Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Of the 34 pages of comments, at least 32 of them must be from the same idiot. I hope the adoptive parents win their latest law suit just like they won all the others. On merit.

Their latest lawsuit, suing Dustn Brown for $500k?

NP back again. You're damn right.

I think recouping the legal fees from Dustin Brown is too much, though I think the Capobiancos are in the legal and moral right. But I think they'll be better off dropping them, or most of the legal fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Of the 34 pages of comments, at least 32 of them must be from the same idiot. I hope the adoptive parents win their latest law suit just like they won all the others. On merit.

Their latest lawsuit, suing Dustn Brown for $500k?

NP back again. You're damn right.

It might make a cordial relationship difficult. Or at least visitations would be awkward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding the SCOTUS decision. They were not ruling on whether Brown was her "legal father" or not. They were ruling on whether the ICWA applied in this case.

south Carolina does not recognize the right of fathers. If the father was not present for 6 months of the pregnancy or did not pay costs related to pregnancy, he has no right to oppose adoption.
But if the mother was to want child support then he still has to pay.

So according to SC the child was not born into a family. And only the mother is recognized as a legal parent, and only her consent is needed.

Therefore the adoption was not breaking apart a family because it did not exist at the time of the birth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding the SCOTUS decision. They were not ruling on whether Brown was her "legal father" or not. They were ruling on whether the ICWA applied in this case.

south Carolina does not recognize the right of fathers. If the father was not present for 6 months of the pregnancy or did not pay costs related to pregnancy, he has no right to oppose adoption.
But if the mother was to want child support then he still has to pay.

So according to SC the child was not born into a family. And only the mother is recognized as a legal parent, and only her consent is needed.

Therefore the adoption was not breaking apart a family because it did not exist at the time of the birth

see this is where lines get blurred to me IF Veronica was born in SC I would understand that SC law (not agree with but respect that its there) BUT Veronica was born in OK and the law there is different.

[Anonymous]

To the PP who loves to accuse all of us who disagree with her of having "deep seated issues"...what if Dusten were your son? What if Veronica were your grandchild? Would you still think the way you do? Just because there is corruption, abuses of power, connections, and conflicts of interest that worked to not only twist, skew and blatanlty disregard laws...does not make this great miscarriage of justice right. This sets a scary precedent, anyone can loose their kids if some rich infertile knows the right people and has lots of money. Children should be raised with their families if they want to raise them and are deemed fit to do so. Fathers rights should matter, babies should not be sold or stolen, their best interests should be considered. Would you like this to happen to you...how would you feel if you were Veronica? Not only the child, but the teen and the adult Veronica?

[Anonymous]

Dusten didn't make any attempt to see the baby in the her first four months of her life. I read his court testimony. He was fine with giving up his rights and not seeing her. He just wasn't fine once he found out about the adoption. According to Oklahoma and South Carolina rules, your rights as a father are gone at that point.

I do sympathize with D, but his inactions caused the adoption to happen. It's a sad story all around for everyone involved.

I hope Veronica is well, and I take comfort in knowing she remembers the adoptive parents. I hope D can remain in her life too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dusten didn't make any attempt to see the baby in the her first four months of her life. I read his court testimony. He was fine with giving up his rights and not seeing her. He just wasn't fine once he found out about the adoption. According to Oklahoma and South Carolina rules, your rights as a father are gone at that point.

I do sympathize with D, but his inactions caused the adoption to happen. It's a sad story all around for everyone involved.

I hope Veronica is well, and I take comfort in knowing she remembers the adoptive parents. I hope D can remain in her life too.

No, according to OK law his rights as a father are there until he signs adoption papers, and adoption papers have to be signed with informed consent. The paper that Copabiancos lawyer had him sign was not an adoption paper, but one that gave sole custody to the mother. But the baby was already in SC. Once the baby in in SC the SC laws apply. He had to try and get his child back legally through the SC courts. So the OK law applies depending on where you are. The adoption in SC was not finalized because it was not legal in OK. That is why he still had a legal claim to challenge the adoption.

Whether or not he saw the kid during the first 4 months is not the issue here.

We need laws that protect the rights of new born to belong to the familes they are born into. Adoption is supposed to be voluntary, and just about every state has laws that require that adoption papers are not coerced. Just SC law says a fathers consent is not needed

[Anonymous]

Didn't see her for 4 months but has parented her for the past two years! Wtf is wrong with you people? V has bonded with him and the rest of her biological family. To rip her away is horrific. Can anyone for ONE MOMENT think how confusing and heart wrenching this is for the little girl??

[Anonymous]

The adsopytive mother also has a history of drinking, DUI and is on psych meds. SC would not even approve her as a foster parent, but allowed her to buy a baby. So messed up. She looks creepy and her behavior says she could care less about this childs true needs.

[Anonymous]

"adoptive"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dusten didn't make any attempt to see the baby in the her first four months of her life. I read his court testimony. He was fine with giving up his rights and not seeing her. He just wasn't fine once he found out about the adoption. According to Oklahoma and South Carolina rules, your rights as a father are gone at that point.

I do sympathize with D, but his inactions caused the adoption to happen. It's a sad story all around for everyone involved.

I hope Veronica is well, and I take comfort in knowing she remembers the adoptive parents. I hope D can remain in her life too.

No, according to OK law his rights as a father are there until he signs adoption papers, and adoption papers have to be signed with informed consent. The paper that Copabiancos lawyer had him sign was not an adoption paper, but one that gave sole custody to the mother. But the baby was already in SC. Once the baby in in SC the SC laws apply. He had to try and get his child back legally through the SC courts. So the OK law applies depending on where you are. The adoption in SC was not finalized because it was not legal in OK. That is why he still had a legal claim to challenge the adoption.

Whether or not he saw the kid during the first 4 months is not the issue here.

We need laws that protect the rights of new born to belong to the familes they are born into. Adoption is supposed to be voluntary, and just about every state has laws that
that adoption papers are not coerced. Just SC law says a fathers consent is not needed

This article is from Tulsa World. Doesn't cite laws, but it implies the Oklahoma laws state that the father must take an active role during pregnancy, or else rights can be lost.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Russ_Roach_Oklahoma_adoption_law_and_Baby_Veronica/20130828_222_A15_CUTLIN21511

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dusten didn't make any attempt to see the baby in the her first four months of her life. I read his court testimony. He was fine with giving up his rights and not seeing her. He just wasn't fine once he found out about the adoption. According to Oklahoma and South Carolina rules, your rights as a father are gone at that point.

I do sympathize with D, but his inactions caused the adoption to happen. It's a sad story all around for everyone involved.

I hope Veronica is well, and I take comfort in knowing she remembers the adoptive parents. I hope D can remain in her life too.

No, according to OK law his rights as a father are there until he signs adoption papers, and adoption papers have to be signed with informed consent. The paper that Copabiancos lawyer had him sign was not an adoption paper, but one that gave sole custody to the mother. But the baby was already in SC. Once the baby in in SC the SC laws apply. He had to try and get his child back legally through the SC courts. So the OK law applies depending on where you are. The adoption in SC was not finalized because it was not legal in OK. That is why he still had a legal claim to challenge the adoption.

Whether or not he saw the kid during the first 4 months is not the issue here.

We need laws that protect the rights of new born to belong to the familes they are born into. Adoption is supposed to be voluntary, and just about every state has laws that
that adoption papers are not coerced. Just SC law says a fathers consent is not needed

This article is from Tulsa World. Doesn't cite laws, but it implies the Oklahoma laws state that the father must take an active role during pregnancy, or else rights can be lost.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Russ_Roach_Oklahoma_adoption_law_and_Baby_Veronica/20130828_222_A15_CUTLIN21511

If I'm reading correctly, was Dustin Brown using ICWA as an excuse for not taking an active role during pregnancy? If so, what an utter douche. If not, someone please explain how Oklahoma laws reconcile with his absence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dusten didn't make any attempt to see the baby in the her first four months of her life. I read his court testimony. He was fine with giving up his rights and not seeing her. He just wasn't fine once he found out about the adoption. According to Oklahoma and South Carolina rules, your rights as a father are gone at that point.

I do sympathize with D, but his inactions caused the adoption to happen. It's a sad story all around for everyone involved.

I hope Veronica is well, and I take comfort in knowing she remembers the adoptive parents. I hope D can remain in her life too.

No, according to OK law his rights as a father are there until he signs adoption papers, and adoption papers have to be signed with informed consent. The paper that Copabiancos lawyer had him sign was not an adoption paper, but one that gave sole custody to the mother. But the baby was already in SC. Once the baby in in SC the SC laws apply. He had to try and get his child back legally through the SC courts. So the OK law applies depending on where you are. The adoption in SC was not finalized because it was not legal in OK. That is why he still had a legal claim to challenge the adoption.

Whether or not he saw the kid during the first 4 months is not the issue here.

We need laws that protect the rights of new born to belong to the familes they are born into. Adoption is supposed to be voluntary, and just about every state has laws that
that adoption papers are not coerced. Just SC law says a fathers consent is not needed

This article is from Tulsa World. Doesn't cite laws, but it implies the Oklahoma laws state that the father must take an active role during pregnancy, or else rights can be lost.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Russ_Roach_Oklahoma_adoption_law_and_Baby_Veronica/20130828_222_A15_CUTLIN21511

If I'm reading correctly, was Dustin Brown using ICWA as an excuse for not taking an active role during pregnancy? If so, what an utter douche. If not, someone please explain how Oklahoma laws reconcile with his absence.

I wouldn't say he used ICWA as an excuse, but it's the only reason he was given custody in the first place. Otherwise, he would have been out of luck. There are a lot of messed up things with ICWA, and I hope laws can be revised somewhat. I think D is definitely a douche, but the whole situation was just horrible for everyone concerned. I hope V adjusts well and is happy (she seems to be) and I hope her birth family can see her.

[Anonymous]

Also, I don't think D knew anything about ICWA ahead of time. It was just a means to get custody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, I don't think D knew anything about ICWA ahead of time. It was just a means to get custody.

I agree with you. But it sounds like at a later point, when he learned about ICWA and learned that his girlfriend gave Veronica up for adoption, he used ICWA as an excuse to justify his absence during the pregnancy - since it's clear from Oklahoma law that fathers must be involved during pregnancy. After the fact and upon learning about ICWA, it's like DB said "see, I didn't have to do anything."