Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

There's a major difference between feeling an emotional disconnect, and legally abdicating total responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

There's a major difference between feeling an emotional disconnect, and legally abdicating total responsibility.

He did not abdicate -- he did not know his kid had been put up for adoption. HE WAS DEPLOYED!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

There's a major difference between feeling an emotional disconnect, and legally abdicating total responsibility.

No, there isn't. But you pretend it is because it's the mother in question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

There's a major difference between feeling an emotional disconnect, and legally abdicating total responsibility.

He did not abdicate -- he did not know his kid had been put up for adoption. HE WAS DEPLOYED!

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

There's a major difference between feeling an emotional disconnect, and legally abdicating total responsibility.

No, there isn't. But you pretend it is because it's the mother in question.

Yes, there absolutely is. I don't care who the mother is, or who the parent is. When you sign away your rights, you sign away your rights. It's not exactly complicated. It's not terminal or conditional - it's full and permanent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

Well you (or a different pp) has said this before. But, it's really not. Being in the military really does change a lot of things. Being deployed really does change A LOT of things. And, if the adoption had taken place in OK, he still would have had 30 days to change his mind. That doesn't seem to fall neatly into your calculus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

There's a major difference between feeling an emotional disconnect, and legally abdicating total responsibility.

No, there isn't. But you pretend it is because it's the mother in question.

Yes, there absolutely is. I don't care who the mother is, or who the parent is. When you sign away your rights, you sign away your rights. It's not exactly complicated. It's not terminal or conditional - it's full and permanent.

Signing away rights to the other biological parent of your child (to be raised) is much different than signing them away for your child to be raised by strangers. YMMV, but I'm not surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

Well you (or a different pp) has said this before. But, it's really not. Being in the military really does change a lot of things. Being deployed really does change A LOT of things. And, if the adoption had taken place in OK, he still would have had 30 days to change his mind. That doesn't seem to fall neatly into your calculus.

I have never known anyone in the military to abdicate parental rights before deployment. In fact, you want to do the opposite, to make sure you have a plan in place, in case of worst case scenario. The excuses made for Mr. Brown are simply ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for his decisions or regret but himself. To blame anyone else is just further refusing any personal responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if the father had wanted the child, why didn't he keep her at the start? He relinquished her and the baby was up for adoption. It just happened to be the Capobiancos. If I had adopted her and loved her from birth to age 2, you bet I would fight for her with my last breath.

Then you would be a selfish prick who deserves the pain that will inevitably come when this child reaches adulthood and learns that she was kept from her willing biological family.

You are not entitled to someone else's child. Damn, when did legality trump morality with some of you people?! (And even the legal issue is suspect in this case)

I wonder how some of you would feel if the biological mother suddenly wanted to take care of the little girl. Would you be as forgiving, for biology's sake?

Of course they would. Many see fathers as superfluous. It's amazing to me how some women think that being pro-woman must equal being anti-men. Sad indeed.

Considering the slandering and personal bashing of the biological mom, I highly doubt the same people would favor returning Veronica to her, if the mother changed her mind. I'm not anti men, but I don't think you can relinquish responsibility for your child, and then later decide that was a mistake, and expect to have things carry on like there's no problem. I do believe Mr. Brown loves his daughter, and that he now wants her. But you just cannot change your mind when it comes to a child. I hope the Capobiancos will include him and allow him to see and visit with Veronica, but I do believe the right decision was made. Biology doesn't make you a good or better parent - whether you're male or female, biological mother or biological father.

While biology may not make you a better parent, it is the moral thing to do. Folks are getting caught up in the legality of this issue. I do believe that parents have a right to realize they made a mistake. The infant was 4 months old when he started this battle. That is not an unreasonable amount of time to realize his error.

Why is "biology" the moral thing to do, if being a good/better parent is not dependent on it? Yes, parents make mistakes, but signing away your child is not like forgetting to make an appointment. I feel for Dusten Brown, but you can't just choose "ok, now I'm ready" when it comes to caring and being responsible for your child. You have to be fully in it from the get-go.

No, you don't. Plenty of Moms feel a disconnect with their newborns for whatever reason. That doesn't invalidate how they come to love their children and become good Moms.

There's a major difference between feeling an emotional disconnect, and legally abdicating total responsibility.

No, there isn't. But you pretend it is because it's the mother in question.

Yes, there absolutely is. I don't care who the mother is, or who the parent is. When you sign away your rights, you sign away your rights. It's not exactly complicated. It's not terminal or conditional - it's full and permanent.

Signing away rights to the other biological parent of your child (to be raised) is much different than signing them away for your child to be raised by strangers. YMMV, but I'm not surprised.

It's not really that different. Because you waive your right to make any decisions whatsoever, no matter the decision, no matter the outcome. Again, waiving parental rights isn't "conditional," and certainly not in this case. He signed away his rights, and to let the biological mom make all the decisions, including the decision to give the child up for adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

Well you (or a different pp) has said this before. But, it's really not. Being in the military really does change a lot of things. Being deployed really does change A LOT of things. And, if the adoption had taken place in OK, he still would have had 30 days to change his mind. That doesn't seem to fall neatly into your calculus.

I have never known anyone in the military to abdicate parental rights before deployment. In fact, you want to do the opposite, to make sure you have a plan in place, in case of worst case scenario. The excuses made for Mr. Brown are simply ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for his decisions or regret but himself. To blame anyone else is just further refusing any personal responsibility.

10:51, see 10:50. Also, I do personally know a single parent who cannot enlist until he has signed his parental rights to his parents (the child's grandparents). I guess that makes him a terrible parent in your book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

Well you (or a different pp) has said this before. But, it's really not. Being in the military really does change a lot of things. Being deployed really does change A LOT of things. And, if the adoption had taken place in OK, he still would have had 30 days to change his mind. That doesn't seem to fall neatly into your calculus.

I have never known anyone in the military to abdicate parental rights before deployment. In fact, you want to do the opposite, to make sure you have a plan in place, in case of worst case scenario. The excuses made for Mr. Brown are simply ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for his decisions or regret but himself. To blame anyone else is just further refusing any personal responsibility.

Question for you: Do you honestly believe that legal standing trumps morality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

Well you (or a different pp) has said this before. But, it's really not. Being in the military really does change a lot of things. Being deployed really does change A LOT of things. And, if the adoption had taken place in OK, he still would have had 30 days to change his mind. That doesn't seem to fall neatly into your calculus.

I have never known anyone in the military to abdicate parental rights before deployment. In fact, you want to do the opposite, to make sure you have a plan in place, in case of worst case scenario. The excuses made for Mr. Brown are simply ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for his decisions or regret but himself. To blame anyone else is just further refusing any personal responsibility.

Question for you: Do you honestly believe that legal standing trumps morality?

No, I believe in looking at things at a case by case perspective. In this case, I believe that the right decision was made legally, and morally. If Dusten Brown actually owned up to his decisions instead of making constant excuses and deflecting his own responsibility, I might think different. But to me, that doesn't reflect well on him in the specifics of this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

Well you (or a different pp) has said this before. But, it's really not. Being in the military really does change a lot of things. Being deployed really does change A LOT of things. And, if the adoption had taken place in OK, he still would have had 30 days to change his mind. That doesn't seem to fall neatly into your calculus.

I have never known anyone in the military to abdicate parental rights before deployment. In fact, you want to do the opposite, to make sure you have a plan in place, in case of worst case scenario. The excuses made for Mr. Brown are simply ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for his decisions or regret but himself. To blame anyone else is just further refusing any personal responsibility.

10:51, see 10:50. Also, I do personally know a single parent who cannot enlist until he has signed his parental rights to his parents (the child's grandparents). I guess that makes him a terrible parent in your book.

Why would they be required to sign away custody? Having protections in place concerning guardianship, just like everyone else does (or should do) in the case of their demise. Why is enlistment/deployment different? It really make no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He abdicated his parental rights to make any decisions at all, whatsoever. He signed off. Deployment is irrelevant. Signing away parental rights is not conditional - he signed off totally and completely.

Well you (or a different pp) has said this before. But, it's really not. Being in the military really does change a lot of things. Being deployed really does change A LOT of things. And, if the adoption had taken place in OK, he still would have had 30 days to change his mind. That doesn't seem to fall neatly into your calculus.

I have never known anyone in the military to abdicate parental rights before deployment. In fact, you want to do the opposite, to make sure you have a plan in place, in case of worst case scenario. The excuses made for Mr. Brown are simply ridiculous. Nobody is responsible for his decisions or regret but himself. To blame anyone else is just further refusing any personal responsibility.

Question for you: Do you honestly believe that legal standing trumps morality?

No, I believe in looking at things at a case by case perspective. In this case, I believe that the right decision was made legally, and morally. If Dusten Brown actually owned up to his decisions instead of making constant excuses and deflecting his own responsibility, I might think different. But to me, that doesn't reflect well on him in the specifics of this case.

What are your thoughts on the deceptions of the birth mother and adoptive parents?

Even if he had shirked his responsibilities for 4 months, that is not a reasonable amount of time to forever condemn him.