Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wholly believe biological dads should be given the opportunity to raise their child, but Mr. Brown didn't really seem enthusiastic about his ex's pregnancy or birth, or retaining parental rights. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it seems like his mind-change was more motivated by control and "winning" than really sincerely caring about what's best for the girl. He made his choices. He can't suddenly decide when he wants to be a parent.

I was raised by a single dad, and I'm glad that we had him. But I can't imagine growing up knowing how my dad flip-flopped about wanting to be involved in us. The Capobiancos always wanted Veronica, and I feel like it's in her best interest to remain with her now legal parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wholly believe biological dads should be given the opportunity to raise their child, but Mr. Brown didn't really seem enthusiastic about his ex's pregnancy or birth, or retaining parental rights. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it seems like his mind-change was more motivated by control and "winning" than really sincerely caring about what's best for the girl. He made his choices. He can't suddenly decide when he wants to be a parent.

I was raised by a single dad, and I'm glad that we had him. But I can't imagine growing up knowing how my dad flip-flopped about wanting to be involved in us. The Capobiancos always wanted Veronica, and I feel like it's in her best interest to remain with her now legal parents.

Baby you never know what was going on in your parents' minds -- there may be a lot of flip-flopping in their minds you are not privvy to.
So what he did not support her doing the pregnancy -- that makes him a bit of jerk perhaps --- but bio mom is on angel either.
As for giving up rights -- he asserts that, in preparation for deployment, he thought he was assigning custody and not terminating his rights.
Either way that baby was still an infant when he sought custody.
This birth mom played a lot of dirty tricks, not answering messages, not notifying dad of the birth ,etc.
She did the same thing to her other baby daddies.
Bottom line -- the man stepped up early in the game and he deserves to have his child.
A lot of these people who say he should not are judging not on his ability to parent -- but because they don't think he was nice to his girlfriend.
Geez - these people are the ones most concerned about winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wholly believe biological dads should be given the opportunity to raise their child, but Mr. Brown didn't really seem enthusiastic about his ex's pregnancy or birth, or retaining parental rights. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it seems like his mind-change was more motivated by control and "winning" than really sincerely caring about what's best for the girl. He made his choices. He can't suddenly decide when he wants to be a parent.

I was raised by a single dad, and I'm glad that we had him. But I can't imagine growing up knowing how my dad flip-flopped about wanting to be involved in us. The Capobiancos always wanted Veronica, and I feel like it's in her best interest to remain with her now legal parents.

Baby you never know what was going on in your parents' minds -- there may be a lot of flip-flopping in their minds you are not privvy to.
So what he did not support her doing the pregnancy -- that makes him a bit of jerk perhaps --- but bio mom is on angel either.
As for giving up rights -- he asserts that, in preparation for deployment, he thought he was assigning custody and not terminating his rights.
Either way that baby was still an infant when he sought custody.
This birth mom played a lot of dirty tricks, not answering messages, not notifying dad of the birth ,etc.
She did the same thing to her other baby daddies.
Bottom line -- the man stepped up early in the game and he deserves to have his child.
A lot of these people who say he should not are judging not on his ability to parent -- but because they don't think he was nice to his girlfriend.
Geez - these people are the ones most concerned about winning.

Why would you legally relinquish custody for deployment? What is the logic behind this?

Calling the bio dad a "jerk" is putting it lightly - it wasn't just his ex that he wasn't supporting during the pregnancy, but his daughter. The problem is that he took out whatever his issues/anger/ego wanted on the baby, by way of the bio mom. That's a really massive fucked up thing to do.

No, he did not "step up early in the game." That's not how parenting works. You don't get to decide when you want to step up. You don't get to decide "well, ok, now I'm ready" and expect there to be nothing lost. He fucked up majorly. That's no one's fault but the bio dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't presume to know what the "right" answer is in regards to custody. And this case is an example of how few rights unmarried fathers have. Perhaps those laws should be changed. But...

I don't think it's fair that ICWA allowed the birth father custody. Why should he have been allowed an exception to the laws, just because of his heritage? He gave no support to the birth mom during pregnancy or afterward. According to some states (including the state where the adoption took place), that limits your paternal rights.

Also, even if all parties had agreed to an open adoption, ICWA states that the child would have to be placed with a Native American family. This would happen regardless of the parents' wishes or other races/ethnicites of the child. Such stringent rules don't seem necessary and can infringe on parental rights.

I also think it wad horribly cruel that the birth father took the child away from the only home she had ever known without any transition period. He was a complete stranger when he took het, and it broke my heart when I heard how it was handled. Not in the child's best interest, and I don't think it says much about his character.

And I'm not sure how he is allowed to go against court rulings now. Maybe lawyers could adress this, but its my understanding that this is completely unusual that he has so far disregarded the co
urt system and that he ls allowed to so so.

There is no winner in this case, and I hope the parties meeting brings about some resolution.

the man asserted his rights when the baby was an infant -- the pre-adoptive parents dragged this whole thing out...that's why they were with them for so long

With sc state adoption laws, his permission wasn't needed because he was considered to have abandoned the baby. His NA heritage was the loophole that gave him custd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

With sc state adoption laws, his permission wasn't needed because he was considered to have abandoned the baby. His NA heritage was the loophole that gave him custody

That is right
Consent of the father is not necessary when you take the kid to another state

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wholly believe biological dads should be given the opportunity to raise their child, but Mr. Brown didn't really seem enthusiastic about his ex's pregnancy or birth, or retaining parental rights. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it seems like his mind-change was more motivated by control and "winning" than really sincerely caring about what's best for the girl. He made his choices. He can't suddenly decide when he wants to be a parent.

I was raised by a single dad, and I'm glad that we had him. But I can't imagine growing up knowing how my dad flip-flopped about wanting to be involved in us. The Capobiancos always wanted Veronica, and I feel like it's in her best interest to remain with her now legal parents.

Baby you never know what was going on in your parents' minds -- there may be a lot of flip-flopping in their minds you are not privvy to.
So what he did not support her doing the pregnancy -- that makes him a bit of jerk perhaps --- but bio mom is on angel either.
As for giving up rights -- he asserts that, in preparation for deployment, he thought he was assigning custody and not terminating his rights.
Either way that baby was still an infant when he sought custody.
This birth mom played a lot of dirty tricks, not answering messages, not notifying dad of the birth ,etc.
She did the same thing to her other baby daddies.
Bottom line -- the man stepped up early in the game and he deserves to have his child.
A lot of these people who say he should not are judging not on his ability to parent -- but because they don't think he was nice to his girlfriend.
Geez - these people are the ones most concerned about winning.

Why would you legally relinquish custody for deployment? What is the logic behind this?

Calling the bio dad a "jerk" is putting it lightly - it wasn't just his ex that he wasn't supporting during the pregnancy, but his daughter. The problem is that he took out whatever his issues/anger/ego wanted on the baby, by way of the bio mom. That's a really massive fucked up thing to do.

No, he did not "step up early in the game." That's not how parenting works. You don't get to decide when you want to step up. You don't get to decide "well, ok, now I'm ready" and expect there to be nothing lost. He fucked up majorly. That's no one's fault but the bio dad.

Why would you relinquish custody for deployment? Because the military says so. They require custody arrangements to be finalized before deployment in case you don't come back. I have a friend who has sole custody of his son, and before he can enlist, he needs to give custody to his parents, to his son's grandparents. Just in case. Go ahead and ask your military friends if they've experienced this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wholly believe biological dads should be given the opportunity to raise their child, but Mr. Brown didn't really seem enthusiastic about his ex's pregnancy or birth, or retaining parental rights. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it seems like his mind-change was more motivated by control and "winning" than really sincerely caring about what's best for the girl. He made his choices. He can't suddenly decide when he wants to be a parent.

I was raised by a single dad, and I'm glad that we had him. But I can't imagine growing up knowing how my dad flip-flopped about wanting to be involved in us. The Capobiancos always wanted Veronica, and I feel like it's in her best interest to remain with her now legal parents.

Baby you never know what was going on in your parents' minds -- there may be a lot of flip-flopping in their minds you are not privvy to.
So what he did not support her doing the pregnancy -- that makes him a bit of jerk perhaps --- but bio mom is on angel either.
As for giving up rights -- he asserts that, in preparation for deployment, he thought he was assigning custody and not terminating his rights.
Either way that baby was still an infant when he sought custody.
This birth mom played a lot of dirty tricks, not answering messages, not notifying dad of the birth ,etc.
She did the same thing to her other baby daddies.
Bottom line -- the man stepped up early in the game and he deserves to have his child.
A lot of these people who say he should not are judging not on his ability to parent -- but because they don't think he was nice to his girlfriend.
Geez - these people are the ones most concerned about winning.

Why would you legally relinquish custody for deployment? What is the logic behind this?

Calling the bio dad a "jerk" is putting it lightly - it wasn't just his ex that he wasn't supporting during the pregnancy, but his daughter. The problem is that he took out whatever his issues/anger/ego wanted on the baby, by way of the bio mom. That's a really massive fucked up thing to do.

No, he did not "step up early in the game." That's not how parenting works. You don't get to decide when you want to step up. You don't get to decide "well, ok, now I'm ready" and expect there to be nothing lost. He fucked up majorly. That's no one's fault but the bio dad.

Why would you relinquish custody for deployment? Because the military says so. They require custody arrangements to be finalized before deployment in case you don't come back. I have a friend who has sole custody of his son, and before he can enlist, he needs to give custody to his parents, to his son's grandparents. Just in case. Go ahead and ask your military friends if they've experienced this.

Every time someone deploys, they have to legally relinquish custody? So every time time you come back from deployment, you have to legally arrange to get custody again? Rinse, repeat? Sorry, I've never heard of this.

Having wills and documents in place so that you can indicate who becomes a guardian in case one loses their life - I can understand that. But legally giving up custody of your kids before every deployment? Can you give me a citation on where "the military says so?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wholly believe biological dads should be given the opportunity to raise their child, but Mr. Brown didn't really seem enthusiastic about his ex's pregnancy or birth, or retaining parental rights. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it seems like his mind-change was more motivated by control and "winning" than really sincerely caring about what's best for the girl. He made his choices. He can't suddenly decide when he wants to be a parent.

I was raised by a single dad, and I'm glad that we had him. But I can't imagine growing up knowing how my dad flip-flopped about wanting to be involved in us. The Capobiancos always wanted Veronica, and I feel like it's in her best interest to remain with her now legal parents.

Baby you never know what was going on in your parents' minds -- there may be a lot of flip-flopping in their minds you are not privvy to.
So what he did not support her doing the pregnancy -- that makes him a bit of jerk perhaps --- but bio mom is on angel either.
As for giving up rights -- he asserts that, in preparation for deployment, he thought he was assigning custody and not terminating his rights.
Either way that baby was still an infant when he sought custody.
This birth mom played a lot of dirty tricks, not answering messages, not notifying dad of the birth ,etc.
She did the same thing to her other baby daddies.
Bottom line -- the man stepped up early in the game and he deserves to have his child.
A lot of these people who say he should not are judging not on his ability to parent -- but because they don't think he was nice to his girlfriend.
Geez - these people are the ones most concerned about winning.

Why would you legally relinquish custody for deployment? What is the logic behind this?

Calling the bio dad a "jerk" is putting it lightly - it wasn't just his ex that he wasn't supporting during the pregnancy, but his daughter. The problem is that he took out whatever his issues/anger/ego wanted on the baby, by way of the bio mom. That's a really massive fucked up thing to do.

No, he did not "step up early in the game." That's not how parenting works. You don't get to decide when you want to step up. You don't get to decide "well, ok, now I'm ready" and expect there to be nothing lost. He fucked up majorly. That's no one's fault but the bio dad.

Why would you relinquish custody for deployment? Because the military says so. They require custody arrangements to be finalized before deployment in case you don't come back. I have a friend who has sole custody of his son, and before he can enlist, he needs to give custody to his parents, to his son's grandparents. Just in case. Go ahead and ask your military friends if they've experienced this.

Every time someone deploys, they have to legally relinquish custody? So every time time you come back from deployment, you have to legally arrange to get custody again? Rinse, repeat? Sorry, I've never heard of this.

Having wills and documents in place so that you can indicate who becomes a guardian in case one loses their life - I can understand that. But legally giving up custody of your kids before every deployment? Can you give me a citation on where "the military says so?"

"A parent's military service can present child custody issues. Deployments and frequent relocations may require service members to give up custody temporarily. And upon return, service members sometimes face difficult custody battles."

http://www.militaryonesource.mil/legal?content_id=269192

and less relevant to these circumstances, because bio dad did not have custody at that time, but still related:

"for custodial single parents, this is a difficult choice because enlisting single parents must relinquish custody of their children in order to enlist in most of the US Armed Forces."
http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/a/single_parent_military_deployment.htm

[Anonymous]

The adoptive couple have now brought Troy Dunn into the mess, with tons of camera crews and plans to make a documentary. They really seem like very selfish, narcissistic and sick people. I pray that poor little girl never sees them again, let alone be forced to go live with them.

[Anonymous]

Child is ordered to be in court at 9am this morning. Poor baby.

[Anonymous]

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/12/selling-christy-maldonado-150831

background on the birth mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/12/selling-christy-maldonado-150831

background on the birth mother.

Didn't you already post this biased slander 3x already in this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veronica is 1/64th Cherokee. It's one thing to argue on behalf of the bio dad, but it's another thing to pretend like 1/64th of her background is somehow relevant to determining the rest of her life.

Yea I am less concerned about the Native American issue (though I do understand it), but the bottom line is that man should be allowed to raise the daughter he fathered.
I think that the Native American strategy was used because they (he and his legal team) thought it was the strategy most likely to prevail.
Guess they did not think the Supreme Court would be so stupid.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wholly believe biological dads should be given the opportunity to raise their child, but Mr. Brown didn't really seem enthusiastic about his ex's pregnancy or birth, or retaining parental rights. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it seems like his mind-change was more motivated by control and "winning" than really sincerely caring about what's best for the girl. He made his choices. He can't suddenly decide when he wants to be a parent.

I was raised by a single dad, and I'm glad that we had him. But I can't imagine growing up knowing how my dad flip-flopped about wanting to be involved in us. The Capobiancos always wanted Veronica, and I feel like it's in her best interest to remain with her now legal parents.

Baby you never know what was going on in your parents' minds -- there may be a lot of flip-flopping in their minds you are not privvy to.
So what he did not support her doing the pregnancy -- that makes him a bit of jerk perhaps --- but bio mom is on angel either.
As for giving up rights -- he asserts that, in preparation for deployment, he thought he was assigning custody and not terminating his rights.
Either way that baby was still an infant when he sought custody.
This birth mom played a lot of dirty tricks, not answering messages, not notifying dad of the birth ,etc.
She did the same thing to her other baby daddies.
Bottom line -- the man stepped up early in the game and he deserves to have his child.
A lot of these people who say he should not are judging not on his ability to parent -- but because they don't think he was nice to his girlfriend.
Geez - these people are the ones most concerned about winning.

Why would you legally relinquish custody for deployment? What is the logic behind this?

Calling the bio dad a "jerk" is putting it lightly - it wasn't just his ex that he wasn't supporting during the pregnancy, but his daughter. The problem is that he took out whatever his issues/anger/ego wanted on the baby, by way of the bio mom. That's a really massive fucked up thing to do.

No, he did not "step up early in the game." That's not how parenting works. You don't get to decide when you want to step up. You don't get to decide "well, ok, now I'm ready" and expect there to be nothing lost. He fucked up majorly. That's no one's fault but the bio dad.

Einstein you are legally required to do so temporarily
You act like the birth mother is a saint
She is not
She put this whole thing in play

[Anonymous]

Adoptive mother has a past history of underage drinking and a DUI as an adult. Wonder how many more skeletons are in this nutbags closet.