Reply to Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]
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[/quote]

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[/quote]

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. [/quote]

No, you are not reading correctly. He was pushed away left, right and center by the birth mom and could not take an active role during the pregnancy. The birth mom is the "utter douche".[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics