off the possibility of their 'interference'. The mother cut off contact with the father & his family, up to and including anonymous hospitalization for the birth.
The South Carolina Supreme Court courts based their decisions, in part, on several points in the ICWA. They interpreted 'parent' and the rights afforded under the ICWA [ability to change your mind about relinquishment within a specific timeframe] to apply.
In the lower courts, the finer points were not decided - whether or not to terminate his parental rights etc. because they too deferred to the ICWA [ all I can think is that it was easier for them than wading through all the he said-she said in this case - but who knows]
My point is that had the mother and the adoption agency correctly identified the father at the time of her intention to consider adoption, months B4 birth, things may well have been much different.
Now -- I have a feeling that his parents will do something legally, and that too would fall under the ICWA and someone will have to decide on what 'extended family' is, and if that failed the tribe would likely represent itself - -
The AP's will have to retry to finalize this messy adoption. Since the child has now been identified a NA, and is currently residing in OK, that state may try to reassert its jurisdiction.
Personally I can't see inside people's heads. I don't know the father's motivations; don't know if he if he stopped trying to contact the mother because he was a deadbeat dad or was giving her space & still hoped to have a relationship with her. Don't know if his parents continued to try to contact the mother because they really cared or decided they needed the child for financial gain. I give the father & his family props for staying out of the media and keeping Veronica's personal life private. One can speculate, but don't know if the father or his family would have played a more active role in Veronica's life had she not been placed for adoption or not. I know 0 about the stepmother. Don't know why the AP's attorney waited 4 months to try to serve notice to the father - intent, or just slow moving lawyer stuff. Don't know why the mother decided not to tell the father or his family she was considering adoption well B4 Veronica's birth. What was her choice based on? We have no idea. What were her motivations? Again - pure speculation.
Jaded I believe you maybe confusing two separate issues.
... Your final paragraph about being fine relinquishing his parental rights - my guess is that he knew it wasn't that easy seeing as he already had a child with a child support order and that a father can't just relinquish his rights to avoid child support. That back and forth text message was a tit for tat spat between two who until recently had been engaged to be married - a pretty common response to hurt feelings.
No, no confusion here. He - Mr. Brown - actually has a few children. As far as support, the sole reason I believe he knew of the adoption is because his "relinquishing" was tied to him not having to pay support. That's why he did it. He wanted to avoid paying child support.
Re; the bolded part. I wouldn't assume this. It's actually not that common at all. I highly doubt birth father's regularly use text messaging to relinquish their parental rights. More often they just disappear.
From this thorough recount with quotes from the SCOTUS Justices:
Quote:
Brown and Christina Maldonado became engaged in December 2009 and learned a month later that she was pregnant. But she called things off after Brown pressured her to get married right away, and he later texted, in response to her question, that he would rather give up parental rights than pay child support.
Seems like the second girlfriend of Brown's was OK with a rushed engagement and marriage. I don't blame Maldonado for her pause and concern. We really don't know much about Brown's personality. Obviously, she did, and went with her "gut" to end the relationship - despite being pregnant.
Also, I'm glad that at least Justice Roberts was a voice for adoptive parents. He gets it. Sotomayor, whom I usually agree with, did not, with her "stranger" remark. The only stranger to Veronica was Brown. She spent 27 months with the adoptive parents and only 15 with him and the stepmother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185
The Supreme Court decision was very limited. It didn't address text messages, relinquishment, or anything else. All it said was that it interpreted the term parent in one part of the ICWA to mean that the child was in physical custody of the person at some point. Thus he was not a 'parent'. Even one of the assenting justices had some problems with that - -
Let's be clear.
>Both he and Veronica are recognized Native Americans, whether or not people outside their tribe want to base it on % of blood etc -- it is not arguable. The ICWA, like it or not, gives preference to NA 'parents', extended family, even NA adopters and foster families for NA children.
>IF proper notice was served the tribe - [which it wasn't - identifiable info was incorrect]
- Veronica would not have been allowed to go to South Carolina
- His parents would have had a valid claim to their grandchild even if he did not pursue it
...The AP's will have to retry to finalize this messy adoption. Since the child has now been identified a NA, and is currently residing in OK, that state may try to reassert its jurisdiction.
Personally I can't see inside people's heads. I don't know the father's motivations; don't know if he if he stopped trying to contact the mother because he was a deadbeat dad or was giving her space & still hoped to have a relationship with her. Don't know if his parents continued to try to contact the mother because they really cared or decided they needed the child for financial gain. I give the father & his family props for staying out of the media and keeping Veronica's personal life private. One can speculate, but don't know if the father or his family would have played a more active role in Veronica's life had she not been placed for adoption or not. I know 0 about the stepmother. Don't know why the AP's attorney waited 4 months to try to serve notice to the father - intent, or just slow moving lawyer stuff. Don't know why the mother decided not to tell the father or his family she was considering adoption well B4 Veronica's birth. What was her choice based on? We have no idea. What were her motivations? Again - pure speculation.
I'm in agreement that Veronica is NA and that one cannot see inside people's heads. But ICWA is out as far as Brown and/or his parents having "priority" over her. That is what this case decided. It was a good decision. Landmark indeed. The AP's won't have to retry anything. The SC courts will have to reconsider/rescind their decision and look at the facts outside of ICWA. In this sense, the AP's are clearly the frontrunners.
Whether or not SC courts view Brown's notification as insufficient will not fly now. This should have been his argument, but he chose to use ICWA instead. The SC courts original decision to return Veronica to him was based solely on ICWA. However, now, the APs and Maldonado can prove he voluntarily relinquished his rights prior to the birth of Veronica...which unfortunately, is what birth father's are allowed to do, sometimes to their detriment. Men don't "carry" babies in the womb. It is what it is.
Hopefully the SC courts will decide, soon, once and for all the fate of baby Veronica. No other family should have to go through this, ever.
Last edited by Jaded; 07-01-2013 at 12:29 AM..
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.
