Anonymous
Anonymous
08/12/2013 15:27
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Veronica's Voice-you tube
Anonymous
08/12/2013 15:24
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
I am th Op-I am all for adoption when it is done in a legal manner, where consents are obtained lawfully, where there is no deception. Adoption is wonderful for a child in need of a home. Veronica is currently in a stable and loving home with her birth father and extended family. She will be four years old in a few weeks. Why rip her away from this. Imagine askeing her as an adult if she appreciates what happened to her. Will she be greatful to the adoptive parents for affoding her a home with more money, private schools, beach access? or will she wish that she was allowed to grow up in her biological family with a dad who loves her and her blood relatives. If her bio home were unfit in any way, I would say she belongs with the adop[tive parent's. But it does not appear to be that way at all. She looks happy and well cared for right where she is. Had the bio mom and others involved in this adoption were up fron from the beginning, this baby would have been deemed unadoptable and this whole disatrous mess would have been avoided. It's that simple.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 15:18
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Some Disturbing Facts About Baby Veronica's Birth Mother
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/12/selling-christy-maldonado-150831
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/12/selling-christy-maldonado-150831
Anonymous
08/12/2013 15:14
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
True that this child will suffer greatly.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 14:36
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Unfortunately this girl is going to need intense therapy at some point, and will probably grow up to be an angry person...at her father, for what she is told was his desire to abandon her, at the government (obvious), and at her adoptive parents, who she will come to see might not have her best interests at heart.
Hopefully the adoptive parents will do what is right and work out an arrangement that allows this little girl to achieve as normal a life as possible. None of this is her fault.
Hopefully the adoptive parents will do what is right and work out an arrangement that allows this little girl to achieve as normal a life as possible. None of this is her fault.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 14:13
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
You realize that you can be pro-adoption and find this whole thing despicable.
Even birth moms have a time period in which they can change their mind about adoption.
This man committed no crime...even if he did not support the mom during her pregnancy that does not make him an unfit mother.
If the shoe was on the other foot, half of you would be screaming about the unjustice being done to the birth mother.
Cases like this taint the adoption process -- it has to stop.
Even birth moms have a time period in which they can change their mind about adoption.
This man committed no crime...even if he did not support the mom during her pregnancy that does not make him an unfit mother.
If the shoe was on the other foot, half of you would be screaming about the unjustice being done to the birth mother.
Cases like this taint the adoption process -- it has to stop.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 14:09
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The bio dad is now in police custody in Oklahoma, after turning himself in. So he was able to come back to go to prison, but not for a transition meeting to return Veronica to her legal parents?
The bio dad is not interested in what's best for the girl. She NEEDED a transition, but the dad put his ego over what's in her best interest. He's more interested in being in control, than what's best for Veronica. Utterly selfish.
he committed no crime. he just wanted his child.
if he sues someone big time, this nonsense will stop.
Suing will do nothing - you realize that the Supreme Court of the United States basically said the bio dad has no basis, right?
Technically, he's kidnapping Veronica and holding her against her parents will. She is his biological child, but not his legal child. Remember - he signed away custody. Parenting isn't some thing where you can change your mind or apply some bizarre conditions. He signed away his child. He chose to do that. The Capobiancos on the other hand, always wanted Veronica.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 14:00
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:The bio dad is now in police custody in Oklahoma, after turning himself in. So he was able to come back to go to prison, but not for a transition meeting to return Veronica to her legal parents?
The bio dad is not interested in what's best for the girl. She NEEDED a transition, but the dad put his ego over what's in her best interest. He's more interested in being in control, than what's best for Veronica. Utterly selfish.
he committed no crime. he just wanted his child.
if he sues someone big time, this nonsense will stop.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 12:12
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:Baby Veronica's kidnappers (the Capobianco's) were successfully able to finalize their purchase and will now be legally able to rip her away from her father (Dusten Brown) and extended family (including a 9 year old sister) against their wishes. Money can buy anything after all. Karma will come back hard on this one. The USA is going downhill fast!
This is a really skewed version of the true story. Let me guess, you are the anti-adoption poster who spreads sh*t all over the special parenting forum
Anonymous
08/12/2013 12:02
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
The bio dad is now in police custody in Oklahoma, after turning himself in. So he was able to come back to go to prison, but not for a transition meeting to return Veronica to her legal parents?
The bio dad is not interested in what's best for the girl. She NEEDED a transition, but the dad put his ego over what's in her best interest. He's more interested in being in control, than what's best for Veronica. Utterly selfish.
The bio dad is not interested in what's best for the girl. She NEEDED a transition, but the dad put his ego over what's in her best interest. He's more interested in being in control, than what's best for Veronica. Utterly selfish.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 11:03
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
They need to leave this child where she is. All this switching back and forth is going to cause her to need a lifetime of therapy.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 09:36
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:ThisAnonymous wrote:Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.
Not supported by fact. You love saying this, but never provide any actual "proof." Go back, read the Supreme Court opinion. None of that is in there.
Documents were filed with the Cherokee nation with 3 crucial errors in them, in Dusten Brown's name and birthdate. Documents were also filed listing her as Hispanic. It hasn't been proven that any of these errors were intentional, but the reverse hasn't been proven either. It seems particularly unlikely to me that the birthmom wouldn't have known the year of his birth since they were the same age and had attended highschool together. Had these errors not been made, it seems pretty clear that the Cherokee Nation would have proceeded to stop the adoption.
It also seems to me that in adoption, the burden of proof should lie with the people adopting the child. That is that if they can't prove that they did everything to discover whether this child was legally available, then the adoption can't go through.
Misspelling Dusten as Dustin is hardly so egregious that they gave him a fake name, you know. Having been in a low-level position where I had to verify names against a database, both of those errors would have had me double-checking. And the child is in fact mostly Hispanic, so I fail to see how that is fraud. Moreover, it isn't at all clear that the Cherokee Nation would have stopped the adoption. The father, as you recall, had abandoned his parental obligations - and rights.
What shocks me is how none of you think it is unfair that the birth mom no longer have contact with Veronica. She chose the Capobiancos and an open adoption, and was in touch with Veronica. She hasn't seen her since Dusten decided belatedly that he wanted to raise her, since his ex refused to go along with his plan that she raise the child in abject poverty as a single mother. How is your support of him fair?
If she wanted contact, she could have parented this child. She had an open adoption with the family, not the child's father. I don't think its unfair at all. She didn't support the father, set him up to fail and directly terminated his rights in an very illegal way. If she was a decent woman and mother, she would have done a proper adoption, with proper notification and giving the father full consent in choosing the family and all other aspects of the adoption process. Father would have been hired an attorney and lots of other things would have been done. She is a birthmother. If she acted in a respectful way, then yes, but she has no rights or claim to this child. She has no interest in parenting. She has never paid child support. Father has been actively parenting his child. They are not living in poverty and mom would have gotten child support from dad if she choose to parent. It is very easy to get an child support order enforced via the military. They are not simple mistakes. Those were serious mistakes that should not be overlooked. Most birthparents are notified at birth, not four months later.
EXACTLY
You must be a man to be so misogynistic. He stole her baby from the couple she had chosen AND FROM HER. He chose not to parent. He signed away his rights. He had no prior parenting relationship with the child, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. You cannot rewrite the record just because you don't like the result. He wouldn't have minded Veronica being raised by a single mother without his financial support (and he chose to terminate his rights rather than provide such support - HIS CHOICE), but he resented her finding her a loving home. What an asshole.
Anonymous
08/12/2013 07:01
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:ThisAnonymous wrote:Documents were falsified to get the newborn out of Oklahoma. That is a fact and constitutes fraud.
Not supported by fact. You love saying this, but never provide any actual "proof." Go back, read the Supreme Court opinion. None of that is in there.
Documents were filed with the Cherokee nation with 3 crucial errors in them, in Dusten Brown's name and birthdate. Documents were also filed listing her as Hispanic. It hasn't been proven that any of these errors were intentional, but the reverse hasn't been proven either. It seems particularly unlikely to me that the birthmom wouldn't have known the year of his birth since they were the same age and had attended highschool together. Had these errors not been made, it seems pretty clear that the Cherokee Nation would have proceeded to stop the adoption.
It also seems to me that in adoption, the burden of proof should lie with the people adopting the child. That is that if they can't prove that they did everything to discover whether this child was legally available, then the adoption can't go through.
Misspelling Dusten as Dustin is hardly so egregious that they gave him a fake name, you know. Having been in a low-level position where I had to verify names against a database, both of those errors would have had me double-checking. And the child is in fact mostly Hispanic, so I fail to see how that is fraud. Moreover, it isn't at all clear that the Cherokee Nation would have stopped the adoption. The father, as you recall, had abandoned his parental obligations - and rights.
What shocks me is how none of you think it is unfair that the birth mom no longer have contact with Veronica. She chose the Capobiancos and an open adoption, and was in touch with Veronica. She hasn't seen her since Dusten decided belatedly that he wanted to raise her, since his ex refused to go along with his plan that she raise the child in abject poverty as a single mother. How is your support of him fair?
If she wanted contact, she could have parented this child. She had an open adoption with the family, not the child's father. I don't think its unfair at all. She didn't support the father, set him up to fail and directly terminated his rights in an very illegal way. If she was a decent woman and mother, she would have done a proper adoption, with proper notification and giving the father full consent in choosing the family and all other aspects of the adoption process. Father would have been hired an attorney and lots of other things would have been done. She is a birthmother. If she acted in a respectful way, then yes, but she has no rights or claim to this child. She has no interest in parenting. She has never paid child support. Father has been actively parenting his child. They are not living in poverty and mom would have gotten child support from dad if she choose to parent. It is very easy to get an child support order enforced via the military. They are not simple mistakes. Those were serious mistakes that should not be overlooked. Most birthparents are notified at birth, not four months later.
EXACTLY
Anonymous
08/12/2013 06:16
Subject: Baby stealing approved in South Carolina!
Anonymous wrote:She also gave a false birthdate. She could have told him about the birth of baby abd her adoption plan. Maybe he did not buy her diapers, or a happy meal or throw her a few bucks during the pregnancy, but he still is the father and she had no right to usurp his parental rights unilaterally.
This has happened to many men-John Wyatt, Terry Achane, Cody O'Dea, Ramsey Shaud, Robert Manzanares among others. This behavior promotes adoption fraud and is not fair to fathers. What if fathers were allowed to do this to mothers...just because the mother has the womb does not mean she should have complete control over the child they both created.
You keep skipping over the part where he decided to terminate his parental rights. How convenient for you, but the facts really get in the way of the scenario you want to paint. You apparently did not understand the Supreme Court decision when you read it. There was no adoption fraud. I realize that the facts of the case do not support your opinion of the case, but you really cannot just make up new ones to suit your agenda.
Also, that very, very long post you wrote about Anthony Lingle? Also completely irrelevant.