Adopting a Native American baby can be full of uncertainty (biological, birth mother)
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.
Seems like the second girlfriend of Brown's was OK with a rushed engagement
and marriage.
Jaded you keep pointing to a rushed engagment and marriage with his wife - where are you getting your information? When were they married - before he contested the adoption back in January of 2010? Before he took custody? After custody?
Mr. Brown married his wife, Robin, in June 2012. He obtained custody of Veronica on New Year's Eve, 2011 (basically Jan 1, 2012). That's six months. At that time, Veronica was 27 months old. He claims he wanted to reunite with the birth mother yet, she claims he never contacted her after she broke off the engagement and asked for child support. Somewhere between all of this he deployed to Iraq. From 2009-2012, he becomes engaged, then un-engaged, relinquishes his rights to paternity, changes his mind and seeks counsel, deploys, returns home, picks up Veronica in SC, and marries Robin six months later. All of this in 3 years!
How was he active in his other child's life with all of this "activity?" I cannot find the source of him having other children...I apologize. But, I do believe he does and the media is only reporting one other child. This could be why he wanted nothing to do with paying more support. However, how did he think he'd have unlimited access to a child he was unwilling to financially support?
If I were Mr. Brown's attorney I would really make sure his client's background is squeaky clean before challenging paternity rights again. His dirty laundry (which I suspect he has a good amount of) will now be fair game since the ICWA card he played didn't earn him any points.
Also, for those who are interested, an interview with the birth mother:
This is very complex - in order to give a useful comment I would have to read the whole thread...My laymen lawyer days are over. I really don't want to make the effort..so please no more reps.
Jaded - that is not what you implied in your previous post...
Quote:
Then, four months after the birth, he was in a new relationship with another
woman whom he married, and they wanted an instant family....
No doubt new wife was thrilled by the news that there was an existing baby, so
she supported her husband in his endeavor and believed his story that he had no
idea his baby was being adopted!
Some people know they have met the right one within a short time frame - others don't. I don't think that speaks to crediblity or lack of being squeaky clean. I married my first husband 7 months after we started dating...that lasted well over twenty years.
Jaded - that is not what you implied in your previous post...
Artful Dodger I'm not going to go back and forth on this issue any longer because it's a non-issue, to me at least, with regard to this case. You may continue to dwell on it if you wish. Yes, I believe that it was the upcoming marriage to his current wife and perhaps his parents that made him change his mind. He was eager to have a "wife AND child." Who knows, perhaps his other child's mother rejected him too.
I presented my perception of the events that unfolded in this case and what I believed happened. When they (Dusten and Robin) married is truly irrelevant, but I still stand by my opinion that he had her waiting in the wings while he was battling with his ex, Ms. Maldonado. We don't know why they broke up. Was he cheating on her with Robin? It really doesn't matter, what we're really discussing is the ICWA law and the SCOTUS decision.
I personally don't believe for one minute that he met Robin after gaining custody of Veronica; that they had a whirlwind romance, and married within six months given all that was going on in his life, when, in his own words, he was hoping to reunite with Maldonado up until he signed the adoption agreement. He was not, IMO, "giving her space." My implications up-thread have not changed. Something is fishy about his entire story and I can smell it through my laptop!
We have a birth mother who, probably for very good reasons, did not want to marry the father of her child. Even though that would mean extra support for her existing children. He took her rejection personally, tried to manipulate her into marrying him to no avail, and then decided to take Veronica from the only family she knew simply to "get even" with the birth mom. Soon after he gains custody and learns that Maldonado's parental rights have been terminated, he gets married. Yeah, right.
He was actually pretty arrogant about using ICWA and was very surprised when his attorney informed him that they lost their case with the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS decision cleared up a lot of misunderstanding about ICWA. Here, Mr. Brown, his attorney, and the South Carolina courts, misapplied it.
UPDATE: Justice Alito approved the request by the Capobianco's to expedite the decision of the court so that South Carolina has to review the case in seven days (from last Friday). Apparently this is rarely done. The last time the Justices expedited enforcing their decision was during the recount of Bush v Gore.
"Their most likely approach is that the justices will send the case back to Charleston County Family Court, where judges would be ordered to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, reconsider the facts and decide on the Capobiancos' adoption petition, said John Nichols, who represented Brown before the state Supreme Court.
"We are in uncharted waters," Nichols said. "We have been from the very beginning. The map is still not complete." "
"Brown's role in Veronica's life now is something University of South Carolina law professor Marcia Zug thinks cannot be ignored. The family with custody of the child is often given preference in state custody proceedings. And now the Capobiancos must argue the opposite of their position in state court, that taking Veronica from the home she knew since birth might stunt her development and cause psychological problems.
"At this age, she probably doesn't remember who they are," Zug said. "It's not reuniting her with a family she's missing. It's taking her away from the only family she knows."
[bolded mine]
So for all the legalities, and yes, the case rests on legalities; the bottom line in an adoption case is what is best for the child. Her father has had what appears to be 'successful' custody of her.
What will be argued when it comes down to why it is best for Veronica to be moved again?
I'm glad this stuff can't happen in Maryland. Upon the birth of the child, neither parent has a superior right to custody and until (or if) a court rules otherwise, both parents are the legal custodians and each can choose to keep the child in their care, if they so choose.
IOW, there is no need to go to court to claim parental rights unless either of the parents choose to request sole legal and/or physical custody. And contrary to popular belief, even a parent who is not identified on the birth certificate is still entitled to assume legal and physical custody at the child's birth. (Actually, now that I think about it, we can also have two parents of the same gender identified on the birth certificate).
Unfortunately, it appears (based on the SCOTUS opinion) that South Carolina requires an unmarried father to seek legal custody rather than have it vest in him at the time of the child's birth.
There is NO way my state would have approved the Petition of Adoption in this particular case.
I'm glad this stuff can't happen in Maryland. Upon the birth of the child, neither parent has a superior right to custody and until (or if) a court rules otherwise, both parents are the legal custodians and each can choose to keep the child in their care, if they so choose.
IOW, there is no need to go to court to claim parental rights unless either of the parents choose to request sole legal and/or physical custody. And contrary to popular belief, even a parent who is not identified on the birth certificate is still entitled to assume legal and physical custody at the child's birth. (Actually, now that I think about it, we can also have two parents of the same gender identified on the birth certificate).
Unfortunately, it appears (based on the SCOTUS opinion) that South Carolina requires an unmarried father to seek legal custody rather than have it vest in him at the time of the child's birth.
There is NO way my state would have approved the Petition of Adoption in this particular case.
And that's how it should be. Similar to the Baby Teleah case, if the Copabianco's were aware that the father did not relinquish his parental rights (and are we seriously talking about a text message as if it's in any way legally binding), they had no business engaging in the adoption. Furthermore, the way they have acted over the course of this case sheds a bad light on all adoptive parents and shows that they are not fit to parent, not do they have the best interest of the child at heart.
Take the Native American equation out of this (because honestly, it was a lawyer's ploy to keep it in there at all) and the child still belongs with her father. Case closed. It's unfortunate that the system has gotten in the way for the worst for this child.
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.
All of this in 3 years!
