Veronica: Are the Facts Being Reported Accurately?
It's an eye catching photograph. Two-year-old Veronica, smiling with her biological father, Dusten Brown, just before leaving for Oklahoma from Charleston. Veronica is the little girl caught in the middle of an adoption fight between Dusten and the Lowcountry family trying to adopt her. The legal battle stretched for more than a year and was finally ruled upon in favor of Dusten, but details in the case are sealed in an undisclosed custody ruling. One has to wonder if all the information about this case is being reported accurately in the Charleston area. One example: The Post and Courier continues to report that Veronica was adopted at birth, when, in fact, as verified by the Capobianco's family spokeswoman and others, the Capobiancos were in the "process" of adopting her, but it had not been finalized. Friends of Dusten describe him as a hard working national guardsman. Here is more of what they say about him on their Facebook Page: "Just to start the clarification process we know for a FACT Dusten Brown IS Indian, DOES have a full time job as well as National Guard, DOES pay child support for BOTH of his children (Veronica and her older sister who he has joint custody of), Is only living with his parents while remodeling HE and BOTH of his daughters home,Was engaged to bio mom and lived together before they got pregnant, He started fighting for custody of Veronica when she was 4 months of age with a personal attorney and was told her name was Victoria."
No, the case is not being reported correctly. Matt and Melanie are not her adoptive parents. They were her prospective adoptive parents. Mr. Brown's rights were not terminated (it does not matter if they should have or would have-they weren't). He has a Constitutional right to his daughter (14th Amendment). I'm sorry that they want a child, but it does not trump his rights to his child. They really should have given her back when she was a baby instead of dragging it out. They either have a malpractice case against their attorney and adoption agency or they were selfish and thought Mr. Brown would run out of money and give up. Veronica is not a child that is adoptable. She is home with her family now. It took long enough.
They are her adoptive parents! Since before birth they have been considered her adoptive parents by the legal system. He wanted to terminate his rights and stated so multiple times. You expect them to just hand her over to a man that wasn't there for the birth mother and had no interest in his child until she was four months old and it was only at that point because he was given papers to sign that said he wouldn't contest the adoption which HE SIGNED. He is a dead-beat dad that views this child as a possession. Shame on him.
The legal system does NOT consider them the adoptive parents until the adoption is finalized and they have been granted legal rights to the child by a court. Until then they are the pre-adoptive or in SC the prospective adoptive parents. The courts stopped the adoption and the father has full legal rights to his child, making the Capobiancos legal strangers to the child.
People can nic pic over legally vs not. In the eyes of.Matt and Melanie they were her Parents and to Veronica the only mommy and daddy she knew!!! Period.
In adoption, the legal terms and process are very important and it is NOT nit picking to ask that the information is correct. In a contested adoption it's more important because you're trying to terminate the parental rights of a parent against their will. It was important that the ICWA is followed. The Capobiancos said they didn't know that Veronica had Indian heritage and that the ICWA applied. It is important that the correct legal terminology be applied so the public is not mislead about what happened in this case. Veronica has a father and they have a legally protected right to know each other.
Our legal system views Matt and Melanie as 'adoptive parents' and regardless of legal terms...they are the parents Veronica has known since birth. Veronica views them as her parents and rightfully so.
The term 'adoptive parent' applies when parental rights have been given through the court. That happens when the adoption is finalized. They were the prospective adoptive parents.
or GLORIFIED BABYSITTERS!!!! ha!!!! They have no legal rights to her and she was never their Daughter. She is Dusten's baby and she is HOME where she is meant to be
The Capobiancos are considered Veronica's adoptive parents by our legal system and more importantly Veronica views them as her parents. Additionally, the 'so-called' facts on the Brown supporters page are not 100% facts. He did not always pay child support. Court records in Oklahoma show he was taken to court for a lack of paying. He never supported the birth mother financially. Additionally, they claim he is fixing up a home. Unless he is fixing up someone else's property, there is no record of his man owning a home. No one is disputing that he is Indian. However, we need to remember this child is multi-racial and only 1% Cherokee. Why should her other heritages take a back seat to a heritage that represents a small fraction of her DNA? Last but certainly not least...he wasn't around to support the birth mother and stated to her several times that he wanted to relinquish his rights. If I were pregnant and knew I couldn't provide for my unborn child and the bio dad wasn't supporting me, I would make the best decision I could for my child and that's exactly what this birth mother. She made the most selfless decision any mother could make. She gave this child a life full of love and opportunity.
The court records you have access to are not the records about the Veronica case. You also don't know the facts of any of the cases. You searched for his home ownership records, everywhere? Does owning a house make you a better parent? The records that should have been searched were the ones that showed the child had Indian heritage and that the adoption laws needed to be followed.
It's interesting you site a lack of child support payments for his other child as a reason to deny him custody. Your only evidence that he didn't pay support is because there is a court order. But, that means nothing. Having court ordered child support does NOT mean that one party refused to pay. It can be as simple as the parties deciding against a verbal agreement. It happens all the time and does not reflect a parent's willingness to pay. In fact, everyone is better protected by having a legal written document.
What's more interesting is that the older child's mother is on Dusten's side. She supports his fight for Veronica and according to her both children have been playing/bonding. If he was such a bad father to her child, why would she be supporting him?
Finally, there's some evidence that they were living together at some point while she was pregnant. She admitted to being the one to cut off contact. We'll have to wait for the court papers, but that would mean he was supporting her.
Why would living together automatically mean he was supporting her? I dont understand that at all. I lived with my husband before we were married and no, he didn't support me whatsoever. We paid our own bills and split everything else. I could easily turn that right around and say because they were living together, that would mean she is supporting him. Amazing the assumptions people can immediately make, and why? Because he is a man, so he MUST have been supporting her, right?
Are the facts being reported accurately? On the Keep V Home page? Not so much...and boy-littered with profanity and opinions based in heart-felt defense of a friend....sure. But all you have to do is ask ONE- ANY ONE- BOARD CERTIFIED Child Psychologist- there is no question that what the Brown family has done to this child will scar her forever. No one can claim to know their motives-I can only hope that their motives were pure-but REGARDLESS OF THEIR MOTIVES-(and I use all caps for a reason) the impact on her life will be devastating. It was a selfish act...devoid of careful consideration for her well being. They were not qualified to make these decisions for her-yet a judge's decree has changed her life forever. God have mercy on their souls fro what they have done. God, have mercy on Veronica and bring her back home.
I think the term "Foster Parent" is being used incorrectly in this story. They were indeed the adoptive parents (legally they are being referred to as such) chosen by the birth mother during the end of her pregnancy when Mr. Brown was not in the picture. Whether he unknowingly signed a form stating he would not contest the adoption or not, he was not in the picture for the 1st 4 months of this baby's life. Her parents were there from the minute she was born. I think this is important to state when both sides are being shown.
The legal term 'adoptive parent' applies to someone who has been given parental rights to a child through the court, i.e. the adoption has been finalized. The legal term for the Capobianco's was the prospective adoptive parents or pre-adoptive parents depending on the state, because they were in the process of adopting the child.
Veronica is with her legal father. Not the sperm donor, putative father, biological father or any other term some of the SVH supporters have used to denigrate the father or his relationship with his daughter.
Matt and Melanie are Veronica's parents. They have never failed her, never signed away their rights regarding her, and they have been lovingly supporting her since her very first breath. She KNOWS them as Mommy and Daddy and to strip her of that comfort is a tragedy!
They are not her legal parents. Perhaps, caregiver would have been a better term. She is bonding with her father now and will soon forget about them. They should have given her back when she was a baby. Sloppy legal work does not allow someone to keep a child from her real father just because they desire a baby.
Matt and Melaine are her parents. They were chosen by the birth mom. They have had her since birth. The adoption would have been finalized if not for ICWA. Dusty signed away his rights to the birth mother. He never gave her any money during pregnancy which was confirmered from there side . He claims he didn't know when the baby was born, but his parents did. They went to the hospital. He waited untill Vernoica was 4 months to do anything! I personally believe this is all fueled from the grandmother. She wanted this baby not the bio-dad.
Without access to the court records, how do you know what the courts ruled, or how they would have ruled? How do you know what was done in the 4 months before the legal case? Have you read the court rulings?
Considering the parent are residents of Charleston, you would expect better from a local show. Of course it is fine to address facts and everyone has a right to an opinion, but to start questioning the parents use of the word "adoptive" is just shameful. You disgrace foster parents, adoptive parents, step-parents and any other version of parent other than biological by doing so.
No, they are doing a wonderful job. They are showing the difference between a real father and a person who desires a child, but is not legally the child's parent. Once an adoption is finalized and there are no appeals due to fraud, etc. then the adoptive parents can be considered a child's real parent, but not before.
As a previous foster/adoptive parent for the Cherokee Nation and State of Oklahoma and now again, I find the term potential adoptive parents to be accurate. It was a failed adoption, an infant adoption is always high risk and they never legally adopted her, they technically fostered her until it would be finalized which it wasnt. Likely they had no training in the "terms" of what they were since they went through a private agencey. Very accurate and unbiased report, FINALLY! Bravo for taking the time to correct all the intentional misleading of inaccurate facts by the potential adoptive families supporters who try and gain more supporters by misleading people with incorrect facts.
Knowing the biological family personally and extremely close to my heart it's sickening to hear the other side sling mud and make them out to be horrible people they just wanted this to be peacefully done not putting her face everywhere and having her scared in public because people want to be vigilantes not knowing all the truth hence the reason we started the page. Dusten has always wanted his daughter he was lied to by the bio mom and he never wanted her adopted out never
That Matt and Melanie stole a child via the courts and refused to hand her over to her real dad. They damage they have done is terrible. They will have to answer for it.
Mr. Brown was not supportive in anyway throughout the biological moms pregnancy or afterwards. He was not there for Veronica's birth, did not help with medical bills or stay in the hospital to care for her. The Capobianco's did all of the above and loved her from the very beginning. They didn't conveniently decide they wanted her after 4 months. When you really think about it, this could've probably all been avoided if Mr. Brown would've stepped up to the plate and been supportive of the biological mother. She may have never decided on adoption had that been the case. Veronica deserves to be with her parents, the only parents she has ever known. Not some man who thought it was ok to meet her for the first time at 2 1/2 yrs. old and drive away with her 30 minutes after meeting. He has refused her any contact with her parents except for 1 short phone call. She is undoubtedly scared and confused and missing her mommy and daddy. He does not have her best interests in mind. I pray that these judges are able to see this situation through Veronica's eyes and send her back home!
They would not have been the only parents she knew if they had not denied the father access/visitation to his daughter. This is a typical strategy used in these cases - keep the father and child from having a relationship so you can say he's a stranger to her. The father's friends are saying that he repeatedly asked for visitation and bought her presents which the prospective adoptive parent's refused. We'll have to wait to see what the court papers say, but if that's true, it's the C's who weren't acting in her best interest. Also, the father's side is also saying that the bio parents were living together when she was pregnant and then she cut off contact and he was at special training. If they were living together, he was supporting her. Finally, child therapists have different theories about whether phone calls are helpful and some say they aren't. It will continue to confuse her as opposed to her simply forgetting and moving on.
Veronica should be placed back with the adopting family. The father signed his rights away. That speaks VOLUMES. So sad that the courts ruled in favor of sending Veronica with a strange man, 1000 miles away without ANY transition plan. That sweet little girl has got to be so confused.
You can blame the adoptive parents in the Baby Richard case for the lack of transition plan. They played terrible games and denied his real parents for a few extra months while "working" on a transition plan. If the C's really wanted to do a transition, they could have invited him in on their time, not his. They did not do that.
She cut ties with him at6 or 7th mt of pregnancy despite his attempts to contact her she hid from him and ignored his calls.He was in the barracks training to be deployed which was 4hrs away.It wasnt possible to go find her when he was being deployed.They turned his FAMILY away and wouldn't let them see her in the hospital.They all wanted her in their life and was refused for two yrs.They refused gifts for her and for his family to have contact with her.They could have avoided all this 2yrs ago. Instead of being honored for defending this country and losing his baby for two yrs people want to destroy his reputation without knowing him. Saying hes drinking and neglecting her!! What is that??? It was LIES and DECEPTION from the start before she was even born..Why dont you take a look at the bio mom for a minute?? Look into her REAL motives.I doubt you will be looking at her the same way. Probably why she wouldnt show her face at that get together they had. She is not the little innocent mommy who did the best thing for her baby as you all think.
The Post and Courier reporting was not a "simple mistake in a single article." The newspaper reporter repeatedly wrote "adopted at birth" in every article I've seen (except for today's when they finally changed it). There is so much emotion involved here, that to mischaracterize this part of the story was a crucial factual blunder, leading one has to question the paper's objectivity. Emotionally, it is the same for the Charleston couple, and I truly feel for them, but for the public to be told repeatedly that *after* the adoption, Veronica was taken away-- is very misleading.
This simple mistake on wording had never been offically corrected by the potential adoptive families supporters, themselves or their spokesperon. They intend to mislead people to gain supporters. Which is likely why they have so many, they are not being factual.
"for the public to be told repeatedly that *after* the adoption, Veronica was taken away-- is very misleading" ~ Unfortunately with ICWA, it doesn't matter if the adoption was finalized or not, they still would have stepped in and removed Veronica from Her home. So I guess if it makes everyone "feel better" about this whole, horrible situation, then You keep telling Yourselves...They weren't "technically" the ADOPTIVE parents.
If the adoption had been finalized, they wouldn't be adoptive parents. They would be her parents! The support page asked the question and it doesn't appear that the fact they were still going through the process of adopting really matters. Ask Veronica if it matters. http://www.facebook.com/SaveVeronicaRose/posts/240509916028925
please show me where the PC specifically states beyond those words you take issue with the adoption was completed. please don't make me waste my time and go back through every article and copy/ paste the numerous times they say he stepped in and contested the adoption, the adoption was not completed, etc.
you're desire to arge semantics with a newspaper reporter is ridiculous in the fact of the article (S) in its (their) entirety.
the capobiancos heave never once tried to say the adoption was final.
regardless, even if it was, ICWA could have still been applied- they have done it before.
though, it is still clear ICWA was misused in this case. it has also been misused in many others. which is why this law needs to go back to ints original intent.
Matt and Melanie ARE Veronica's adoptive parents as well as parents who care and love her. This is how the legal system views it and how Veronica views them. Who was there at 1am changing her diapers and feeding her bottles? Matt and Melanie. Who was there to teach her right and wrong? Matt and Melanie. Who was there I help her with her first step? Matt and Melanie. Who was there to teach her about her Latina heritage? Matt an Melanie along with the birth mother.
The Capobiancos are Veronica's adoptive parents, they are not her "foster parents". It is well documented that Veronica has been with them since birth (they were in the delivery room) and they are the only parents she has ever known. For the Savage Report to claim this fact is in question is just wrong.
It's only fair to point out that Dusten began fighting for Veronica before she took her first steps and before she could learn right from wrong. He also would have been doing late night feedings and diaper changes if Veronica had been returned. He didn't have an opportunity to do most of the things you mentioned because he couldn't be with her.
The ICWA law was used INCORRECTLY...and little veronica needs to be placed back with her TRUE parents,the ones that have been there THROUGH IT ALL!!!!... Its a shame this little girl has been treated like a barbie doll,she is not a toy,you dont come get her when Dusten felt like being a father.HE is A SPERM DONOR...AND LITTLE V NEEDS HER MOMMY AND DADDY.
You all can argue about the misuse of terms "adoptive parents" all you want but what about the LEGAL DOCUMENT this "man/"father"" signed not to contest the adoption. That is huge. And his signature on that document speaks VOLUME!!!!!
There have been thousands of failed adoptions, where birth parents place their children and change their minds. They may sign paperwork before and after the birth of the child, then choose to parent. But does that make them bad mothers and fathers? Does signing adoption papers make them a bad parents? Does that mean they don't love their child? Or is it changing their minds and deciding to parent the child what makes them bad parents?
NO adoption is FINALIZED at birth. It takes a good six months to finalize an adoption REGARDLESS of parental consent/termination of parental rights. These are the FACTS about adoption in SC: When the father is KNOWN (as he was in this case) he is sent a notice of the adoption and has 30 days to respond. He didn't. The adoption was moving forward without complication until he filed for custody AFTER the allotted time. Unlike some, I don't doubt that the father does want to be involved, and may very well love little Veronica. Unfortunately, our choices have consequences, and he made a bad one. Why should the Capobianco's and Veronica pay the price for that? And what about the mother in all this? She chose the life she wanted for little Veronica - why does what Dusten wants outweigh what the mother wanted? She is now, along with the C's, cut off from her daughter's life. Dusten was the one that made poor decisions in this case. Regardless of the fact that the adoption wasn't yet finalized, to call Matt and Melanie her 'foster parents' is insulting, and far under-represents the gravity of the relationship.
The document he signed should apply, but the adoption law should not? The term 'foster parents" is insulting but 'sperm donor' is not? The fact of adoption in SC and in every state is that the ICWA applies. He filed within the allotted time for the ICWA, and before the adoption was final.
A child has two parents at birth, with equal rights to the child. The mother and father have a right not to parent. But they don't get to choose for the other parent. The mother would have had the right to change her mind about the adoption and the father had a right to change his mind about the adoption.
Dear Mr. Respected Reporter for finally getting the facts out there correctly. I think an article on how the potential adoptive family is mass merchandising for profit through non profits, individual supporters of the child they do not have legal custody of by using her image and name to sell items such as perfume on etsy.com called veronica rose, bracelets, an artist doing artwork. The child is under the protective child services of the Cherokee Nation and the legal guardian or case worker should have to give permission for peple to cash in on a childs image and name. Please do an article on the childs rights, legalities of using photos and names of other peoples children to profit or Non profit as they say and the privacy rights of kids in legal guardianship of a parent and or social services. What are the legalalites of the funds being raised? Why can just anyone make money off her? Why do the potential adoptive family get to designate where funds raised off the childs image and name get to be paid to (Lawyers). Thank you! Heather Haney
Wow Heather you really just won't give up on this issue. There is nothing wrong with what is being done in regards to the usage of Veronica's image. Do you really think that lawyers on BOTH sides of this case would allow her picture to be used if there were a legal issue with it? They are not "cashing in" as you call it, they are raising money for their legal fees and setting up a trust fund for Veronica. Her PARENTS took those photos of her while she was in their legal custody, they have every right to allow those photos to be used as they see fit.
I really wish all of these people commenting would stop stating everything like it is fact. No one, except for the mother and Dusten, know the facts. The C's only know what the mother was telling them, which could have been the truth or it could have been a lie. Maybe if "agencies" and attorneys were not so desperate to make money, they would stop doing adoptions where they do not have both the mother and the father terminating their rights. This would mean that both parents would receive proper counseling from someone not out to make a dime and then if they were in agreement to an adoption, they would terminate their rights after their baby was born. Too many red flags in this story.
Believe it or not, more than just the Post and Courier has reported on this story, and people in Charleston supporting the Capobiancos (NOT COPABIANCOS) are fully aware that there is more than one news outlet carrying this story. To imply that Charlestonians don't have the full story is insulting and incorrect.
The support site for Mr. Brown is well-meaning but not full of many statements that can be backed up with fact, while Save Veronica has plenty of facts to support its cause. For example: Mr. Brown consented to the adoption and signed a TPR. He had to invoke an outdated law as a loophole when he changed his mind because without abusing that race card, he never would have gained custody of Veronica under South Carolina law.
The fact that you pulled a statement from a Facebook page run by third-party interests who have no real knowledge of anything from grammar and manners to a grasp on family law, nor a real inclination to learn any of it because they are happy to remain ignorant because they'd rather "feel" right about the wrong things, tells me that you are not a respectable investigative reporter. You are lazy.
"For example: Mr. Brown consented to the adoption and signed a TPR."
Actually, The SVR site and the C's originally said that he signed an "acceptance of service." This was on both the facebook page and the website. The expert lawyer on the Savage Report said the same thing. So, which is it - the TPR or Acceptance? Since you have such a grasp on family law, you should know that accepting service is not the same thing as signing a termination of parental rights. Accepting service only means you're acknowledging that received papers. The information that the papers he signed were Acceptance of Service came from SVR, who you claim to be entirely truthful. There have been holes in BOTH sides of the story. The SVR supporters have taken everything they say as gospel, when there have been several inconsistencies.
Ahhh I see my old "friend" Heather is back. Heather, you sweet simpleminded darling. They are not making money off of Veronica. They are accepting donations for a cause to return her and bring her back from a life of misery. Of course, if you hadn't been raised in the same way that Veronica is being raised now, you'd be intelligent enough to understand this.
Very rude. I don't see how you're furthering your cause.
Also, to say that Veronica is living a life of misery is completely baseless. She is with her father, sister, and grandparents who seem to love her very much. Whether or not you agree with the father's choice to fight for custody, he has never been found to be unfit. In fact, his older child's mother is supporting his fight. Toddlers are resilient and can form healthy bonds after being moved to another home. Child psychologists agree.
And, I'm sorry but please tell me you weren't a part of Veronica's life. How could you speak to condescendingly about Veronica's birth family? I'm sure the C's wouldn't appreciate it one bit. They've been clear that the Brown's intelligence and character shouldn't be attacked in their name.
The Capobiancos supporters just keep digging themselves deeper. Do they not realize there are "eyes" watching all this and, noting all this viciousness against Mr.Brown.You are really not helping their case but,you sure are helping Mr.Brown.They should be putting a stop to all this bashing but,no they encourage it and even tell them to go argue with The Browns supporters.
It is absolutely astounding the "mud slinging" this story has brought about. Please remember, this issue is about a little 2 year old girl and her rights. It seems to me Veronica's best interest should be paramount. Is it in her best interest to return to he only Mommy and Daddy she has ever known, the couple that wanted her before she was born and after she was born? In my opinion, yes! Should she also have a relationship with the birth father and his family? In my opinion, yes. It will not be that long from now when she is reading and she googles her name. Is it in her best interest to read terrible things about the birth father and his "side"? NO. Is it in her best interest to read terrible things about the Mommy and Daddy that love her and have loved her and cared for her since before she was born? NO. Clean it up and think about what is best for this little girl. I am not a professional expert, but I do have young children. I am sure Veronica is anxious and upset. Everything has changed. It is typical for toddler's to be anxious and upset when just one or two "minor" routines change. Imagine the change she has had....moving to a different state, different caregivers, different house, different room, different bed, different food, different toys, different routines, different time zone, different books. The best thing that could happen for this little girl.....at the very least, is to have visits from the Capobianco's while the legalities are being settled.
In the meantime, don't insult the intelligence of the supporters of either "side". There are reported discrepancies throughout. Does it matter whether the Capobianco's are referred to as "adoptive parents" or "prospective adoptive parents"? Not one bit. Either way, they were the ones tucking her into bed every night, loving her and laughing with her. To Veronica, they are her Mommy and Daddy.
I am literally sickened by the SVR FB group. Now the admins are asking if it really matters that the adoption was not finalized. YES is matters. They have no legal right to V. None. Zip. Zilch. The problem is that they held on to her for years. They made this problem for her and themselves. If we start taking children away from bio families without terminating their rights in this case-it gets used in all future cases. Just walk into a nursery and pick a baby to buy or steal. Hold that child long enough and then the courts will be on the kidnappers side. This is a very slippery slope. The C's are not Veronica's parents. They wanted to be her parents, but it did not work out for them. She is home.
If all you ever do is read a headline you never get the full story. When the full stories are read, it is clear the adoption was not final. No one is trying to pretend she was officially adopted. Any attempt to claim otherwise is asinine.
This is clearly an attempt from the supporters of the biofather to make an issue; this is the only one the think they have. They wish to create a diversion and distraction.
Well, it isn't going to work. Sorry.
Nothing will distract from the facts of this case.
The Savage Report has been the first media page to ask serious questions about the accuracy of the information presented. Kudos to them. The SVR supporters will post asking that the Savage Report get their facts from the SVR page. But those aren't facts, those are claims posted online by people who were not part of the trial, mostly don't know the parties involved, don't know the law, and have no clue what any of the judges said or why. If SVR would like the Savage Report to change the story, then they should provide the court records to the show's producers that support their allegations. Prove their claims about the percentage of the child's Native American heritage. Prove their claims that the transition period was ordered for 1/2 an hour. Prove that no legal shenanigans were used to extend the case from 4 months to 2 years and keep a father from his child. Prove that the Capobiancos were the child's legal adoptive parents. But don't ask the public not to ask about the facts of the adoption case.
I am confused by the SVR supporters. They say the biomom lovingly made an adoption plan but the father (who has fought for her since infancy) is selfish and cruel because they say "he didn't want her" to begin with. So the mother is a saint for giving her up but the father is selfish for initially "not wanting her". How does that work? Sexism? Hypocrisy? There are also many inconsistencies from the SVR side. First they say the biodad never supported the baby even during pregnancy then they concede that he actually lived with the biomom during much of her pregnancy and was actively involved until the biomom ended the realtionship and went into hiding. Which is it? Either he supported the child or he didn't. You can't have it both ways. Supporters concede that the would be adoptive parents did not allow any contact between the biodad and the baby (even though biodad requested visits) but then decry the biodad for limiting contact now. So the C's are saints when they do it but Dusten is a criminal when he acts in the same fashion? Really?! The entire situation is unfortunate but it is also fraught with animosity from people who are supposed to be adults. I applaud the biodad for taking the highroad and protecting his daughter from the media and the controversy. He seems to be the only one who isn't slinging mud. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
No, the case is not being reported correctly. Matt and Melanie are not her adoptive parents. They were her prospective adoptive parents. Mr. Brown's rights were not terminated (it does not matter if they should have or would have-they weren't). He has a Constitutional right to his daughter (14th Amendment). I'm sorry that they want a child, but it does not trump his rights to his child. They really should have given her back when she was a baby instead of dragging it out. They either have a malpractice case against their attorney and adoption agency or they were selfish and thought Mr. Brown would run out of money and give up. Veronica is not a child that is adoptable. She is home with her family now. It took long enough.
ReplyDeleteThey are her adoptive parents! Since before birth they have been considered her adoptive parents by the legal system. He wanted to terminate his rights and stated so multiple times. You expect them to just hand her over to a man that wasn't there for the birth mother and had no interest in his child until she was four months old and it was only at that point because he was given papers to sign that said he wouldn't contest the adoption which HE SIGNED. He is a dead-beat dad that views this child as a possession. Shame on him.
DeleteThe legal system does NOT consider them the adoptive parents until the adoption is finalized and they have been granted legal rights to the child by a court. Until then they are the pre-adoptive or in SC the prospective adoptive parents. The courts stopped the adoption and the father has full legal rights to his child, making the Capobiancos legal strangers to the child.
DeletePeople can nic pic over legally vs not. In the eyes of.Matt and Melanie they were her Parents and to Veronica the only mommy and daddy she knew!!! Period.
DeleteIn adoption, the legal terms and process are very important and it is NOT nit picking to ask that the information is correct. In a contested adoption it's more important because you're trying to terminate the parental rights of a parent against their will. It was important that the ICWA is followed. The Capobiancos said they didn't know that Veronica had Indian heritage and that the ICWA applied. It is important that the correct legal terminology be applied so the public is not mislead about what happened in this case. Veronica has a father and they have a legally protected right to know each other.
DeleteOur legal system views Matt and Melanie as 'adoptive parents' and regardless of legal terms...they are the parents Veronica has known since birth. Veronica views them as her parents and rightfully so.
ReplyDeleteThe term 'adoptive parent' applies when parental rights have been given through the court. That happens when the adoption is finalized. They were the prospective adoptive parents.
Deleteor GLORIFIED BABYSITTERS!!!! ha!!!! They have no legal rights to her and she was never their Daughter. She is Dusten's baby and she is HOME where she is meant to be
DeleteThe Capobiancos are considered Veronica's adoptive parents by our legal system and more importantly Veronica views them as her parents. Additionally, the 'so-called' facts on the Brown supporters page are not 100% facts. He did not always pay child support. Court records in Oklahoma show he was taken to court for a lack of paying. He never supported the birth mother financially. Additionally, they claim he is fixing up a home. Unless he is fixing up someone else's property, there is no record of his man owning a home. No one is disputing that he is Indian. However, we need to remember this child is multi-racial and only 1% Cherokee. Why should her other heritages take a back seat to a heritage that represents a small fraction of her DNA? Last but certainly not least...he wasn't around to support the birth mother and stated to her several times that he wanted to relinquish his rights. If I were pregnant and knew I couldn't provide for my unborn child and the bio dad wasn't supporting me, I would make the best decision I could for my child and that's exactly what this birth mother. She made the most selfless decision any mother could make. She gave this child a life full of love and opportunity.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know what percentage this child's heritage is? How do you know what was said during the adoption? The court records are still sealed.
DeleteThe court records you have access to are not the records about the Veronica case. You also don't know the facts of any of the cases. You searched for his home ownership records, everywhere? Does owning a house make you a better parent? The records that should have been searched were the ones that showed the child had Indian heritage and that the adoption laws needed to be followed.
DeleteIt's interesting you site a lack of child support payments for his other child as a reason to deny him custody. Your only evidence that he didn't pay support is because there is a court order. But, that means nothing. Having court ordered child support does NOT mean that one party refused to pay. It can be as simple as the parties deciding against a verbal agreement. It happens all the time and does not reflect a parent's willingness to pay. In fact, everyone is better protected by having a legal written document.
DeleteWhat's more interesting is that the older child's mother is on Dusten's side. She supports his fight for Veronica and according to her both children have been playing/bonding. If he was such a bad father to her child, why would she be supporting him?
Finally, there's some evidence that they were living together at some point while she was pregnant. She admitted to being the one to cut off contact. We'll have to wait for the court papers, but that would mean he was supporting her.
Why would living together automatically mean he was supporting her? I dont understand that at all. I lived with my husband before we were married and no, he didn't support me whatsoever. We paid our own bills and split everything else. I could easily turn that right around and say because they were living together, that would mean she is supporting him. Amazing the assumptions people can immediately make, and why? Because he is a man, so he MUST have been supporting her, right?
DeleteAre the facts being reported accurately? On the Keep V Home page? Not so much...and boy-littered with profanity and opinions based in heart-felt defense of a friend....sure. But all you have to do is ask ONE- ANY ONE- BOARD CERTIFIED Child Psychologist- there is no question that what the Brown family has done to this child will scar her forever. No one can claim to know their motives-I can only hope that their motives were pure-but REGARDLESS OF THEIR MOTIVES-(and I use all caps for a reason) the impact on her life will be devastating. It was a selfish act...devoid of careful consideration for her well being. They were not qualified to make these decisions for her-yet a judge's decree has changed her life forever. God have mercy on their souls fro what they have done. God, have mercy on Veronica and bring her back home.
ReplyDeleteI think the term "Foster Parent" is being used incorrectly in this story. They were indeed the adoptive parents (legally they are being referred to as such) chosen by the birth mother during the end of her pregnancy when Mr. Brown was not in the picture. Whether he unknowingly signed a form stating he would not contest the adoption or not, he was not in the picture for the 1st 4 months of this baby's life. Her parents were there from the minute she was born. I think this is important to state when both sides are being shown.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the term Foster Parents is used incorrectly in this report.
DeleteThe legal term 'adoptive parent' applies to someone who has been given parental rights to a child through the court, i.e. the adoption has been finalized. The legal term for the Capobianco's was the prospective adoptive parents or pre-adoptive parents depending on the state, because they were in the process of adopting the child.
DeleteVeronica is with her legal father. Not the sperm donor, putative father, biological father or any other term some of the SVH supporters have used to denigrate the father or his relationship with his daughter.
Matt and Melanie are Veronica's parents. They have never failed her, never signed away their rights regarding her, and they have been lovingly supporting her since her very first breath. She KNOWS them as Mommy and Daddy and to strip her of that comfort is a tragedy!
ReplyDeleteThey are not her legal parents. Perhaps, caregiver would have been a better term. She is bonding with her father now and will soon forget about them. They should have given her back when she was a baby. Sloppy legal work does not allow someone to keep a child from her real father just because they desire a baby.
DeleteMatt and Melaine are her parents. They were chosen by the birth mom. They have had her since birth. The adoption would have been finalized if not for ICWA. Dusty signed away his rights to the birth mother. He never gave her any money during pregnancy which was confirmered from there side . He claims he didn't know when the baby was born, but his parents did. They went to the hospital. He waited untill Vernoica was 4 months to do anything! I personally believe this is all fueled from the grandmother. She wanted this baby not the bio-dad.
ReplyDeleteWithout access to the court records, how do you know what the courts ruled, or how they would have ruled? How do you know what was done in the 4 months before the legal case? Have you read the court rulings?
DeleteConsidering the parent are residents of Charleston, you would expect better from a local show. Of course it is fine to address facts and everyone has a right to an opinion, but to start questioning the parents use of the word "adoptive" is just shameful. You disgrace foster parents, adoptive parents, step-parents and any other version of parent other than biological by doing so.
ReplyDeleteNo, they are doing a wonderful job. They are showing the difference between a real father and a person who desires a child, but is not legally the child's parent. Once an adoption is finalized and there are no appeals due to fraud, etc. then the adoptive parents can be considered a child's real parent, but not before.
DeleteAs a previous foster/adoptive parent for the Cherokee Nation and State of Oklahoma and now again, I find the term potential adoptive parents to be accurate. It was a failed adoption, an infant adoption is always high risk and they never legally adopted her, they technically fostered her until it would be finalized which it wasnt. Likely they had no training in the "terms" of what they were since they went through a private agencey. Very accurate and unbiased report, FINALLY! Bravo for taking the time to correct all the intentional misleading of inaccurate facts by the potential adoptive families supporters who try and gain more supporters by misleading people with incorrect facts.
DeleteKnowing the biological family personally and extremely close to my heart it's sickening to hear the other side sling mud and make them out to be horrible people they just wanted this to be peacefully done not putting her face everywhere and having her scared in public because people want to be vigilantes not knowing all the truth hence the reason we started the page. Dusten has always wanted his daughter he was lied to by the bio mom and he never wanted her adopted out never
ReplyDeleteYou are saddly mistaken...when the court papers are made public, EVERYONE will KNOW the truth.
DeleteThat Matt and Melanie stole a child via the courts and refused to hand her over to her real dad. They damage they have done is terrible. They will have to answer for it.
DeleteMr. Brown was not supportive in anyway throughout the biological moms pregnancy or afterwards. He was not there for Veronica's birth, did not help with medical bills or stay in the hospital to care for her. The Capobianco's did all of the above and loved her from the very beginning. They didn't conveniently decide they wanted her after 4 months. When you really think about it, this could've probably all been avoided if Mr. Brown would've stepped up to the plate and been supportive of the biological mother. She may have never decided on adoption had that been the case. Veronica deserves to be with her parents, the only parents she has ever known. Not some man who thought it was ok to meet her for the first time at 2 1/2 yrs. old and drive away with her 30 minutes after meeting. He has refused her any contact with her parents except for 1 short phone call. She is undoubtedly scared and confused and missing her mommy and daddy. He does not have her best interests in mind. I pray that these judges are able to see this situation through Veronica's eyes and send her back home!
ReplyDeleteThey would not have been the only parents she knew if they had not denied the father access/visitation to his daughter. This is a typical strategy used in these cases - keep the father and child from having a relationship so you can say he's a stranger to her. The father's friends are saying that he repeatedly asked for visitation and bought her presents which the prospective adoptive parent's refused. We'll have to wait to see what the court papers say, but if that's true, it's the C's who weren't acting in her best interest. Also, the father's side is also saying that the bio parents were living together when she was pregnant and then she cut off contact and he was at special training. If they were living together, he was supporting her. Finally, child therapists have different theories about whether phone calls are helpful and some say they aren't. It will continue to confuse her as opposed to her simply forgetting and moving on.
DeleteVeronica should be placed back with the adopting family. The father signed his rights away. That speaks VOLUMES. So sad that the courts ruled in favor of sending Veronica with a strange man, 1000 miles away without ANY transition plan. That sweet little girl has got to be so confused.
ReplyDeleteYou can blame the adoptive parents in the Baby Richard case for the lack of transition plan. They played terrible games and denied his real parents for a few extra months while "working" on a transition plan. If the C's really wanted to do a transition, they could have invited him in on their time, not his. They did not do that.
DeleteShe cut ties with him at6 or 7th mt of pregnancy despite his attempts to contact her she hid from him and ignored his calls.He was in the barracks training to be deployed which was 4hrs away.It wasnt possible to go find her when he was being deployed.They turned his FAMILY away and wouldn't let them see her in the hospital.They all wanted her in their life and was refused for two yrs.They refused gifts for her and for his family to have contact with her.They could have avoided all this 2yrs ago. Instead of being honored for defending this country and losing his baby for two yrs people want to destroy his reputation without knowing him. Saying hes drinking and neglecting her!! What is that??? It was LIES and DECEPTION from the start before she was even born..Why dont you take a look at the bio mom for a minute?? Look into her REAL motives.I doubt you will be looking at her the same way. Probably why she wouldnt show her face at that get together they had. She is not the little innocent mommy who did the best thing for her baby as you all think.
ReplyDeleteThe Post and Courier reporting was not a "simple mistake in a single article." The newspaper reporter repeatedly wrote "adopted at birth" in every article I've seen (except for today's when they finally changed it). There is so much emotion involved here, that to mischaracterize this part of the story was a crucial factual blunder, leading one has to question the paper's objectivity. Emotionally, it is the same for the Charleston couple, and I truly feel for them, but for the public to be told repeatedly that *after* the adoption, Veronica was taken away-- is very misleading.
ReplyDeleteThis simple mistake on wording had never been offically corrected by the potential adoptive families supporters, themselves or their spokesperon. They intend to mislead people to gain supporters. Which is likely why they have so many, they are not being factual.
Delete"for the public to be told repeatedly that *after* the adoption, Veronica was taken away-- is very misleading" ~ Unfortunately with ICWA, it doesn't matter if the adoption was finalized or not, they still would have stepped in and removed Veronica from Her home. So I guess if it makes everyone "feel better" about this whole, horrible situation, then You keep telling Yourselves...They weren't "technically" the ADOPTIVE parents.
DeleteIf the adoption had been finalized, they wouldn't be adoptive parents. They would be her parents! The support page asked the question and it doesn't appear that the fact they were still going through the process of adopting really matters. Ask Veronica if it matters. http://www.facebook.com/SaveVeronicaRose/posts/240509916028925
Deletemichael.
ReplyDeleteplease show me where the PC specifically states beyond those words you take issue with the adoption was completed. please don't make me waste my time and go back through every article and copy/ paste the numerous times they say he stepped in and contested the adoption, the adoption was not completed, etc.
you're desire to arge semantics with a newspaper reporter is ridiculous in the fact of the article (S) in its (their) entirety.
the capobiancos heave never once tried to say the adoption was final.
regardless, even if it was, ICWA could have still been applied- they have done it before.
though, it is still clear ICWA was misused in this case. it has also been misused in many others. which is why this law needs to go back to ints original intent.
Matt and Melanie ARE Veronica's adoptive parents as well as parents who care and love her. This is how the legal system views it and how Veronica views them. Who was there at 1am changing her diapers and feeding her bottles? Matt and Melanie. Who was there to teach her right and wrong? Matt and Melanie. Who was there I help her with her first step? Matt and Melanie. Who was there to teach her about her Latina heritage? Matt an Melanie along with the birth mother.
ReplyDeleteThe Capobiancos are Veronica's adoptive parents, they are not her "foster parents". It is well documented that Veronica has been with them since birth (they were in the delivery room) and they are the only parents she has ever known. For the Savage Report to claim this fact is in question is just wrong.
DeleteIt's only fair to point out that Dusten began fighting for Veronica before she took her first steps and before she could learn right from wrong. He also would have been doing late night feedings and diaper changes if Veronica had been returned. He didn't have an opportunity to do most of the things you mentioned because he couldn't be with her.
DeleteThe ICWA law was used INCORRECTLY...and little veronica needs to be placed back with her TRUE parents,the ones that have been there THROUGH IT ALL!!!!... Its a shame this little girl has been treated like a barbie doll,she is not a toy,you dont come get her when Dusten felt like being a father.HE is A SPERM DONOR...AND LITTLE V NEEDS HER MOMMY AND DADDY.
ReplyDeleteYou all can argue about the misuse of terms "adoptive parents" all you want but what about the LEGAL DOCUMENT this "man/"father"" signed not to contest the adoption. That is huge. And his signature on that document speaks VOLUME!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThere have been thousands of failed adoptions, where birth parents place their children and change their minds. They may sign paperwork before and after the birth of the child, then choose to parent. But does that make them bad mothers and fathers? Does signing adoption papers make them a bad parents? Does that mean they don't love their child? Or is it changing their minds and deciding to parent the child what makes them bad parents?
DeleteNO adoption is FINALIZED at birth. It takes a good six months to finalize an adoption REGARDLESS of parental consent/termination of parental rights. These are the FACTS about adoption in SC: When the father is KNOWN (as he was in this case) he is sent a notice of the adoption and has 30 days to respond. He didn't. The adoption was moving forward without complication until he filed for custody AFTER the allotted time. Unlike some, I don't doubt that the father does want to be involved, and may very well love little Veronica. Unfortunately, our choices have consequences, and he made a bad one. Why should the Capobianco's and Veronica pay the price for that? And what about the mother in all this? She chose the life she wanted for little Veronica - why does what Dusten wants outweigh what the mother wanted? She is now, along with the C's, cut off from her daughter's life. Dusten was the one that made poor decisions in this case. Regardless of the fact that the adoption wasn't yet finalized, to call Matt and Melanie her 'foster parents' is insulting, and far under-represents the gravity of the relationship.
ReplyDeleteThe document he signed should apply, but the adoption law should not? The term 'foster parents" is insulting but 'sperm donor' is not? The fact of adoption in SC and in every state is that the ICWA applies. He filed within the allotted time for the ICWA, and before the adoption was final.
DeleteA child has two parents at birth, with equal rights to the child. The mother and father have a right not to parent. But they don't get to choose for the other parent. The mother would have had the right to change her mind about the adoption and the father had a right to change his mind about the adoption.
Dear Mr. Respected Reporter for finally getting the facts out there correctly.
ReplyDeleteI think an article on how the potential adoptive family is mass merchandising for profit through non profits, individual supporters of the child they do not have legal custody of by using her image and name to sell items such as perfume on etsy.com called veronica rose, bracelets, an artist doing artwork. The child is under the protective child services of the Cherokee Nation and the legal guardian or case worker should have to give permission for peple to cash in on a childs image and name. Please do an article on the childs rights, legalities of using photos and names of other peoples children to profit or Non profit as they say and the privacy rights of kids in legal guardianship of a parent and or social services. What are the legalalites of the funds being raised? Why can just anyone make money off her? Why do the potential adoptive family get to designate where funds raised off the childs image and name get to be paid to (Lawyers). Thank you! Heather Haney
Wow Heather you really just won't give up on this issue. There is nothing wrong with what is being done in regards to the usage of Veronica's image. Do you really think that lawyers on BOTH sides of this case would allow her picture to be used if there were a legal issue with it? They are not "cashing in" as you call it, they are raising money for their legal fees and setting up a trust fund for Veronica. Her PARENTS took those photos of her while she was in their legal custody, they have every right to allow those photos to be used as they see fit.
DeleteI really wish all of these people commenting would stop stating everything like it is fact. No one, except for the mother and Dusten, know the facts. The C's only know what the mother was telling them, which could have been the truth or it could have been a lie. Maybe if "agencies" and attorneys were not so desperate to make money, they would stop doing adoptions where they do not have both the mother and the father terminating their rights. This would mean that both parents would receive proper counseling from someone not out to make a dime and then if they were in agreement to an adoption, they would terminate their rights after their baby was born. Too many red flags in this story.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, more than just the Post and Courier has reported on this story, and people in Charleston supporting the Capobiancos (NOT COPABIANCOS) are fully aware that there is more than one news outlet carrying this story. To imply that Charlestonians don't have the full story is insulting and incorrect.
ReplyDeleteThe support site for Mr. Brown is well-meaning but not full of many statements that can be backed up with fact, while Save Veronica has plenty of facts to support its cause. For example: Mr. Brown consented to the adoption and signed a TPR. He had to invoke an outdated law as a loophole when he changed his mind because without abusing that race card, he never would have gained custody of Veronica under South Carolina law.
The fact that you pulled a statement from a Facebook page run by third-party interests who have no real knowledge of anything from grammar and manners to a grasp on family law, nor a real inclination to learn any of it because they are happy to remain ignorant because they'd rather "feel" right about the wrong things, tells me that you are not a respectable investigative reporter. You are lazy.
"For example: Mr. Brown consented to the adoption and signed a TPR."
DeleteActually, The SVR site and the C's originally said that he signed an "acceptance of service." This was on both the facebook page and the website. The expert lawyer on the Savage Report said the same thing. So, which is it - the TPR or Acceptance? Since you have such a grasp on family law, you should know that accepting service is not the same thing as signing a termination of parental rights. Accepting service only means you're acknowledging that received papers. The information that the papers he signed were Acceptance of Service came from SVR, who you claim to be entirely truthful. There have been holes in BOTH sides of the story. The SVR supporters have taken everything they say as gospel, when there have been several inconsistencies.
Ahhh I see my old "friend" Heather is back. Heather, you sweet simpleminded darling. They are not making money off of Veronica. They are accepting donations for a cause to return her and bring her back from a life of misery. Of course, if you hadn't been raised in the same way that Veronica is being raised now, you'd be intelligent enough to understand this.
ReplyDeleteVery rude. I don't see how you're furthering your cause.
DeleteAlso, to say that Veronica is living a life of misery is completely baseless. She is with her father, sister, and grandparents who seem to love her very much. Whether or not you agree with the father's choice to fight for custody, he has never been found to be unfit. In fact, his older child's mother is supporting his fight. Toddlers are resilient and can form healthy bonds after being moved to another home. Child psychologists agree.
And, I'm sorry but please tell me you weren't a part of Veronica's life. How could you speak to condescendingly about Veronica's birth family? I'm sure the C's wouldn't appreciate it one bit. They've been clear that the Brown's intelligence and character shouldn't be attacked in their name.
The Capobiancos supporters just keep digging themselves deeper. Do they not realize there are "eyes" watching all this and, noting all this viciousness against Mr.Brown.You are really not helping their case but,you sure are helping Mr.Brown.They should be putting a stop to all this bashing but,no they encourage it and even tell them to go argue with The Browns supporters.
DeleteIt is absolutely astounding the "mud slinging" this story has brought about. Please remember, this issue is about a little 2 year old girl and her rights. It seems to me Veronica's best interest should be paramount. Is it in her best interest to return to he only Mommy and Daddy she has ever known, the couple that wanted her before she was born and after she was born? In my opinion, yes! Should she also have a relationship with the birth father and his family? In my opinion, yes. It will not be that long from now when she is reading and she googles her name. Is it in her best interest to read terrible things about the birth father and his "side"? NO. Is it in her best interest to read terrible things about the Mommy and Daddy that love her and have loved her and cared for her since before she was born? NO. Clean it up and think about what is best for this little girl. I am not a professional expert, but I do have young children. I am sure Veronica is anxious and upset. Everything has changed. It is typical for toddler's to be anxious and upset when just one or two "minor" routines change. Imagine the change she has had....moving to a different state, different caregivers, different house, different room, different bed, different food, different toys, different routines, different time zone, different books. The best thing that could happen for this little girl.....at the very least, is to have visits from the Capobianco's while the legalities are being settled.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, don't insult the intelligence of the supporters of either "side". There are reported discrepancies throughout. Does it matter whether the Capobianco's are referred to as "adoptive parents" or "prospective adoptive parents"? Not one bit. Either way, they were the ones tucking her into bed every night, loving her and laughing with her. To Veronica, they are her Mommy and Daddy.
I am literally sickened by the SVR FB group. Now the admins are asking if it really matters that the adoption was not finalized. YES is matters. They have no legal right to V. None. Zip. Zilch. The problem is that they held on to her for years. They made this problem for her and themselves. If we start taking children away from bio families without terminating their rights in this case-it gets used in all future cases. Just walk into a nursery and pick a baby to buy or steal. Hold that child long enough and then the courts will be on the kidnappers side. This is a very slippery slope. The C's are not Veronica's parents. They wanted to be her parents, but it did not work out for them. She is home.
ReplyDeleteThis is much ado about nothing.
ReplyDeleteIf all you ever do is read a headline you never get the full story. When the full stories are read, it is clear the adoption was not final. No one is trying to pretend she was officially adopted. Any attempt to claim otherwise is asinine.
This is clearly an attempt from the supporters of the biofather to make an issue; this is the only one the think they have. They wish to create a diversion and distraction.
Well, it isn't going to work. Sorry.
Nothing will distract from the facts of this case.
The Savage Report has been the first media page to ask serious questions about the accuracy of the information presented. Kudos to them. The SVR supporters will post asking that the Savage Report get their facts from the SVR page. But those aren't facts, those are claims posted online by people who were not part of the trial, mostly don't know the parties involved, don't know the law, and have no clue what any of the judges said or why. If SVR would like the Savage Report to change the story, then they should provide the court records to the show's producers that support their allegations. Prove their claims about the percentage of the child's Native American heritage. Prove their claims that the transition period was ordered for 1/2 an hour. Prove that no legal shenanigans were used to extend the case from 4 months to 2 years and keep a father from his child. Prove that the Capobiancos were the child's legal adoptive parents. But don't ask the public not to ask about the facts of the adoption case.
ReplyDeleteI am confused by the SVR supporters. They say the biomom lovingly made an adoption plan but the father (who has fought for her since infancy) is selfish and cruel because they say "he didn't want her" to begin with. So the mother is a saint for giving her up but the father is selfish for initially "not wanting her". How does that work? Sexism? Hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteThere are also many inconsistencies from the SVR side. First they say the biodad never supported the baby even during pregnancy then they concede that he actually lived with the biomom during much of her pregnancy and was actively involved until the biomom ended the realtionship and went into hiding. Which is it? Either he supported the child or he didn't. You can't have it both ways.
Supporters concede that the would be adoptive parents did not allow any contact between the biodad and the baby (even though biodad requested visits) but then decry the biodad for limiting contact now. So the C's are saints when they do it but Dusten is a criminal when he acts in the same fashion? Really?!
The entire situation is unfortunate but it is also fraught with animosity from people who are supposed to be adults.
I applaud the biodad for taking the highroad and protecting his daughter from the media and the controversy. He seems to be the only one who isn't slinging mud.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.