Definitely a complex case, but TBH I will always have an inclination to side with the mother unless there is abuse or something on her part. That the father didn't want anything to do with the child until she was adopted sends up huge red flags for me. I'd be interested in reading the dissent, though.
I seem to recall from the previous articles that have been posted here that the father told the mother he did not want to be involved and signed over his parental rights. If this isn't the case, then I'd like to see that, but the reporting on the facts has been hazy at times.
Even if the father had signed away his parental rights in a completely kosher and legal way, the white couple STILL would not have been first in line to adopt Veronica. Under the ICWA, any members of the father's family should have had the opportunity to adopt her, then any other members of his tribe, THEN any other members of any other tribe, and then and ONLY then, would this couple have even been able to be considered for adoption.
I'm still a little confused- he agreed to give his parental rights to the baby, but then he wanted the baby when he learned she was going to be given up for adoption? And the bio mom didn't tell him she was giving up the baby until right before his deployment?
Ad now this girl lived with the adoptive parents for 2 years, with the father for a year and now she is going back to the adoptive parents?
From the stuff that has been linked here, it is entirely possible that the birth father didn't realize he was giving up his parental rights--the only document he signed may have been presented to him as a summons, not a final order--and if he did, he was under the impression that the mother would follow the ICWA and get his tribe involved in the adoption...which she intentionally did not.
What does it mean that the Supreme Court has signed off on this?
The adoptive family knew. The ICW wasn't followed. The child has been with her father for the past 2 years and consistency usually means a lot in custody AFAIK.
Comments 55
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
It's so simple and for good reason. Which is why I can't believe this ruling.
Reply
Ad now this girl lived with the adoptive parents for 2 years, with the father for a year and now she is going back to the adoptive parents?
Clusterfuck.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The adoptive family knew. The ICW wasn't followed. The child has been with her father for the past 2 years and consistency usually means a lot in custody AFAIK.
I really thought the above meant something.
Reply
Leave a comment