View Full Version : Fallin Signs Extradition Papers For 'Baby Veronica' Biological Father



Plutonic Panda
09-04-2013, 05:12 PM
Wow, this is bad for Brown. I am on Browns side to say. The man should be able to keep his daughter, from what I understand, he was deployed or in boot camp and his wife gave him fraudulent information regarding the rights to the child. Haven't been really keeping up with this anyways. Just wanted to see what people here thought of all this. . Anyways, couldn't find a thread for this, but here one is. Probably will end up in Politics anyways.

''OKLAHOMA CITY - Governor Mary Fallin Wednesday signed the extradition order for Dusten Brown, the biological father of "Baby Veronica."
Brown is contesting Veronica's adoption to Matt and Melanie Capobianco of Charleston, South Carolina. His arguments have now been rejected by the United States Supreme Court as well as courts in South Carolina and Oklahoma.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley requested Brown's extradition from Oklahoma to South Carolina on August 13. Brown, who has refused to release Veronica to her adopted parents, faces charges of custodial interference in South Carolina.

Brown's extradition does not affect the current placement of Baby Veronica.''

Fallin Signs Extradition Papers For 'Baby Veronica' Biological F - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/23342004/ok-governor-signs-extradition-order-for-father-in-baby-veronica-case)

Soonerman
09-04-2013, 05:36 PM
Lets hope Fallin doesn't see another term as Governor of the State of Oklahoma.

jerrywall
09-04-2013, 05:44 PM
Lets hope Fallin doesn't see another term as Governor of the State of Oklahoma.

How is that even relevant to this issue?

Back actually on the topic.. here's the statement from the Governor.


"My goal in the Baby Veronica case has been to encourage both Mr. Brown and the Capobianco family to reach a quick settlement and come to an agreement that protects Veronica's best interests," Fallin said. "I said previously that I was willing to delay Mr. Brown's extradition to South Carolina as long as all parties were working together in good faith to pursue such a settlement. I also outlined parameters for what I believe to be acting in ‘good faith:' both Mr. Brown and the Capobianco family should be able to see Veronica; both parties should continue meeting to pursue a resolution outside of court; and both parties must obey the courts and the rule of law.

"Unfortunately, it has become clear that Dusten Brown is not acting in good faith. He has disobeyed an Oklahoma court order to allow the Capobianco's to visit their adopted daughter and continues to deny visitation. He is acting in open violation of both Oklahoma and South Carolina courts, which have granted custody of Veronica to the Capobianco's. Finally, he has cut off negotiations with the Capobianco's and shown no interest in pursuing any other course than yet another lengthy legal battle.

"As governor, I am committed to upholding the rule of law. As a mother, I believe it is in the best interests of Veronica to help end this controversy and find her a permanent home. For both of these reasons, I have signed the extradition order to send Mr. Brown to South Carolina." -Governor Mary Fallin

WilliamTell
09-04-2013, 06:30 PM
A year ago I would've bet money that I would never agree with Fallin -

But regardless of what color you are, dont sign away your rights to your child then complain and sue once a responsible and stable family adopts them.

As a father I know the pain he must feel, but at the same time I would never sign away my rights to my own flesh and blood. 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. Its sickening what this case and the Freedmen case have become.

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.

It says it in the story, the Oklahoman Supreme Court has rejected his claim, the South Carolina Supreme Court has rejected his claim, the United States Supreme Court has rejected his claim...and some how some being a fraction of a fraction of indian blood trumps all of those courts while they are taking all of our tax dollars because of stuff that happened before all of our lifetimes, and our grandparents...get real and stop playing the victim because you are keeping a child out of a home where she was always loved, supported and cherished even when it wasn't convenient for them.

http://news.yahoo.com/35-okla-tribes-share-77-124739275.html

bhawes
09-04-2013, 07:21 PM
No matter what if bilogical Father is alive he should be the one to get custody of the baby.

bhawes
09-04-2013, 07:23 PM
My bad I already posted that the bilogical father should get the baby. I didnot he gave his rights away.

bhawes
09-04-2013, 07:24 PM
A year ago I would've bet money that I would never agree with Fallin -

But regardless of what color you are, dont sign away your rights to your child then complain and sue once a responsible and stable family adopts them.

As a father I know the pain he must feel, but at the same time I would never sign away my rights to my own flesh and blood. 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. Its sickening what this case and the Freedmen case have become.

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.

It says it in the story, the Oklahoman Supreme Court has rejected his claim, the South Carolina Supreme Court has rejected his claim, the United States Supreme Court has rejected his claim...and some how some being a fraction of a fraction of indian blood trumps all of those courts while they are taking all of our tax dollars because of stuff that happened before all of our lifetimes...get real and let the child go to a home where she has always been wanted and cherished.

35 Okla. tribes share $77 million housing grants (http://news.yahoo.com/35-okla-tribes-share-77-124739275.html)

My bad I already posted that the bilogical father should get the baby. I didn't know he gave his rights away.

Plutonic Panda
09-04-2013, 07:31 PM
I don't think he gave the rights away.

Plutonic Panda
09-04-2013, 07:32 PM
From: keepveronicahome.com (http://keepveronicahome.com/index.php/fact-check)

Myth vs. Fact
1. “He signed his rights away.”

TRUTH:

“It is undisputed that the only consent document Father ever signed was a one-page ‘Acceptance of Service’ stating he was not contesting the adoption, which was purportedly presented for Father's signature as a prerequisite to the service of a summons and complaint. Thus, Appellants did not follow the clear procedural directives of section 1913(a) in obtaining Father's consent. Moreover, even if this ‘consent’ was valid under the statute, then Father's subsequent legal campaign to obtain custody of Baby Girl has rendered any such consent withdrawn. Therefore, neither Father's signature on the ‘Acceptance of Service’ document, nor his stated intentions to relinquish his rights, were effectual forms of voluntary consent under the ICWA.” – South Carolina Supreme Court

There is a legal way to “sign away rights” for good reason, Dusten never came close to any legal relinquishment of parental rights.

2. “He texted his rights away”

TRUTH:

In no state in the country can a father relinquish parental rights by text message. These text messages WERE NOT EVIDENCE at trial because the attorney for the Adoptive Couple would not produce the phone that showed Birth Mother’s messages to father, instead they attempted to introduce photocopies, even though the cell phone was allegedly in a safe at the office of the Guardian Ad Litem’s attorney. The Family Court did not consider these text messages as evidence.

3. “He abandoned his daughter”

TRUTH:

“All attempts to contact Maldonado by Brown and his family members were refused by Maldonado. Shortly after the child’s birth, Brown’s family members purchased some items for the child and attempted to deliver them to Maldonado, but these were rejected. It was clear that Maldonado wanted to have Brown completely and permanently removed from her life and placing the child for adoption without his knowledge or consent would further this goal.” – Family Court “Father testified he asked friends and family if they had seen Mother because she would not reply to his text messages. His mother testified she attempted to contact Mother on several occasions and once left Mother a voice message before Baby Girl's birth to tell Mother she had money and some gifts for the baby, including items she hand-knitted, but Mother never returned her telephone calls. Mother testified that none of Father's family members contacted her regarding gifts for Baby Girl.” – Family Court

The Family Court repeatedly stated that it did “not find birth mother’s testimony credible.” – Family Court Bench Ruling, United States Supreme Court Brief

4. “It is in Veronica’s best interest to be adopted”

TRUTH:

The only findings based on evidence of Veronica’s best interests found that she should be with her father.

“Brown is the father of another daughter. The undisputed testimony is that he is a loving and devoted father. Even Maldonado herself testified that he was a good father. There is no evidence to suggest that he would be anything other than an excellent parent to this child. . . . Brown has convinced me of his unwavering love for this child.” – Family Court

“The family court order stated, ‘[w]hen parental rights and the best interests of the child are in conflict, the best interests of the child must prevail. However, in this case, I find no conflict between the two.’ Likewise, 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.” - South Carolina Supreme Court

“Plainly, the family court determined that there was no conflict between Father's best interests and Baby Girl's best interests.” – South Carolina Supreme Court

5. “He’s not really ‘Indian’”

TRUTH:

Dusten Brown has been a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation since he was a child. Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court found true cultural ties to the Cherokee Nation:

“The Record establishes that Father's family has a deeply embedded relationship with the Cherokee Nation. For example, not only does the Record indicate that Father and his family are proud of their heritage and membership in the Wolf Clan, the home study performed on Father's parents states the following:

[Father's father] is Cherokee Indian. He grew up knowing he was Cherokee and being proud of who he was. [Father's parents] . . . prepare the following traditional foods in their home: grape dumplings, buckskin bread, Indian cornbread, Indian tacos, wild onions, fry bread, polk salad and deer meat. [Father's mother] state[d] she cooks these foods in her home on a regular basis and all of her children have eaten these items.

[Father's parents] attend the Cherokee Holiday in Tahlequah, Oklahoma[,] when they can and do participate in eating traditional foods, viewing the arts and crafts and watching the traditional games. [Father's father] participates in voting in the Cherokee elections[,] . . . . took part in learning about the Cherokee culture when his children were in high school by learning to make Indian crafts and learning to play the drum[, and] . . . . is sometimes seen at the Nowata Indian Health Clinic but receives the majority of his health care from the Veterans hospital. He claims his family is from the Wolf Clan, and he has been to, as well as participated, in stomp dances.

[H]is family had Indian land which was located in Pryor, Oklahoma and Cayuga, Oklahoma. He claims to have very traditional ties with his extended family and considers geneology [sic] a hobby by researching his Cherokee culture. [Father's parents] have many Native American items in their home. Decorative Native American pieces are scattered throughout their home in nearly every room.

Thus, the Record demonstrates that Father and his family are well-positioned to introduce Baby Girl to her Indian heritage.”

6. “He just wants her for money.”

TRUTH:

As all Cherokee Nation citizens know, we don’t get any money for “being Cherokee” or for having “Cherokee kids.” The only people who have made money in this case are the adoption agencies and attorneys.

7. “Cherokee Nation paid Dusten’s legal expenses”

TRUTH:

Cherokee Nation has never spent a single a dime on attorney fees for Dusten Brown. He and his family used every extra dollar they had to pay for attorneys and after that was exhausted, Dusten’s amazing attorneys donated their time because they believed in him and believed that Veronica belonged with her father.

8. “We didn’t know Veronica was Cherokee.”

TRUTH:

“Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this information "important" throughout the adoption process. Further, she testified she knew that if the Cherokee Nation were alerted to Baby Girl's status as an Indian child, "some things were going to come into effect, but [she] wasn't for [sic] sure what." Mother reported Father's Indian heritage on the Nightlight Agency's adoption form and testified she made Father's Indian heritage known to Appellants and every agency involved in the adoption. However, it appears that there were some efforts to conceal his Indian status. In fact, the pre-placement form reflects Mother's reluctance to share this information:

Initially the birth mother did not wish to identify the father, said she wanted to keep things low-key as possible for the [Appellants], because he's registered in the Cherokee tribe. It was determined that naming him would be detrimental to the adoption.”

“Adoptive Mother testified that, because they hired an attorney to specifically inquire about the baby's Cherokee Indian status, ‘when she was born, we were under the impression that she was not Cherokee.’” But, “Adoptive Mother testified that the Nightlight Agency's pre-placement report was ‘probably . . . something I read and didn't think twice about it.’”

9. “The Guardian Ad Litem supports the Adoption”

TRUTH:

The Family Court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) who has filed a brief in this Court that purports to be on behalf of Baby Girl and asserts that Baby Girl’s interests would be best served by awarding custody to petitioners. In fact, the GAL is not a neutral party. Although appointed by the Family Court, that court noted that the GAL and her attorney both “were unilaterally selected by [petitioners’] counsel”; the GAL had a continuing business relationship with petitioners’ attorney, with whom she had worked frequently in cases in 2009.

In this case, although the GAL had performed a comprehensive home study of petitioners, she resisted repeated requests from Father’s attorney to conduct a home study of Father. When the GAL finally did conduct such a study, well over a year after her appointment and some five months after counsel’s request, she informed Father and his family that “she knew the adoptive couple prior to the child being placed in their home” and “had worked with them before the child had been placed”; that petitioners were a well-educated couple with a beautiful home, could afford to send Baby Girl to any private school that they chose and, when she was older, to any college she wanted; and that there was nothing that Baby Girl needed that petitioners could not buy for her.

The GAL therefore told Father’s family that they “really need[ed] to get down on [their] knees and pray to God that [they] can make the right decision for this baby” (id. at 148), and they “needed to talk to God and pray about taking the child from the only family that she has known.” At trial, Father stated that the GAL treated him and his family as “a bunch of * * * rednecks that can’t * * * afford anything, that we’re not able to provide this child with proper education, schooling * * *. Pretty much that we weren’t fit to love this child and raise her.”

The GAL’s initial report did not note Baby Girl’s Native American heritage because the GAL thought that was “not something * * * the courts need to take into consideration.” As for the GAL’s view of Native American culture, she stated that the advantages of having Native American heritage “include[ed] free lunches and free medical care and that they did have their little get togethers and their little dances.” Given the GAL’s obvious bias, respondents initially sought her removal.

But rather than delay the proceedings, respondents ultimately withdrew this motion on the understanding that the Family Court would not consider either the GAL’s conclusion regarding Baby Girl’s best interests or the GAL’s custody recommendation. See Pet. Indeed, South Carolina law precludes a guardian ad litem in a private adoption from providing a custody recommendation unless one is requested by the court; no such request was made here. – United States Supreme Court Brief by Father

WilliamTell
09-04-2013, 07:35 PM
I understand I thought that too at first, but once i started reading more about the case and him signing away his rights then I lost all sympathy for him. He was an adult, he didnt have anything to do with the mother, and once he was presented with the paper workthat freed him from child support he signed it.

Its hard, this case really makes you want to root for the underdog and for the girl to be with her dad. But the case shows why most people chose to adopt out of country. A parent decides they dont want a child because of whatever reason, they get money from an adoption agency, they sign away their rights, then after someone has been raising their child for years they decide the want them back.

Plutonic Panda
09-04-2013, 07:35 PM
I would like to see any kind of evidence that show that Dusten Brown acknowledged his daughter was being given away/sold to another family and saying "I understand my daughter is being adopted out". Where is that???? I think he was tricked by his wife while he was serving our country.

Plutonic Panda
09-04-2013, 07:36 PM
I understand I thought that too at first, but once i started reading more about the case and him signing away his rights then I lost all sympathy for him. He was an adult, he didnt have anything to do with the mother, and once he was presented with the paper workthat freed him from child support he signed it.

Its hard, this case really makes you want to root for the underdog and for the girl to be with her dad. But the case shows why most people chose to adopt out of country. A parent decides they dont want a child because of whatever reason, they get money from an adoption agency, they sign away their rights, then after someone has been raising their child for years they decide the want them back.If I see where he singed his rights away knowing what he was doing and his daughter, I will no longer support him. You shouldn't be able to put up your kid and have the kid adopted and then decide, "Oh, I want him back", that is not right. I don't think that is what is going on here. I think his wife tricked him.

WilliamTell
09-04-2013, 07:38 PM
Panda - that is pure propaganda meant to misinform the misinformed.

His arguments have now been rejected by the United States Supreme Court as well as courts in South Carolina and Oklahoma

If someone doesnt post it before me I will post more in the morning the sources i read about why the courts made their decision. I have a headache (not related) and need to go to bed.But thats why this is all going back to the tribe trying to use the indian welfare act instead of regular proceedings because he legally he signed his kid up for adoption.If there was a language barrier or huge educational differences (like the old days where they couldnt read or write english) then i would understand, but obviously that isnt the case anymore.

Plutonic Panda
09-04-2013, 07:43 PM
Well, I'm actually quite misinformed then, as I really just started digging into this case today.

jerrywall
09-04-2013, 08:09 PM
I'm not even interested into getting super deep into this case. If it's true, as the press statement says, that "He has disobeyed an Oklahoma court order to allow the Capobianco's to visit their adopted daughter and continues to deny visitation." then my sympathy for him is gone, as he is violating the law and court orders.

It's a tough situation all along, but the Capobianco's were with the child from before birth and for the next two years. To cut them out completely and keep their adopted (legally in question or not) child from them during the process is cruel.

boscorama
09-04-2013, 09:45 PM
If I see where he singed his rights away knowing what he was doing and his daughter, I will no longer support him. You shouldn't be able to put up your kid and have the kid adopted and then decide, "Oh, I want him back", that is not right. I don't think that is what is going on here. I think his wife tricked him.

Nobody tricked him. The birth mother wasn't his wife. She exercised her right to decide what was best for her baby.

Jeepnokc
09-04-2013, 10:00 PM
But the case shows why most people chose to adopt out of country. A parent decides they dont want a child because of whatever reason, they get money from an adoption agency, they sign away their rights, then after someone has been raising their child for years they decide the want them back.

The exact reason three of my beautiful children are of Russian birth after my wife and I decided to adopt. It is a long trip for biological parents from Siberia to show up on my doorstep.

Mel
09-04-2013, 10:03 PM
I feel sorry for that poor little girl. She is a victim in this p*****g contest.

venture
09-04-2013, 10:04 PM
The exact reason three of my beautiful children are of Russian birth after my wife and I decided to adopt. It is a long trip for biological parents from Siberia to show up on my doorstep.

I wonder if this is why there is a such an issue with adopting American-born children with this constant threat of biological parents coming after the kid later.

OSUMom
09-04-2013, 10:14 PM
What strikes me is, when the adopted family was told by the courts to turn her over they did. They have done everything by the book, by the law. Brown isn't playing by the same rules. He agrees to visitation when it will help his cause but goes back on it. The adopted family is willing to go to arbitration, to let him have visitation rights. He keeps leading them on to keep the extradition from being signed.

Plutonic Panda
09-05-2013, 12:01 AM
Nobody tricked him. The birth mother wasn't his wife. She exercised her right to decide what was best for her baby.Oh, yes "her baby". The baby was 100% the result of her existence and nothing to do with Justin Brown

Plutonic Panda
09-05-2013, 12:03 AM
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.

Of Sound Mind
09-05-2013, 07:01 AM
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.
"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 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/04/218854672/okla-court-puts-hold-on-return-of-baby-veronica-to-s-c)]

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

kelroy55
09-05-2013, 07:04 AM
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.

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."

Wambo36
09-05-2013, 07:25 AM
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.
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.

Goon
09-05-2013, 07:43 AM
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
09-05-2013, 08:49 AM
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
09-05-2013, 08:54 AM
"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 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/04/218854672/okla-court-puts-hold-on-return-of-baby-veronica-to-s-c)]

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
09-05-2013, 08:57 AM
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
09-05-2013, 09:19 AM
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
09-05-2013, 09:29 AM
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
09-05-2013, 10:05 AM
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
09-05-2013, 10:26 AM
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
09-05-2013, 11:44 AM
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
09-05-2013, 07:22 PM
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
09-05-2013, 07:40 PM
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
09-05-2013, 08:23 PM
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
09-06-2013, 06:54 AM
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
09-06-2013, 07:07 AM
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
09-06-2013, 08:15 AM
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
09-09-2013, 12:04 PM
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
09-09-2013, 12:28 PM
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
09-09-2013, 02:58 PM
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
09-09-2013, 07:02 PM
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/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy