Comments | ontd_political: Adoption Case Brings Rare Family Law Dispute To High Court

serendipity_15 in ontd_political

Adoption Case Brings Rare Family Law Dispute To High Court

Apr 16, 2013 12:57

Take the usual agony of an adoption dispute. Add in the disgraceful U.S. history of ripping Indian children from their Native American families. Mix in a dose of initial fatherly abandonment. And there you have it - a poisonous and painful legal cocktail that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ( Read more... )

adoption, native americans, somebody please think of the children!, supreme court, children

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

world_dancer April 16 2013, 17:41:19 UTC

It took so long to find the guy because the biomom misspelled his name and supplied the wrong birth date. It's documented in the court case (if I understand the reference correctly) that she was evasive and knew there would be a problem with adoption because the child is a Cherokee child, and so she tried to hide that fact (see the wiki footnotes and references).

I agree with you that the guy sounds at least like an irresponsible young man not wanting to pay child support. But he did step up once he understood what was going on, and chose to take on the child on his own. So he loses some points for making the wrong first decision, but he gets them back for genuinely wanting the kid. There's no reason to fight this hard if he didn't.

gambitia April 16 2013, 17:53:58 UTC

The problem I have isn't that he doesn't want the kid--from the way this article is written, he didn't want the financial responsibility of the child, which led to the mother deciding to put the girl up for adoption as she couldn't afford a 3rd child with no support. It's a common failing in men, but I see no reason to give him a pass for that.

tinylegacies April 16 2013, 18:30:55 UTC

I agree - especially since he SIGNED THE FUCKING PAPERS. And then apparently changed his mind or something?

screamingintune April 16 2013, 19:38:25 UTC

yeah I'm not getting that either. You sign away your rights, it should mean you sign away your rights. It doesn't mean, "I'll sign away my rights and change my mind when I realize you're doing something I don't want you to do."

thenakedcat April 17 2013, 17:01:21 UTC

From what I can tell, the papers did not make it clear that the mother had done an outside adoption without giving the Cherokee tribe a chance to place the child. He would have been okay with an adoption that conformed with the ICWA.

ginger_maya April 16 2013, 18:32:17 UTC

He didn't want to pay for the kid. Period. You believe he genuinely wants her back instead of using it as way to get back at the mother because?

world_dancer April 16 2013, 19:13:35 UTC

Actually he did want to pay for the kid. He was engaged to marry the mother. He was going to be paying for her and any future kids for the rest of his life. Most of the articles I've seen indicate that SHE walked out on him and broke up the engagement, but I've been trying to avoid mentioning that because it seems a bit too much of a he said/she said situation ( ... )

frelling_tralk April 16 2013, 19:43:15 UTC

Actually he did want to pay for the kid. He was engaged to marry the mother. He was going to be paying for her and any future kids for the rest of his life. Most of the articles I've seen indicate that SHE walked out on him and broke up the engagement,I'm not sure what the true story is in that case, but this article does mention that one fact beyond dispute is that Dusten did text Christy that he was giving up his parental rights and would not support the child? Possibly the reason he later changed his mind and filed for custody is because he assumed the biologicial mother would be raising their child and he would still have contact with them, and then when he heard about her being put up for adoption that made it less likely that he would be playing much of a role in her life ( ... )

jenny_jenkins April 16 2013, 20:59:48 UTC

It's irrelevant that they were going to be married or that he would have supported her in that case.

Edit: grammar fixed, sentence lengthened.

bestdaywelived April 16 2013, 22:55:03 UTC

Where are you getting this from? He has ADMITTED to telling her he didn't want her in his life and he wouldn't support the child.

kittenmommy April 16 2013, 23:32:41 UTC

Thank you!

ginger_maya April 17 2013, 13:05:01 UTC

Are you being deliberately obtuse? He TEXTED her, he didn't even call her personally, to tell her didn't want to SUPPORT the child and was giving up parental rights. As far as I am concerned that act alone shows he should never, ever have access to that child again.

kittenmommy April 16 2013, 23:31:12 UTC

He didn't want to pay for the kid. Period. You believe he genuinely wants her back instead of using it as way to get back at the mother because?

I'm sort of wondering if maybe he has a lawsuit in mind... the kid might be a way for him to cash in.

Sorry, but he just seems like such a jerkass that to me it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Back to all threads