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

Comments 105

(The comment has been removed)

pleasure_past April 16 2013, 18:30:39 UTC
He's had full custody of the child for over a year, unless I'm misunderstanding something...

Reply

chokey_lowkey April 17 2013, 19:44:25 UTC
that was his INITIAL plan, he thought he was signing away his rights so that he didn't have to financially provide anything, so the state could never pursue him for child support. But, he wanted the child to stay with the mother, so that he could keep tabs, and , when he realized that it was an adoption and he would not be able to "stop by once a year to say hi" he contested

Reply

romp April 16 2013, 20:50:40 UTC
no

Reply


jenny_jenkins April 16 2013, 18:26:57 UTC
I read the line about how he ditched responsibility for his infant via text message. I'm having a hard time getting past it, tbh.

Were there, like, text-abbreviations in this thing? How classy did it get?

Reply

screamingintune April 16 2013, 19:35:07 UTC
seriously, I mean wow

Reply


pleasure_past April 16 2013, 18:28:07 UTC
The adoptive parents and the birth mother all deliberately hid the adoption from both the birth father and the Cherokee Nation. That alone is pretty much enough for me to say this adoption should never have been valid in the first place. I'm not saying the dude hasn't fucked up, but I think the law is and should be on his side as far as the adoption goes. Also, I'm having a really hard time thinking of situations where I'd be okay with removing a happy and healthy PoC child from the home of her biological father just because some nice white people think they want her more. (Oh, and let's not forget the argument that the adoptive parents are obvs better parents because they can pay for private school! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, fuck no.)

Reply

bestdaywelived April 16 2013, 18:45:31 UTC
Why should the law be on his side when he didn't want to support his daughter in the first place, forcing his ex to place her for adoption?

Reply

pleasure_past April 16 2013, 18:47:21 UTC
He didn't give informed consent to the adoption.

Reply

yeats April 16 2013, 19:02:43 UTC
also, even if he had, the article makes it clear that the ICWA has a protocol that privileges in-tribe adoptions for babies -- which clearly wasn't followed here.

Reply


yeats April 16 2013, 18:58:29 UTC
the atlantic article (source #2) is especially enlightening on this case and the ugly arguments being made by the adoptive family's lawyer:

This is another case where state law conflicts with federal law -- which means it is yet another Supreme Court case involving principles of federalism and states' rights. Enter Clement, the conservative lawyer, who on behalf of the child's guardian (more on her later), has filed a jaw-dropping brief. Clement doesn't just want to win for the Capobiancos. He wants also to undermine Congressional authority over the ICWA and all federal Indian law, and he wants to do so not just for this client but for another client, a non-Indian gaming client (who, as you might imagine, also has great eagerness to see the demise of federal Indian law ( ... )

Reply

romp April 16 2013, 20:54:49 UTC
Yeah, I've read enough to see this is an attack on the ICWA. This isn't about making an exception--it's about weakening restrictions that exist for good reason.

Wish I could link your post all the way down the comments...

Reply

maenads_dance April 16 2013, 21:07:44 UTC
Yes, I posted this article about a week ago. I'm always surprised by people willing to support a law in abstract, but not when confronted by the messy particulars of imperfect people who don't always try to do right thing, or at least not immediately.

Reply

yeats April 16 2013, 21:34:27 UTC
ahhh, that's probably where i first read the article. thank you!

Reply


julietislimited April 16 2013, 19:11:03 UTC
the adoptive parents have a website called save veronica and for some reason that irks me. why does she need to be saved? she seems to be thriving with her father.

Reply

romp April 16 2013, 20:56:41 UTC
I recently read a summary of a novel about a First Nations teen who finds Jesus but his tribe wants to indoctrinate him into their dark and pagan ways. I don't think I'd realized that this is a real fear for many Christians. o.0

Reply

thenakedcat April 17 2013, 16:25:30 UTC
Yeah the adoptive parents' characterization of themselves as Great White Saviors is all different flavors of fucked up.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up