Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!

[Anonymous]

The adoptive mother is a PHD psychologist in a high position in an agency that has ties to the SC family courts and the military.

The birth mother is probably working at some low level job with income supplenments from selling her baby.

[Anonymous]

Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.

[Anonymous]

The adoption was finalized 10 days ago! The adoptive parents knew during the pregnancy that the child was part Cherokee and it may couse an issue. The father contested when baby was 4 months old. They should have returned the unadopted baby who had a father who wanted to parent at that time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The adoptive mother is a PHD psychologist in a high position in an agency that has ties to the SC family courts and the military.

The birth mother is probably working at some low level job with income supplenments from selling her baby.

Ah. Sorry. Got confused between birth and adoptive mother.

However, the birth mother did not "sell her baby." Do you just love making unsupported allegations?

[Anonymous]

Birth mother was given $10,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.

This

[Anonymous]

If you support Veronica remaining with her biological father please sign this petition
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...tY#thank-you=p

also there is a facebook page supporting the browns/ronnie
https://www.facebook.com/StandingOur...ocation=stream

[Anonymous]

Facebook page is "Standing Our Ground for Veronica Brown"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.

This

Not supported by fact. You love saying this, but never provide any actual "proof." Go back, read the Supreme Court opinion. None of that is in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.

This

Not supported by fact. You love saying this, but never provide any actual "proof." Go back, read the Supreme Court opinion. None of that is in there.

Documents were filed with the Cherokee nation with 3 crucial errors in them, in Dusten Brown's name and birthdate. Documents were also filed listing her as Hispanic. It hasn't been proven that any of these errors were intentional, but the reverse hasn't been proven either. It seems particularly unlikely to me that the birthmom wouldn't have known the year of his birth since they were the same age and had attended highschool together. Had these errors not been made, it seems pretty clear that the Cherokee Nation would have proceeded to stop the adoption.

It also seems to me that in adoption, the burden of proof should lie with the people adopting the child. That is that if they can't prove that they did everything to discover whether this child was legally available, then the adoption can't go through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you support Veronica remaining with her biological father please sign this petition
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...tY#thank-you=p

also there is a facebook page supporting the browns/ronnie

https://www.facebook.com/StandingOurGroundForVeronicaBrown

[Anonymous]

Chief Justice Jean H. Toal:
Finally, Toal addressed the placement requirements of ICWA, which requires that placement preference be given, in this order, to: 1) another member of the child's family, 2) another member of the child's tribe, and 3) another Indian family.[48] The court stated that neither Maldonado nor the Capobiancos had intended to comply with the statute, and that the Capobiancos could not thereby claim that the breaking of the bond formed by the child with the Capobiancos are grounds to ignore the statute.
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.

This

Not supported by fact. You love saying this, but never provide any actual "proof." Go back, read the Supreme Court opinion. None of that is in there.

Documents were filed with the Cherokee nation with 3 crucial errors in them, in Dusten Brown's name and birthdate. Documents were also filed listing her as Hispanic. It hasn't been proven that any of these errors were intentional, but the reverse hasn't been proven either. It seems particularly unlikely to me that the birthmom wouldn't have known the year of his birth since they were the same age and had attended highschool together. Had these errors not been made, it seems pretty clear that the Cherokee Nation would have proceeded to stop the adoption.

It also seems to me that in adoption, the burden of proof should lie with the people adopting the child. That is that if they can't prove that they did everything to discover whether this child was legally available, then the adoption can't go through.

Misspelling Dusten as Dustin is hardly so egregious that they gave him a fake name, you know. Having been in a low-level position where I had to verify names against a database, both of those errors would have had me double-checking. And the child is in fact mostly Hispanic, so I fail to see how that is fraud. Moreover, it isn't at all clear that the Cherokee Nation would have stopped the adoption. The father, as you recall, had abandoned his parental obligations - and rights.

What shocks me is how none of you think it is unfair that the birth mom no longer have contact with Veronica. She chose the Capobiancos and an open adoption, and was in touch with Veronica. She hasn't seen her since Dusten decided belatedly that he wanted to raise her, since his ex refused to go along with his plan that she raise the child in abject poverty as a single mother. How is your support of him fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.

This

Not supported by fact. You love saying this, but never provide any actual "proof." Go back, read the Supreme Court opinion. None of that is in there.

Documents were filed with the Cherokee nation with 3 crucial errors in them, in Dusten Brown's name and birthdate. Documents were also filed listing her as Hispanic. It hasn't been proven that any of these errors were intentional, but the reverse hasn't been proven either. It seems particularly unlikely to me that the birthmom wouldn't have known the year of his birth since they were the same age and had attended highschool together. Had these errors not been made, it seems pretty clear that the Cherokee Nation would have proceeded to stop the adoption.

It also seems to me that in adoption, the burden of proof should lie with the people adopting the child. That is that if they can't prove that they did everything to discover whether this child was legally available, then the adoption can't go through.

Misspelling Dusten as Dustin is hardly so egregious that they gave him a fake name, you know. Having been in a low-level position where I had to verify names against a database, both of those errors would have had me double-checking. And the child is in fact mostly Hispanic, so I fail to see how that is fraud. Moreover, it isn't at all clear that the Cherokee Nation would have stopped the adoption. The father, as you recall, had abandoned his parental obligations - and rights.

What shocks me is how none of you think it is unfair that the birth mom no longer have contact with Veronica. She chose the Capobiancos and an open adoption, and was in touch with Veronica. She hasn't seen her since Dusten decided belatedly that he wanted to raise her, since his ex refused to go along with his plan that she raise the child in abject poverty as a single mother. How is your support of him fair?

If she wanted contact, she could have parented this child. She had an open adoption with the family, not the child's father. I don't think its unfair at all. She didn't support the father, set him up to fail and directly terminated his rights in an very illegal way. If she was a decent woman and mother, she would have done a proper adoption, with proper notification and giving the father full consent in choosing the family and all other aspects of the adoption process. Father would have been hired an attorney and lots of other things would have been done. She is a birthmother. If she acted in a respectful way, then yes, but she has no rights or claim to this child. She has no interest in parenting. She has never paid child support. Father has been actively parenting his child. They are not living in poverty and mom would have gotten child support from dad if she choose to parent. It is very easy to get an child support order enforced via the military. They are not simple mistakes. Those were serious mistakes that should not be overlooked. Most birthparents are notified at birth, not four months later.

[Anonymous]

She also gave a false birthdate. She could have told him about the birth of baby abd her adoption plan. Maybe he did not buy her diapers, or a happy meal or throw her a few bucks during the pregnancy, but he still is the father and she had no right to usurp his parental rights unilaterally.


This has happened to many men-John Wyatt, Terry Achane, Cody O'Dea, Ramsey Shaud, Robert Manzanares among others. This behavior promotes adoption fraud and is not fair to fathers. What if fathers were allowed to do this to mothers...just because the mother has the womb does not mean she should have complete control over the child they both created.