Adoption or Biological Parents?

Wirelessly posted

Bottesini said:
I don't know my biological mother at all. I have one picture of her, that my grandmother gave me before she died and that is all.

The book this movie is based on, is making the point that the biological mother like the case before Solomon , loves the child enough to sacrifice her happiness so that the child can be happy and well cared for.

Mom said all I have to do is dye my hair black, and let it grows out then I know what my biological dad looks like. :/
 
Wirelessly posted



Mom said all I have to do is dye my hair black, and let it grows out then I know what my biological dad looks like. :/

I know I look like my father, but even at this late age, I am sad I didn't know my biological mother.

And yes I searched and so did my daughters help me.
 
I know I look like my father, but even at this late age, I am sad I didn't know my biological mother.

And yes I searched and so did my daughters help me.

I think I inherited my looks from my grandmother Smith. Everyone who knew her says I look like her.
 
No. But there have been several court cases in the news that I remember. I have seen screaming children ripped from the adoptive parents, because of what you were talking about.

This cannot be healthy for the child as they have already formed a strong boned to their adoptive parents. If I were the judge in this type of case, I would allow the adoptive parents to keep custody of the child, but the biological father would be allowed weekly visitation to see their child as well as certain days designated as 'holidays' such as Dec. 27th is 'Christmas' with the biological father. Something like that were the child is not ripped from the only family they have ever known, but at the same time the biological family can get involved in that child's life. Once the child is 16, I would allow the child to decide who they want to live with - they can remain with their adoptive family or they can choose to return to their biological family - given the biological family does not have any situation going on that could compromise the welfare of that child. I believe this would be a much better solution as you have to consider the well-being of that child.

Being ripped from their only family, even if they are adoptive and not blood relatives, can be extremely traumatic.
 
This cannot be healthy for the child as they have already formed a strong boned to their adoptive parents. If I were the judge in this type of case, I would allow the adoptive parents to keep custody of the child, but the biological father would be allowed weekly visitation to see their child as well as certain days designated as 'holidays' such as Dec. 27th is 'Christmas' with the biological father. Something like that were the child is not ripped from the only family they have ever known, but at the same time the biological family can get involved in that child's life. Once the child is 16, I would allow the child to decide who they want to live with - they can remain with their adoptive family or they can choose to return to their biological family - given the biological family does not have any situation going on that could compromise the welfare of that child. I believe this would be a much better solution as you have to consider the well-being of that child.

Being ripped from their only family, even if they are adoptive and not blood relatives, can be extremely traumatic.

Maybe visitation can be bad in some cases. My mother lost custody totally when I was 14 months old, as she apparently thought putting my hand on a hot stove was a good way to train me not to touch it since she could not talk to me.
 
Maybe visitation can be bad in some cases. My mother lost custody totally when I was 14 months old, as she apparently thought putting my hand on a hot stove was a good way to train me not to touch it since she could not talk to me.

That what I mean if there are not situations in which would cause harm or conflict with the child. If the mother was abusive, but the father wasn't even aware of the child until after the fact and wanted to show his love for his child even if the mother was a monster and completely out of the picture, then I would allow visitation with the biological father only. The mother has/had too many issues that would make me prevent her from seeing the child.

I also suggest watching 'August Rush'. It is a similar situation.
 
Being honest, there are many pitfalls for adoptive parent(s)!...Especially when the biological parent(s) try to make their way back into the child's life, after signing over their parental rights.....NO matter if the biological parent(s) were abusive, drug addicts, abandoned the kids...for whatever reason...many times, they will attempt to contact their children...and causing so much drama into everyone's lives!....They cry...plead...always saying "I'm so sorry!"....trying to make themselves feel better...not thinking of the child! OR the adoptive parent(s) who are dedicated to making a better life for the child....

One such incident, (and there are many, many more!)....one of my sons was playing Pop Warner football, and I noticed this woman taking pictures of my son....she called him over, wanting more pictures, and after awhile, I felt this was highly unusual....I left my seat, and walked over to her, and as soon as she turned around, I could see the "resemblance" to my son in her face....She was my son's natural father's sister!....(who is in prison)....

Yes, I was very angry!...and I told her I would confisicate her camera if she continued to take pictures of "MY SON"!....I told her "he is adopted now! And I am his mother, no matter what you think!"...She replied..."Oh, I'm sorry! Would you rather that I not be here at the game?"....I told her...."This is a free country, I cannot keep you out of this football game, but if you continue to harrass my son, I am taking you to Court!"...She was taking pictures and planned to send them to him (the natural father) in prison....She gathered all her stuff...and left the game.....We have not had to deal with her anymore....

Adoptive parent(s) not only have to deal with the biological parent(s) trying to come back into their lives....they have to deal with the biological parent(s) family also!....And NONE of that family would step up to the plate to take the boys in and raise them!.....WHY?...Because the entire family all had drug problems and run-ins with the law, several were Felons.

I would say that adopting children, the good outweighs the bad!...But it takes a strong person(s) to deal with it all.
 
Haven't seen the movie....but remember many court cases in the past where this situation had come up...many, many times, the biological father won the right to get the child back....It was on the news, and the child was screaming and crying, being dragged from the adoptive mother's arms!....It was heartbreaking to watch it...

...My 3 adopted boys have been with me for 10 years....before I would have them taken away...I would go to the Supreme Court and fight it!....
There is a couple in my local area going thru that right now. They adopted a baby girl (they were even at her birth), and had her for almost 28 months. Then, the birth father wanted her, and based his claim on a law that's supposed to keep Native American tribes intact. The baby girl is 3/256th Cherokee. The adoptive parents had to surrender her custody, and then took their case to the Supreme Court.

Here is today's decision:

Custody battle for baby Veronica continues as Supreme Court sides with James Island family – The Post and Courier

So, it's still not over.
 
There is a couple in my local area going thru that right now. They adopted a baby girl (they were even at her birth), and had her for almost 28 months. Then, the birth father wanted her, and based his claim on a law that's supposed to keep Native American tribes intact. The baby girl is 3/256th Cherokee. The adoptive parents had to surrender her custody, and then took their case to the Supreme Court.

Here is today's decision:

Custody battle for baby Veronica continues as Supreme Court sides with James Island family – The Post and Courier

So, it's still not over.

This is what I get in the midst of reading the link!
Please take this step in order to keep reading



This website uses the digital subscription service Press+ to manage access to its content. In order to bypass the message you are reading and access our site, we need you to enable your third-party cookies or switch to a different browser. This will enable Press+ to store small bits of information in your browser that enable the site to function properly.

I DON'T WANT THIRD PARTY COOKIES! In fact, I would be happier with nobody's.
 
This is what I get in the midst of reading the link!
Please take this step in order to keep reading



This website uses the digital subscription service Press+ to manage access to its content. In order to bypass the message you are reading and access our site, we need you to enable your third-party cookies or switch to a different browser. This will enable Press+ to store small bits of information in your browser that enable the site to function properly.

I DON'T WANT THIRD PARTY COOKIES! In fact, I would be happier with nobody's.

Cookies are really easy to clear, but if you don't want to enable them, don't bother reading where they are required.

It's pointless to complain about something the poster has no control over.

Your real complaint would be with that newspaper.
 
The Post and Courier

Custody battle for baby Veronica continues as Supreme Court sides with James Island family

AR-130629586.jpg&maxw=640&q=100
Leroy Burnell/posandcourier.comA sign in the yard of Matt and Melanie Capobianco's home on James Island. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning in favor of Matt and Melanie Capobianco, overruling a state court’s opinion that removed 3-year-old baby Veronica from the James Island home where she had spent more than half her life.
But the battle is far from over.


  • Matt and his wife Melanie Capobianco tried to hold back tears before they had to turn over Veronica in Charleston on Saturday, Dec. 31, 2011. The Capobianco's had to deliver Veronica to her biological father, Dusten Brown, because of a 1978 law that applies to American Indian children. (Grace Beahm/postandcourier.com)
  • Veronica and her father, Dusten Brown, in Oklahoma in early April. (PROVIDED)





The Capobiancos tried to adopt Veronica after she was born in September 2009. Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation, successfully halted the adoption through the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, as South Carolina courts ruled that the federal law trumped state statutes that disqualified Brown as a parent.


The justices voted 5-4 to reverse the lower court’s decision and send the case back for reconsideration in South Carolina in light of their ruling.


It was not immediately known whether Veronica would return to South Carolina because more legal proceedings are expected. The state courts must consider what’s in Veronica’s best interests now that she has been with a different family for nearly half her life, attorneys said.


Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion that sided with the adoptive couple. Justice Antonin Scalia — who sided with a tribe the only other time an ICWA case was heard, in 1989 — wrote the dissenting opinion.


Alito wrote that none of the ICWA provisions in question prevented the termination of Brown’s rights as a biological father because he hadn’t shown an interest in the child before her birth.


But for the Capobiancos, getting Veronica back won’t be easy.

Mark Demaray, former president of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, said the lower court, which will hear the case again and take the Supreme Court ruling into consideration, must recognize that Veronica has been absorbed into a new family during the past 18 months. She was with the Capobiancos for nearly 28 months.


Brown and the Capobiancos will have to work together to determine what’s in her best interests, Demaray said.


“They should’ve just terminated (Brown’s) rights in the first place,” he said. “Now, that court is going to have some tough decisions to make. ... It’s still a rough road for this child and these families.”


Shannon Jones, Brown’s attorney in the Lowcountry, said the case would be sent back to the state Supreme Court, which likely will punt it to the Charleston family court that ruled in the first place. She said the state courts must take up a remanded case within 25 days.

“I wish this was the end,” Jones said. “But it’s just another beginning.

“A win for the father would’ve been a win for this child because it would’ve been over.”


Jones wanted to remind people that Veronica never was adopted, she said. Her client has fought for his daughter ever since adoption papers were filed, she explained.


After the ruling was announced, Jones said she talked with Brown by telephone. He sounded nervous, heartbroken and upset, she said.


If the Capobiancos decide to continue their legal battle for custody, Jones said, Veronica’s future would continue to hang in the balance. She pleaded with the Capobiancos to reconsider.


“I understand how much they want his child,” Jones said. “There are so many children out there that need a loving home. But Veronica is not that child. She already has a loving home.”


The decision is a blow for tribes who have said that a ruling against Brown would help erode ICWA’s intent: to preserve American Indian societies. But it was not a complete loss, tribal officials and advocates said, because the ruling leaves ICWA intact.


But Demaray, the former adoption academy official and an attorney in Washington state, said in an interview after the ruling that adoption attorneys have long wrestled with questions about whether ICWA applied to voluntary adoptions in which the father is American Indian but the mother is not.


He said the Veronica ruling helps clear up confusion that ICWA cannot be invoked when a father hasn’t been involved with a child.


“You don’t know what to do when there’s no guy standing there to claim the child, and no one else was standing up to adopt her,” he said. “Making the determination (about whether ICWA applies) has been a challenge. ... This will be extremely helpful in future adoption cases.”


Jessica Munday, a spokeswoman for the Capobiancos, said the family’s attorneys in South Carolina and Washington were discussing the opinion’s meaning and their future strategy.


She said the family was mindful of the biological relatives’ interests in Veronica’s future and the role they might play in it.


“I am so happy,” Munday said. “This has been such a long ordeal, and it’s not even over yet. I just want Veronica to be with everyone who cares about her. ... I’m glad the court decided to stop this tragedy from happening to other children.”


Reporters gathered outside the couple’s home after Alito read the opinion this morning. A sign in the front yard said, “Bring Veronica home.”


Veronica’s birth mother, who chose the Capobiancos to raise Veronica, called this morning to congratulate the couple, Munday said. The Capobiancos have not yet spoken with Brown, she added
.
“Today’s opinion makes clear that Veronica’s adoption should have been finalized long ago, and gives us all the opportunity to continue fighting for Veronica’s best interests,” the biological mother, Christinna Maldonado, said in a statement. “I’m also hopeful it will spare many other children and families the heartbreak that Veronica, the Capobiancos, and I have had to endure.”


Joining Alito in the majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented with Scalia.


The state courts ruled that ICWA barred the termination of Brown’s rights as a father, even though he didn’t provide any support to Veronica’s mother and was never in the girl’s life.


But in reversing that opinion, Alito wrote that the law prevents the disruption of a parent’s “continued custody,” so the statute “does not apply where the Indian parent never had custody” in the first place.


ICWA wasn’t intended for cases in which a child’s adoption was lawfully initiated, he wrote. It was meant to stop the breakup of an American Indian family. But in Veronica’s case, Alito wrote, no such family existed.


Brown “should not have been able to invoke (ICWA) in this case because he had never had legal of physical custody of Baby Girl,” the justice wrote.


The Capobiancos’ supporters also praised Alito and the rest of the majority.

William B. Allen, emeritus professor of political science philosophy at Michigan State University and former chairman of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under President Ronald Reagan, said he was delighted by the Supreme Court’s decision.


Allen, who has long been critical of ICWA, said the decision is a sign that the high court is giving parental rights precedence over the act.


“I consider this to be an important turning point in our court’s consideration of these cases,” he said. “Obviously, this is the beginning of a new era.”

But the ruling does not dismantle the federal law.


Terry Cross, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, said that the opinion was based on a technicality and that it confirms Congress’ role in protecting American Indian families.


“Although we are deeply disappointed that this case is not over, Dusten will continue to fight for his daughter, and we believe that he will prevail,” Cross said. “Veronica will stay with her family.”


In a statement, Brown said that he was disappointed and that he wouldn’t want anyone else to have to fight so much “for the right to raise their own child.”


He said Veronica is happy where she is in Oklahoma.


“She loves and is loved by her sister, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. She is where she belongs,” his statement said. “I hope and pray her rights are protected and she’s allowed to stay with her family.”


Here’s the background of the case:


On April 16, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments complementing hundreds of pages legal briefs from attorneys and organizations that opined on the ruling’s consequences.


The case hinged on ICWA, the federal law aimed at placing American Indian children in foster or adoptive families who share their heritage. It arose in 1978 after advocates pointed out that a striking number of American Indian children were being placed outside their cultures, further diluting native societies.


Veronica was born to Brown, an Army reservist and member of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, and Maldonado, a Hispanic mother of two.

The two had been engaged, but they broke off their relationship months before Veronica was born.


Before the birth, Maldonado gave Brown a choice between giving up his paternal rights or paying child support. Brown declined to give Maldonado money, but he later told attorneys that he didn’t mean to allow Veronica to be put up for adoption.


Meanwhile, the Capobiancos were stymied in their own efforts to have a child. After in vitro fertilization failed, they turned to adoption and met Maldonado through an agency.


They were with Maldonado when Veronica was born. Maldonado signed over custody to the Capobiancos, and the couple flew the infant to South Carolina, where adoption proceedings commenced.


Brown didn’t know about the pending adoption until four months later.

The delay in notification was blamed on a clerical error: Brown’s named was misspelled when Veronica’s mother first filed the papers. But attorneys for Brown alleged that the mistake was purposeful.


After he was served the documents, Brown promptly challenged the proceeding, then was deployed for a tour of duty in the Middle East.


But Brown’s claim of the child at the “eleventh hour,” the Capobiancos’ attorneys have argued, was too late. He should have expressed interest in his daughter sooner and provided care for the girl and her mother, they wrote in legal arguments.


Brown’s attorneys later argued that his biological link to Veronica and her heritage meant that ICWA allows him to claim her and halt the adoption.


But the American Indian makeup of Veronica’s blood was said to be only 3/256th, and she also shares Hispanic heritage with her mother, attorneys for the Capobiancos have said. They said that ICWA shouldn’t give rights to a father who has otherwise relinquished them under state laws.


A family court in South Carolina ruled in Brown’s favor, and the S.C. Supreme Court later agreed with the lower judges. Veronica was sent in late 2011 to live with Brown in Oklahoma, where she has been ever since.


Christina Elmore and Glenn Smith contributed to this report. Reach Andrew Knapp at 937-5414 or twitter.com/offlede.
 
This is what I get in the midst of reading the link!
Please take this step in order to keep reading

This website uses the digital subscription service Press+ to manage access to its content. In order to bypass the message you are reading and access our site, we need you to enable your third-party cookies or switch to a different browser. This will enable Press+ to store small bits of information in your browser that enable the site to function properly.

I DON'T WANT THIRD PARTY COOKIES! In fact, I would be happier with nobody's.
Sorry about that. Sometimes the on-line paper does that, sometimes not. I don't like their new system.
 
Cookies are really easy to clear, but if you don't want to enable them, don't bother reading where they are required.

It's pointless to complain about something the poster has no control over.

Your real complaint would be with that newspaper.
Their new system is a pain. They didn't used to require logging in. Now, sometimes they do (it's not consistent). I'm a paid subscriber with an account and even I have a hard time accessing and searching the site. Ugh!
 
Their new system is a pain. They didn't used to require logging in. Now, sometimes they do (it's not consistent). I'm a paid subscriber with an account and even I have a hard time accessing and searching the site. Ugh!

That's too bad. I was easily able to read the whole article.

We have limited access to our local online paper after a set number of articles. That includes subscribers to the paper copy. They require an extra payment for full online access. I think it is owned by Gannett now.
 
Cookies are really easy to clear, but if you don't want to enable them, don't bother reading where they are required.

It's pointless to complain about something the poster has no control over.

Your real complaint would be with that newspaper.

My point in putting in what I did (and I should have given my reason) is so that others know what this paper does before they go to visit that site.

If you clear cookies you have to re-enter all your usernames & passwords for all the web-sites that you regularly visit. I have done it before and will not do it again.
 
My point in putting in what I did (and I should have given my reason) is so that others know what this paper does before they go to visit that site.

If you clear cookies you have to re-enter all your usernames & passwords for all the web-sites that you regularly visit. I have done it before and will not do it again.

Just so anyone reading your concerns can understand the procedure, here is how to clear cookies for only one site. Instructions are for all various browsers separately.

4 Ways to Clear Browser Cookies for Just One Site | Vertster Multivariate and A/B Testing Software
 
Update:

Baby Veronica coming back to Charleston, SC’s high court says
By Dave Munday , Stephanie Harvin Posted: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 4:53 p.m.
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:07 p.m.

“We are thrilled that after 18 long months, our daughter finally will be coming home,” Matt and Melanie Capobianco said in a statement after the ruling. “We look forward to seeing Veronica’s smiling face in the coming days and will do everything in our power to make her homecoming as smooth as possible. We also want to thank everyone who has supported us throughout this ordeal. Our prayers have been answered.”

Another Turn for Baby Veronica

Shannon Jones, the Charleston attorney for the father, Dusten Brown, said she talked with him late Wednesday afternoon, and he was sobbing. Jones said she didn’t know what is around the corner but “my client is not going to give up the fight.”

Lori McGill, an attorney in Washington, D.C., representing the birth mother, doesn’t see any way the order could be challenged.

“There’s no indication there is any wiggle room there,” she said. “The only question now is compliance.”

The case

The birth mother has always favored the Capobiancos keeping Veronica. She turned the baby over to the James Island couple shortly after she was born in September 2009, and the Capobiancos filed adoption papers.

Her father, Brown of Oklahoma, who is part Cherokee, filed for custody under the Indian Child Welfare Act after he got the adoption papers in January 2010, four months after the baby was born.

The S.C. Supreme Court upheld the father’s position. Veronica was taken to Oklahoma in December 2011, when she was 2. The Cherokee dubbed her “Little Star” and started introducing her to native American culture.

The Capobiancos fought the state court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the federal Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply and that South Carolina courts should decide who gets to adopt the 3-year-old.

Earlier this month, Brown filed to adopt the child in Oklahoma but did not do so in South Carolina.

On Wednesday South Carolina’s high court ordered the adoption to move forward on a 3-2 vote, saying that the Capobiancos are the only party properly seeking to adopt the girl in the state and ordered a family court to finalize the couple’s adoption.

Looking for a challenge

Brown’s attorney, John Nichols of Columbia, said that at this point the decision appears to be final, but lawyers will be looking for any way to challenge the ruling.

“The decision appears final,” he said. “He’s disappointed, as you can imagine. Any father would be, after being told they have to turn over their child to somebody else. … What we’re mostly concerned about is the best interests of this child.”

Jones, the father’s Charleston attorney, said the part of the ruling that she found most difficult was that the ruling did not take into account what was in the best interest of the child, and negated Brown’s argument for that.

“That’s the guiding light of child custody cases.”

She said she was holding out hope that there’s some way to address that decision.

The Cherokee Nation issued a statement decrying the decision.

“We are outraged and saddened that the South Carolina Supreme Court would order the transfer of this child without a hearing to determine what is in her best interests, particularly in light of the fact that this very same court previously found “we cannot say that Baby Girl’s best interests are not served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared for if raised by Father and his family.”

Tribal leaders said they will continue to try to find a way to challenge the decision.

“We definitely believe that it’s in her best interest to stay with her father,” Chrissi Nimmo, the assistant attorney general of the Cherokee Nation, told the Tulsa World. “And we’ll do everything possible to make sure that happens.”

What’s next

The decision becomes final in five days, unless somebody can come up with a good reason to challenge it. Once the ruling is final, the Supreme Court sends the order to finalize the adoption to Charleston County Family Court.

Family Court then will send an order to return Veronica to Charleston to the sheriff in the Oklahoma County where the father lives. The father could choose to immediately comply or to fight the order.

If the father chooses to comply, the two families will work out a transition time to make the process easier for Veronica. That’s not required, but it is a possibility that will be discussed, according to attorneys on both sides.

Baby Veronica coming back to Charleston, SC’s high court says – The Post and Courier
 
I don't like it. I feel bad for the parents that are trying to adopt her, but I feel worse for the biological father. There's plenty of other babies out there, they can adopt one that the biological parents don't want. What's wrong with them?? How selfish could you possibly be? They find out that the father didn't know she was going to be put up for adoption and he he wants her, how someone possibly think they have the right to keep that child? I don't care if they had her for 28 months, if she never saw them again after that she wouldn't even remember them when she got older. What they did to the father is just plain wrong.
 
Back
Top