Anonymous
Post 08/08/2013 11:04     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Brown did not fail to appear at the transition meeting. He is serving as a national guard in another state. The meeting should have been rescheduled to accommodate this. The army does not accommodate court dates, court has to accommodate the army
Anonymous
Post 08/08/2013 10:36     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Dustin Brown, the bio father, agreed to a series of transition meetings. In the first of such meetings that he agreed to, Brown failed to show up with the Capobianco's daughter. This means that he has now been ordered to hand Veronica to her parents on Monday - with no transition.

Brown is a controlling, deadbeat jerk. He doesn't care about what's in the interest of Veronica. He doesn't care about the law. He cares about his pride and ego, and "winning."

http://news.yahoo.com/sadness-joy-inherent-sc-couples-adoption-case-083042841.html
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 20:46     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

Link to actual cort transcript


Here's a link to the Supreme Court decision which clearly states how the SC Supreme Court erred http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-399_q86b.pdf . Seems as if the bio father could have adopted the baby after terminating his parental rights and won. Instead, he fucked up by arguing (incorrectly) that his rights couldn't be terminated because he was a member of an Indian tribe. Considering both courts found that he had made no attempt at 'meaningful' contact until 4 months after her birth (and after he signed papers terminating his rights), I'd say the courts made the right decision. What I didn't know, and learned from the decision paper, was that SC and OK law indicate an unwed mother has sole physical and legal custody of a baby until a court determines otherwise.
No
In OK a fathers consent is needed for adoption. That is why the adoption lawyer made a spelling mistake in her name and was able to get the kid to SC. SC law says a father must live with unwed mother for 6 months and pay support before he can claim rights as a father


All I know is what I read in the Supreme Court decision. The father terminated his parental rights and, therefore, had no basis to contest the adoption.

Since you didn't read the decision, here's what it says about SC and OK law on custody of illegitimate children:

As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Biological Father never had physical custody of Baby Girl. And as a matter of both South Carolina and Oklahoma law, Biological Father never had legal custody either. See S. C. Code Ann 63-17-20(B) (2010) (“Unless the cour orders otherwise, the custody of an illegitimate child is solely in the natural mother unless the mother has relinquished her rights to the child”) Okla. Stat., Tit. 10, 7800 (West Cum. Supp. 2013) (“Except as otherwise provided by law, the mother of a child born out of wedlock has custody of the child until determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction”).


I doubt very much living with the mother of your child for 6 months and paying support is the only way to claim rights as a father.

Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 20:26     Subject: Re:Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:I am not sure if anyone has posted this yet, I don't have time to go through all the pages but there is a petition to try and keep baby Veronica with her father.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/intervene-adoption-veronica-brown-and-uphold-indian-child-welfare-act/0zZtRttY

There is also a facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/StandingOurGroundForVeronicaBrown

I have felt so much sympathy toward Veronica's father since I first heard this story a few years ago.


Those dumbshits signing the petition really think it's going to have an impact? The freakin Supreme Court decided the baby should go to the adoptive parents. Who the hell can override the Supreme Court in this case? No one!
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 19:57     Subject: Re:Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
I am not sure if anyone has posted this yet, I don't have time to go through all the pages but there is a petition to try and keep baby Veronica with her father.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/intervene-adoption-veronica-brown-and-uphold-indian-child-welfare-act/0zZtRttY

There is also a facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/StandingOurGroundForVeronicaBrown

I have felt so much sympathy toward Veronica's father since I first heard this story a few years ago.
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 19:48     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

Link to actual cort transcript


Here's a link to the Supreme Court decision which clearly states how the SC Supreme Court erred http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-399_q86b.pdf . Seems as if the bio father could have adopted the baby after terminating his parental rights and won. Instead, he fucked up by arguing (incorrectly) that his rights couldn't be terminated because he was a member of an Indian tribe. Considering both courts found that he had made no attempt at 'meaningful' contact until 4 months after her birth (and after he signed papers terminating his rights), I'd say the courts made the right decision. What I didn't know, and learned from the decision paper, was that SC and OK law indicate an unwed mother has sole physical and legal custody of a baby until a court determines otherwise.
No
In OK a fathers consent is needed for adoption. That is why the adoption lawyer made a spelling mistake in her name and was able to get the kid to SC. SC law says a father must live with unwed mother for 6 months and pay support before he can claim rights as a father
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 17:25     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

Link to actual cort transcript


Here's a link to the Supreme Court decision which clearly states how the SC Supreme Court erred http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-399_q86b.pdf . Seems as if the bio father could have adopted the baby after terminating his parental rights and won. Instead, he fucked up by arguing (incorrectly) that his rights couldn't be terminated because he was a member of an Indian tribe. Considering both courts found that he had made no attempt at 'meaningful' contact until 4 months after her birth (and after he signed papers terminating his rights), I'd say the courts made the right decision. What I didn't know, and learned from the decision paper, was that SC and OK law indicate an unwed mother has sole physical and legal custody of a baby until a court determines otherwise.


Finally! Someone else gets it. Thanks!
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 16:47     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

Link to actual cort transcript


Here's a link to the Supreme Court decision which clearly states how the SC Supreme Court erred http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-399_q86b.pdf . Seems as if the bio father could have adopted the baby after terminating his parental rights and won. Instead, he fucked up by arguing (incorrectly) that his rights couldn't be terminated because he was a member of an Indian tribe. Considering both courts found that he had made no attempt at 'meaningful' contact until 4 months after her birth (and after he signed papers terminating his rights), I'd say the courts made the right decision. What I didn't know, and learned from the decision paper, was that SC and OK law indicate an unwed mother has sole physical and legal custody of a baby until a court determines otherwise.
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 16:15     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:This angers me alot. I have my own situation concerning child protective services taking my child and sending her out of the country to be with someone who was banned from this country her entire life. I don't like people calling people crazy or any other names just because of disagreement. I do know that people LIE alot and it is ashame that as a society we are not on the same page concerning the children . Mothers are the bearers of life and somehow any and all respect for that has been lost. Rewriting history is a big problem.

Huh???
I am a woman
I have a uterus
I have ovaries
I have children
I do not have perfection
Being a momma does not make you God and incapable of being a jerk
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 11:03     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
This angers me alot. I have my own situation concerning child protective services taking my child and sending her out of the country to be with someone who was banned from this country her entire life. I don't like people calling people crazy or any other names just because of disagreement. I do know that people LIE alot and it is ashame that as a society we are not on the same page concerning the children . Mothers are the bearers of life and somehow any and all respect for that has been lost. Rewriting history is a big problem.
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 10:22     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Wow
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 09:28     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
court
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 09:25     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27148.pdf

Link to actual cort transcript
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 09:17     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:Justice Roberts apparently adopted 2 healthy white infants from Ireland but transported them/birth moms to South America to circumvent Irish adoption laws. Lots of $$$$ involved.


Hmm. Did wonder how they were able to adopt two white children who weren't from Russia. Guess it should not be a surprise considering his and his wife's SES.
Anonymous
Post 08/04/2013 09:13     Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:Is that why there is suddenly a whole new thread about this case when there was a huge one already?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/319541.page
Because this case was on Dr. Phil?


The writing idiosyncrasies indicate that it's one person who keeps posting new threads (and makes most of the emotional comments), with some personal vendetta against adoption, as well as facts in this case. I think there's something deeper in their personal lives that they're dealing poorly with.