Fallin Signs Extradition Papers For 'Baby Veronica' Biological Father

[Goon]

Oh, yes "her baby". The baby was 100% the result of her existence and nothing to do with Justin Brown

based on testimony and court records, it was established that brown made no attempt to support the child finaancially. text messages he sent also apparantly said he wanted nothing to do with the baby. in the eyes of the law (as has been mentioned above), his lack of support and signature revoking his rights remove him as a parent.

from what I read, the crux of the matter was the ruling by a south carolina court that the Indian child welfare act applied to this case. The high court found it did not, as Veronica was not "taken" from anyone and given to the SC family, her mother followed the correct process and gave her up for adoption. (for reference, the SC court finding that The ICWA applied is what initially led to brown receiving custody of the child 2 years ago).

in short, but for the South Carolina court ruling regarding the ICWA, Veronica would be with the adoptive parents. The Supreme Court fixed the error (and subsequently South Carolina amended their ruling after the Supreme Court threw the case back to them last month). And yet, brown refuses to comply with the law.

Will be interesting to see this play out; as a father I wouldn't wish it on either party.

[Plutonic Panda]

For somebody who's "I'm not even interested into getting super deep into this case." you sure post a lot of opinions about it. I tend to side with the adoptive parents mostly because they have raised and bonded with the child from birth and did everything by the book. I doubt this would have been the issue it has if the parent wasn't a member of the Cherokee Nation and the Indian Child Welfare Act was involved. I wonder where the father has been for two years before he decided he wanted the child back.


There isn't a lot anybody can do about it since as pointed out "His arguments have now been rejected by the United States Supreme Court as well as courts in South Carolina and Oklahoma". As others have said my heart goes out to the little girl and will all parties could work together for the benefit of her. It seems the Capobianco's offered to do that but Mr Brown refused. The Governor had little choice after Brown violated every court order.

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since Brown, the biological father, had refused to provide financial support for the biological mother and child when told of the pregnancy — and because he had renounced his parental rights at that time — he could not later object to the adoption. The high court rejected Brown's argument that the Indian Child Welfare Act trumped state law in such circumstances."

I posted one original opinion and the rest of my posts have been responses.

[Plutonic Panda]

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since Brown, the biological father, had refused to provide financial support for the biological mother and child when told of the pregnancy — and because he had renounced his parental rights at that time — he could not later object to the adoption. The high court rejected Brown's argument that the Indian Child Welfare Act trumped state law in such circumstances." [Okla. Court Puts Hold On Return Of 'Baby Veronica' To S.C. : The Two-Way : NPR]

Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified to judge whether he gave up his rights or not.

Alright well, then it's likely I was wrong.

Either way, the father looks like he is a loving and caring guy who didn't make a sound decision when he was serving and he made a mistake. This is an exceptional case, or at least I've never seen cases like this, however I tend to ignore things like this. I don't have any dog to fight, so I could care less. Hopefully the right decision will be made. It will also be very interesting to see if Veronica remembers any of this when she is older and what she thinks of it.

[Plutonic Panda]

Being a father myself, I tend to come down on the side of fathers rights. But, I think what your not getting is, he signed off so he wouldn't have to be financially responsible in any way for this child. That comes with the agreement that you give up your right to ever be involved in her life or any of the decisions made about her life. You can't just sign to avoid child support and still expect to be a decision maker in her life. And that's what he did. At least that's the way I understand it.

I found that out. This is a situation with no real happy outcome in the end for someone(if the father truly loves her).

[rezman]

I feel sorry for that poor little girl. She is a victim in this p*****g contest.

Much like this thread ...

And the very reason Gov. Fallin signed the extradition order.

[Midtowner]

I will say this again, I can not find where the girl was adopted with Justin brown signing off on it and saying "have my daughter". If he signed his rights away, I will no longer support him.

He signed an extrajudicial consent form as is common in Oklahoma. He thought he was relinquishing to mom, but that's not what one of those always does... in fact, usually not. The moral of the story is that you should discuss legal documents concerning the custody of your kids with a lawyer before signing.

[kelroy55]

Much like this thread ...

And the very reason Gov. Fallin signed the extradition order.

If he followed the order to let the adoptive parents have visitation I doubt Fallin would have signed the order.

[MsProudSooner]

I feel sorry for that poor little girl. She is a victim in this p*****g contest.

She should never have been removed from her home in SC in the first place. As a mother and a grandmother of a 3 year old grandson, I can't imagine how traumatic it would be for him to be taken away from the only parents he has ever known. No one was thinking of what was best for this little girl.

[WilliamTell]

Others have beat me too it. BUt this is just a sad case all the way around. It honestly bothers me as a dad, but you can't.have it.both ways. You are either a parent and fully responsible for.a.child or you are not.

The tribe has made this a horrible situation and have created so much bad blood for sport while recklessly hurting a.child who been supported from before her birth by loving and stable parents.

[OSUMom]

She should never have been removed from her home in SC in the first place. As a mother and a grandmother of a 3 year old grandson, I can't imagine how traumatic it would be for him to be taken away from the only parents he has ever known. No one was thinking of what was best for this little girl.

I agree. Notice how Brown's family is saying how it would hurt the girl to be removed from the home. But they sure didn't care when they removed her from the adopted home.

[Mr T]

I don't have an opinion on the child. I'm not a lawyer and I am childless. My only opinion here is that I hope Mary Fallin is never governor again. Ever. I'm sorry for the baby. That is all.

[bhawes]

In the Bible God Hated Esau because he gave away his birth right. If they can prove he gave away his daughter birth rights, then he doesn't desire to have the girl.
If not then no matter what the childs needs to stay with the father.

[BobbyV]

Plus lets be honest, the Cherokee are wrapped up in lawsuits for the heck of it just to blow federal dollars and casino cash on deigning other peoples rights.

Really? You think they're doing this more for the publicity than looking after the interests of one of their own?

You cant have it both ways. If you want to be your own nation: dont take 77 million (563 million nation wide) in HUD (amercan tax payer) this year alone then say you are under your own laws and court system. Get off the tax payer dole or play by the same rules that the rest of us play by.

Based on the treaties signed between them and the US they can . . . they are their own Nation in the sense that the relationship they have with the US is a government-to-government relationship. Not state-to-government. That alone completely changes the rules.

[WilliamTell]

Look at this case and the.Cherokee freedmen case that are.going right now, they are breaking laws and trying to.excempt themselves from portions of their own treaties.

In the end the American tax payer always picks up their lawyer fees. And billions each year we pay their housing, their food, their medical, their...

[Of Sound Mind]

In the Bible God Hated Esau because he gave away his birth right. If they can prove he gave away his daughter birth rights, then he doesn't desire to have the girl.
If not then no matter what the childs needs to stay with the father.

Being a father means taking responsibility — including financial support — for the child from the pregnancy on. Ignoring or giving up that responsibility removes you — at least morally — from any rights as a father... you are merely a sperm donor at that point.

I am a father of two wonderful daughters, so I am keenly aware of a father's rights. But being a sperm donor who has taken no ownership of fatherly responsibilities until well after a child is born shouldn't afford you any such rights.

I have a brother who adopted the biological twin sons of his wife several years ago after their sperm donor had nothing to do with them from pregnancy through the first 10 years of their lives. It was only after the adoption process began that he decided to reassert "his rights" — mind you, he didn't feel any obligation to any financial support for his sons up to and including at that point. After months and months of wrangling, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees wasted, in the end, he voluntarily gave up any claim to father's rights to avoid any responsibility — past, present or future.

Conversely, I have a brother-in-law who likes to father children, but doesn't like the responsibility that comes with that. He's ended up losing all contact with one of his daughters, has rare contact with his oldest daughter, and has intermittent contact with his youngest child (son). I tried to be sympathetic as he is my wife's brother, but his irresponsibility convinced me and my wife (and the judicial system) that he shouldn't be entitled to any "father's rights."

[NikonNurse]

My own opinion, as my upbringing puts me in the position of baby Veronica, my father, who was serving in Vietnam at the time, gave up all his parental rights. My father was well informed by tribe,lawyers, military etc, what that paper meant...it wasn't a "here, sign this trust me." Because of the impact signing the paper had on me, they wanted to be sure he knew what he was doing. He signed it, no child support, nothing. My mom HAD to let him know what she was doing, adoption etc... As I became older, he came back into my life and it was a source of contention for us for awhile.....

My curiosity is related to why he gave up his rights.......I honestly don't think it was a I-didn't-know-what-I-was-signing situation....That doesn't fly well with me...and why did he change his mind about her?

[MustangGT]

I honestly don't think it was a I-didn't-know-what-I-was-signing situation....That doesn't fly well with me...and why did he change his mind about her?

Friends involved in tribal law have been told the tribe initiated this and only "recruited" the father since they need him to effectively contest the adoption. If true it is certainly NOT THE FIRST time a tribe has gone in search of a so called victim to throw a fit over something.

[FritterGirl]

Friends involved in tribal law have been told the tribe initiated this and only "recruited" the father since they need him to effectively contest the adoption. If true it is certainly NOT THE FIRST time a tribe has gone in search of a so called victim to throw a fit over something.

I have heard the exact same thing from friends who are also Native American (not Cherokee, however). According to this person, it's apparently a pretty well-known tactic for the tribe to politicize these things to their benefit.

[WilliamTell]

I said it earlier, but just look at the cherokee freedmen case thats been going on with their crazy lawsuits that are just designed to waste tax payer money. The Treaty explicitly says

"The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all the members of said tribe alike. They further agree that all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees: Provided, That owners of slaves so emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never receive any compensation or pay for the slaves so emancipated." - Article 9 of The Treaty Of 1866

All native born Cherokees, all Indians, and whites legally members of the Nation by adoption, and all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months from the 19th day of July, 1866, and their descendants, who reside within the limits of the Cherokee Nation, shall be taken and deemed to be, citizens of the Cherokee Nation." - 1866 Amendments to Article 3, Section 5 of the 1836 Cherokee Nation Constitution

So after almost 150 years in 2007 tribe strips all of the Freedmens rights to vote and then votes to kick all of them out of the tribe. WTH, that would be like America kicking out all Italians who have been citizens since 1866 just for the heck of it. They are ignoring their portions of their Treaties that they dont like while us tax payers are forced to pay for decades of legal fees after courts keep on rejecting the cases because they have no real legal standing. When we arent picking up decades of their legal fees we also pay for their food, we pay for their housing, we pay for their infrastructure, we pay for their education, we pay for their medical, we give them preference when bidding on government contracts, etc,etc,etc

All while they ignore the laws and treaties that the rest of us live under.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheroke...en_controversy