Anonymous wrote:...and we haven't put a wooden stack thru the he said/she said of this thread because... Don't you people have your own children to care about?
Anonymous wrote:Here is the truth: I am not a deadbeat dad. I did not abandon my daughter. I did not wait to "step up to the plate" until Veronica was 4 months old. I have been at the plate since I rejoiced at the news my fiancée was pregnant. I did not change my mind about how involved I wanted to be with Veronica. I have loved her and wanted her since the moment I knew she was to be my daughter.
My life was turned upside down when I was served with the adoption papers. Stupidly, I thought they were papers doing what we had texted about, giving Christy full custody while I was gone. It was literally the moment I finished signing that the server told me, "You just gave up your baby." I tried to grab the papers from his hand and he told me if I took them I would go to jail. I hired an attorney right away and gave my father power of attorney to fight for custody of Veronica while I was off at war.
Ever since that day I have been in a legal battle for the right to raise my daughter. Ever since that day I have seen horrible things written about me. I have seen how the public has come to terrible conclusions about me. I've accepted that people will do and say anything to win custody of Veronica. But what I can't accept is that the courts would allow these lies to sway their decisions. Somewhere in their rush to punish me for what they mistakenly think I've done, they stopped talking about what is best for my daughter.
Anonymous wrote:Thinking about how scared and confused and sad that sweet girl must feel makes me sick to my stomach. Praying for that sweet baby girl and the Brown family. Her adoptive parents are self centered child traffickers. I pray they do the right thing and return Veronica home with her family.
Anonymous wrote: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.
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".
Anonymous wrote:It's a he-said, she-said for what exactly happened during pregnancy. But after the birth, there was no attempt to reach out, see the baby, establish his rights. He was very passive and apathetic. And he was in the military and spoke to his commanding officer. He could have had free legal guidance through the military, if he had wanted.
Just curious what Oklahoma rules are for losing rights through abandonment. Never been able to find a straight answer.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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."
Anonymous wrote: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.