Oklahoma, South Carolina Courts Square Off Over ‘Baby Veronica’ Adoption

On Tuesday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court announced it had issued a stay in the adoption of a young Cherokee girl known as Baby Veronica, calling into question an order from a South Carolina court ordering the girl be turned over immediately to her adoptive, white parents. The ruling is the latest legal twist in an ongoing custody dispute made more complicated by a Roberts Court ruling this summer.

The facts of the Baby Veronica case are not easy to summarize, but Laura Briggs does a great job of providing both a concise and comprehensive version of events here, and I highly recommend giving it a read. In short, Christina Maldonado and Dusten Brown had been engaged, but before they were able to get married Maldonado got pregnant. The two broke up, and Brown allegedly disclaimed his parental rights and told Maldando he would not support her or the baby financially. Maldando, with the help of a Christian adoption agency, found a South Carolina couple to adopt the baby. Once Brown learned of the potential adoption, he objected and sued, arguing he had not voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. Brown is Cherokee, which means the termination of his parental rights and the baby’s adoption should fall under the scope of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law that sets federal standards for state-court child custody proceedings involving some Native children. The lower courts agreed, and “reluctantly” barred the adoption.

The dispute worked its way through the courts, eventually landing before the Supreme Court this summer. The Court had before it two competing interpretations of the Indian Child Welfare Act. First was the version advocated by Brown. He argued that ICWA applies whenever a court is considering whether to terminate parental rights of an Indian parent. On the other hand, Paul Clement, representing the adoptive parents, argued that ICWA’s coverage is limited to the kinds of cases that Congress “most likely” had in mind when it passed the law—cases in which the U.S. government is seeking to remove Indian children from an existing Indian family. This was the only real interpretation of the statute, Clement argued, given the historical abuses by government social services to Native peoples and families.

Clement, who has famously argued against the constitutionality of Obamacare and the Voting Rights Act, framed the argument in static historical terms, through which tribal sovereignty and identity is violated in only narrowly constructed ways. The Roberts Court bit. In a 5-to-4 opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority and joined by the chief justice and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer, interpreted the relevant portion of the ICWA, which addresses the involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child, as excluding cases in which an Indian parent never had legal or physical custody of the child, like Brown’s. The law, Alito reasoned, applies “only in cases where an Indian family’s ‘breakup’ would be precipitated by the termination of the parent’s rights.” That section, the Court explained, is “sensible” when it is applied “to state social workers who might otherwise be too quick to remove Indian children from their Indian families. It would, however, be unusual to apply [Section] 1912(d) in the context of an Indian parent who abandoned a child prior to birth and who never had custody of the child.”

Finding the ICWA did not apply in cases when a biological parent has had no initial contact or support, the Court sent the matter back to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which, after a few more legal filings, approved the adoption and ordered that Baby Veronica be turned over to the adoptive parents immediately.

When lawyers argue about jurisdiction, they are essentially arguing about the power of the court to hear a dispute. And in the Baby Veronica case, the power of the courts has a very specific meaning in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that so severely limited the scope of the ICWA. That’s because that Supreme Court decision effectively took power away from tribal communities to protect and promote their own identities by drastically limiting the presumption of tribal jurisdiction in child custody disputes within the ICWA.

There is no uniformity to state adoption laws. Some states have very detailed procedures for terminating parental rights and allowing adoptions, while others do not. The benefit—and in a very real sense the power—of the ICWA was that it created uniformity in this process. For members of recognized tribes, the ICWA set jurisdiction over these matters in tribal courts and granted certain rights to biological parents not always guaranteed by states in these kinds of proceedings. It didn’t guarantee that Native members retain parental rights, or that children were not adopted outside of tribes, but it recognized the sovereignty of Native peoples as distinct and found a procedural mechanism to make sure that sovereignty was respected. That was, until the Roberts Court gutted it.

As Briggs rightly notes, in adoption cases, jurisdiction matters—a fact likely motivating the decision in South Carolina. And Briggs suggests an even more troubling, and plausible, motivation for the right’s vigorous defense of the Baby Veronica case. She sees it as a possible Trojan Horse to significantly compromise tribal sovereignty and open the gates to non-Native gambling entities challenging tribal gambling enterprises. Given the zeal with which the Roberts Court has gone out of its way to not just protect, but outright promote corporate interests at the expense of everyone else, it’s a theory that shouldn’t be quickly dismissed.

In the meantime, an Oklahoma Supreme Court referee is expected to recommend which court take the case next: Oklahoma’s, South Carolina’s, or the Cherokee Nation’s. And while the Baby Veronica case could be an example of bad facts making bad law, with the damage limited to this one case, it could also be just the opening both the religious right and the corporate right have been looking for to take another run at tribal sovereignty.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jessica Mason Pieklo on twitter: @hegemommy

  • Maranda Swafford Everson

    Even though I am not on a tribal roll, because my Grandfather was, I had to seek permission to give a child up for adoption to a family who were non Native American. This is a case where a child will be brought up outside her heritage and be denied the rights that are hers by birth. I am sorry for the adopting parents but the child should be with her father.

  • http://alittleitchy.blogspot.com/ brista

    If you want to honor a mother’s choices, then you also need to honor which adoptive family she chooses to place her child with. Veronica should stay with the adoptive family.

    I feel very sorry for everyone involved in this situation, it’s a terrible situation. However, the biological father relinquished his rights. The biological mother (who is not Native American) chose a family. If the biological father was concerned about his daughter being raised in Native American culture, then he needed to speak up. He did not speak up. Instead, he signed away his rights. Maybe when Veronica is an adult, she can choose to meet her biological father and learn more about her Native American heritage. But at this point, as far as I’m concerned, allowing the biological father to have custody right now is akin to kidnapping. He signed away his rights. He has no legal rights to see Veronica.

    The Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply to this case. The biological father chose to relinquish his rights. He made a decision and whether or not he “changed his mind” should not have any bearing on this case — after all, if he was NOT Native American and wanted to “undo” the surrender of his parental rights, he would have NO legal recourse whatsoever. You cannot just change your mind on whim.

    Since the adoptive parents and biological mother agreed to an open adoption, I’m sure they would also be happy to send updates to the biological dad and would probably have been fine with him visiting or teaching her about his Native American culture. If she does go back to her adoptive parents’ home permanently (which she absolutely 100% should), maybe this will happen. If I were the adoptive parent, though, at this point I would be awfully hesitant and would not trust the biological father.

    The thing with relinquishing your parental rights is that you cannot just change your mind for any reason. You sign it, the small window of time during which you legally CAN change your mind passes, and it’s done. You cannot change your mind just because you decided you don’t like the adoptive family or because you JUST NOW realized that you want to be a father and that you want your child raised in your culture. It does not work like that.

    • L-dan

      At this point, it is not entirely about the biological father’s rights, but the rights of the tribe to have a say in the adoption. Due to (possibly accidental) mistakes in the process, their right was ignored. He can’t sign that right away along with his parental rights. This simply moves jurisdiction for the adoption to the tribal courts. He still might lose based on signing those papers.

      There is also the question of whether he was fully informed when relinquishing parental rights. From the linked article: “Thinking he was relinquishing to Maldonado during his deployment, Brown signed a form entitled “Acceptance of Service” but immediately asked for the paper back, saying he wanted to talk to an attorney. The process server threatened him with criminal prosecution if he touched the paper. Brown consulted an army attorney, and filed a stay of the adoption in South Carolina, establishing paternity, seeking custody (offering to place the baby with his parents until he returned from Iraq), and promised to support Veronica.”

      To be honest, I don’t feel terribly badly for the guy. After trying to coerce the mother into marriage by saying he would offer no support unless she married him, he doesn’t really get any sympathy from me, nor am I sure I really want him raising children to pass those attitudes on to.

      At the same time, there is the tribal interest. The legal questions this case raises are important. Also, I believe that Veronica has spent the most recent years of her life with her father. Regardless of my opinion about his attitudes noted above, without evidence of abuse, I can’t think that it’s in her best interest to be yanked from the parent she knows best. (iirc she was with the adoptive parents at first and then with her father.)

      • http://alittleitchy.blogspot.com/ brista

        But why should the tribe get that right in this particular situation? Why should it go tribe’s best interest THEN Veronica’s best interest? Veronica’s mother is not Indian. Veronica’s dad showed no interest in being part of the child’s life until it was too late. Veronica’s mother hand-picked a family that she thought would be best for the child, that she has formed a relationship. Why should the tribe get to make that decision for Veronica’s mother, a non-Indian?

        I understand the point of the ICWA and I do think it’s necessary in the cases that it was meant to help but it shouldn’t be applied to this case. This is not a situation where a child is being taken from its Indian parent and placed outside the tribe. This is the situation where a child’s non-Indian mother got pregnant by a deadbeat dad (who, after all, not only showed 0 interest in the child, tried to coerce the mother into marrying him, and has not paid child support for his other child) who just so happens to be Indian.

        If ICWA had been “followed” then the birth mother would have had no say in placement of her child — instead, the tribe would have decided for her, even though she is not Indian, even though the father of the child was not interested in the child while the mother was pregnant, even though the child herself is *barely* Indian. What if the mother did not like the Indian family chosen for her? ICWA says it will try to place with family first — what if the mother did not like father’s family, but the child was placed (without the mother’s consent) with the father’s family?

        As far as having “bonded” with the bio dad during this mess, the original court that took Veronica away said that it didn’t matter if Veronica had bonded with the adoptive parents. Well, if that’s the case, then it shouldn’t matter if Veronica bonded with the bio dad. He gave up his rights, he shouldn’t get to change his mind.

        • gayetannenbaum

          “Tried to coerce her into marrying him” ?

          You make it sound like they were dating, she got pregnant and he tried to stongarm her into getting married. We won’t talk about what you would have said if he DIDN’T ask her to marry him. You’d call him every name in the book.

          Try educating yourself on the truth.

          He DID ask her to marry him and she said yes. THEN she got pregnant and he believed that with a child on the way it made more sense to move up the wedding date. She said no. Then SHE broke up with HIM and gave up THEIR child without telling him.

          Get it?

          • colleen2

            Thank you for the sequence of events. It would be interesting to know what precipitated her eventual rejection of him as a husband or father. Your explanation implies that moving up the wedding date caused that change in her decision. That explanation does not make any sense.

          • gayetannenbaum

            Exactly. But that IS what she testified – which is, I’m sure, part of the reason that the court did not find her credible.

            There have been many cases like this lately. Mother pulls a disappearing act or goes radio silent – and then claims that father did not support her. There was even a case recently about a MARRIED father. He’s a drill sergeant, career Army. He put in for a transfer from Texas to South Carolina. He and his wife were having some marital problems and she told him that she wanted to stay in Texas until their child was born. He had to report for duty in South Carolina.

            He was gone about 10 days when she went to Utah and 30 days later gave birth prematurely. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents. She told the agency that her husband had “abandoned” her and she didn’t know where he was. Anyone who has any connection to the military will tell you that one phone call would have “found” him and if her allegations were true, he would be in serious trouble for not supporting his wife and child.

            The truth was that he had no idea where she had gone. He only found out when she finally called him to tell him what she had done. He called the agency and they refused to give him any information. He got a lawyer and fought back. It took him 22 months to get custody of his child.

            In the meantime, the prospective adopters painted him as a deadbeat dad and his ex-wife as a saint. Their website still says that he didn’t come forward and THEY had to track him down. They were shocked when he wouldn’t relinquish his parental rights.

            The judge in the case made mincemeat of the agency and the would be adopters for CLEARLY violating this man’s right to raise his daughter. (Google “Terry Achane”)

            In another case (in Virginia), the mother and father were not living together but the father went to every prenatal appointment and supported the mother (who was still living with her parents). As soon as she went into labor, she cut off all communication, put herself on “no report” at the hospital and hid out at a hotel until the would be adopters’ ICPC (interstate transfer) application cleared. Then the baby was taken to Utah.

            When the father found out what had happened, he got a lawyer and fought back. The Utah courts said that he hadn’t protected his right because he hadn’t signed up with Utah’s putative father registry. Virginia residents, baby born in Virginia – father expected to follow UTAH law. At the time, signing up with Utah’s registry could only be done in person.

            A Virginia court awarded him full custody of his daughter. A Utah court finalized the adoption. The child (now nearly 5 years old) is still in Utah. The father has been allowed to sue the agency, the attorneys (and a lot of other people) for conspiracy to deprive him of his parental rights. (Google “Baby Emma” and “John Wyatt”).

            There is a new case in Oklahoma – same scenario. Parents living together, expectant mother disappears, places child for adoption in South Carolina. In this case the ICPC application was…not…filed until the child was already out of state – a clear ICPC violation. The mother is Absentee Shawnee but the ICPC application did not show Native American and the tribe was not notified until the baby had already been taken out of state – another ICPC (and ICWA) violation. In this case – the same lawyer (Godwin) and the same agency (Nightlight) as the “Baby Veronica” case.

            There are lots of Dusten Browns and Baby Veronicas out there. Not every father has the will to fight and to continue to fight against the adoption machine.

          • colleen2

            If true then her lawyer is at fault.
            May I suggest that you post cites when you make claims about how horrible the world is for men because some women are just awful. I have NO interest in the eternal self pity of the MRM

          • SurplusMama

            Colleen, midway through this post is a link to men whose partners have given up their children against their wishes – and against their knowledge. http://thefarmschool.blogspot.com/2013/08/Evolving-adoption-perspective-part-2.html

          • SurplusMama

            I agree that it doesn’t make sense – but she never told him or the court. She most certainly has implied that it was the pressure to get married – even though they were already engaged.

          • colleen2

            I do not post here or read this blog because I have an interest in what passive-aggressive right wing lunatics have to say.

          • fiona64

            Ditto … and to add on to that, hyper-religious whackjobs who come over to “concern troll.” ::ahemsurplusmamaahem::

      • fiona64

        IMO, this entire case should serve as an object lesson for the anti-choice who tout adoption as a great panacea. “Just give up the baby for adoption” is their cry … without having the vaguest notion of how complicated their “just do it” really is.

        • SurplusMama

          Fiona, adoption is not normally “complicated.” Natural parents determine that they do not wish to parent their child. They make contact with adoptive parents (it’s not hard to do and there are lots of ways to do it) and the adoptive parents have a lawyer that conducts the adoption according to the law. That is quite simple. Problems arise when we do not follow obvious moral and legal code.

          • fiona64

            It is very easy to wave one’s hand and act as thought it is no big deal for the birth mother, the birth father and the adoptee … but the truth is that it is *always* complicated, particularly for the adoptee.

          • SurplusMama

            I completely agree that it is ALWAYS emotionally complicated – particularly for the adoptee and the natural mother. My point is that it doesn’t have to be legally complicated if moral and legal code is followed.

          • fiona64

            “Moral” code is irrelevant to the process, frankly … whose “morality” are we using as the code? Legal codes are the ones with which we should be concerned, and it is not entirely clear to me whether that was followed in this case.

            The point remains that many anti-choicers tout adoption as a “no big deal” all-purpose solution to a woman not wanting to be pregnant — which is ridiculous prima facie, because it doesn’t stop the pregnancy. The fact is that it cleary is not an all-purpose solution to not wanting to parent, either.

          • SurplusMama

            “Morally”, it’s not acceptable to keep Father in the dark and adopt out his child without his knowledge. Legally, it is often acceptable – but it does sometimes present legal problems down the road.

            As an adamant abortion abolitionist, I absolutely agree with you that too many opponents of abortion act like adoption is not a big deal. I absolutely believe it should be a last resort – not touted as a nifty little solution to your little problem. It is certainly not an all-purpose solution to anything. The truth is that sex is a reproductive act and if people did not engage in it while unwilling to parent and with people they would never want to parent with, a lot of the issues would be non existent.

          • fiona64

            The truth is that sex is a reproductive act and if people did not engage
            in it while unwilling to parent and with people they would never want
            to parent with, a lot of the issues would be non existent.

            Which translates to “If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.”

            Well, all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, can and do fail. I support a woman’s right to make her reproductive decisions without my interference: use or non-use of contraception, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing with or without a partner of her choice.

            The fact is that consent to sexual intercourse does not carry an implied consent to pregnancy … and adoption does not exist for the purpose of supplying infants to the infertile too selfish to adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of kids currently available for adoption in this country. Adoption exists to provide the best possible circumstances for the *child,* and it is pretty clear that in this case the father surrendered custody without a qualm until he understood what that actually meant.

          • SurplusMama

            I have NO problem whatsoever about any woman (or man) making her (or his) reproductive decisions without my interference. We absolutely agree on that. I’m talking about the killing of innocent human beings – and adopting children out without the consent of both parents. That’s what I’m about.

            “The fact is that consent to sexual intercourse does not carry an implied consent to pregnancy…”

            Hmmm…consent to a reproductive act does not carry an implied consent to reproduction? That is not only illogical, but it’s irresponsible.

            “.. and adoption does not exist for the purpose of supplying infants to the infertile too selfish to adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of kids currently available for adoption in this country.”

            AMEN! On this we absolutely agree!

            “Adoption exists to provide the best possible circumstances for the
            *child,* and it is pretty clear that in this case the father surrendered custody without a qualm until he understood what that actually meant.”

            We agree on the former, but the latter just shows your lack of information on this topic. Father testified about his many attempts to contact Mother…and that he understood that she would have sole custody of his child as he was deploying. The judge in the case Mother’s testimony to the contrary to not be credible.

          • fiona64

            From the article: In short, Christina Maldonado and Dusten Brown had been engaged, but before they were able to get married Maldonado got pregnant. The two broke up, and Brown allegedly disclaimed his parental rights and told Maldando he would not support her or the baby financially. Maldando, with the help of a Christian adoption agency, found a South Carolina couple to adopt the baby.

            Seems pretty clear to me that he disclaimed his rights and then wanted a do-over.

            consent to a reproductive act does not carry an implied consent to reproduction? That is not only illogical, but it’s irresponsible.

            Nope. My husband and I can have sex all day long, swinging from the chandeliers. None of that implies either the desire nor the consent to me becoming pregnant. In fact, should my contraception fail, we would arrange a termination of pregnancy. This has been discussed and the decision made together. That would be the responsible decision for *us.* You do not get to decide what is or is not responsible for anyone but yourself.

            Of course, if you want to be celibate, rock on … that’s your choice. Other people do not have to.

          • SurplusMama

            You quote: ” Brown allegedly disclaimed his parental rights and told Maldando he would not support her or the baby financially.”

            You write, “Seems pretty clear to me that he disclaimed his rights and then wanted a do-over.”

            Did you miss the “allegedly” part? In his testimony (found on Scribd – labeled “Dusten Testimony”, you will find that he refutes that claim. If you search for Judge Malphrus’ bench ruling on this case you will see that she determined, ““I do not find the birth mother’s testimony credible as to any type of assistance she may have sought – – she may have sought form birth father. To the contrary, I find that it was her desire, and she made active efforts, to have no contact whatsoever with birth father and herself and birth father and the minor child prior to or after the birth of the minor child. I find it credible to believe that the birth mother so wanted to limit the contact between her and birth father that she sought out the adoption option so that birth father would have no
            reason to be in her life.”

            Obviously, under current law, you and your husband have a legal right to kill any of your children provided you do so while they’re in your body. It is the legality of that action that I, and the many like me, seek to overturn as no one should have the right to kill an innocent human being for any reason. Not becoming pregnant is being responsible for your reproductive choices. Killing your offspring is NOT being responsible for your reproductive choices.

          • fiona64

            When a news outlet writes “allegedly” in an article about an ongoing case, it is because the case has not yet reached its conclusion. I’m a former newspaper editor: my source is primary.

            The rest of your screed is just that: screed. You don’t get to decide what is or is not responsible for anyone other than yourself.

          • SurplusMama

            Your source may be primary, but the judge didn’t find her credible.

          • Valde

            Hmmm…consent to a reproductive act does not carry an implied consent
            to reproduction? That is not only illogical, but it’s irresponsible.

            Every time you drive your car you are consenting to a car accident and the injuries it entails. Therefore, you should be denied medical help, because you CONSENTED TO THE INJURY

          • SurplusMama

            Mmmm…your analogy doesn’t work, Valde. Driving is not a crashing act. The nature of driving is to transport. Every time you drive your car you ARE consenting to be transported. Therefore, should you drive your car, you should expect to go somewhere.

          • Valde

            yes, and when people consent to sex, they are consenting to sex, not pregnancy

          • SurplusMama

            You can say it all you want…it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a reproductive act. Common sense tells you that consenting to a reproductive act is consenting to reproduction.

          • Valde

            Humans aren’t animals. If the entire purpose of sex was procreation, human females would go into heat once a year, and fuck every guy on the block in order to get pregnant.

            And btw, even in times of stress, animals will spontaneously abort their offspring! Or, often, simply commit infanticide.

          • fiona64

            If the entire purpose of sex was procreation, human females would go
            into heat once a year, and fuck every guy on the block in order to get


          • Ella Warnock

            I think the disconnect here is with the intent. Is it possible? Sure. Did I do everything possible (including tubal ligation) to make sure it didn’t? Yep. It was simply never going to be, birth control failure or not. Because my HUSBAND was the one I wanted to be attached to, not a kid.

            I’m well past any of that sort of worry, but women need to start learning again about herbal birth control and abortion. It’s not an ideal situation, but at least it would fly under the radar most of the time, preserving a woman’s private reproductive decisions. And if your crew really starts going after chemical birth control and abortion, the black market will explode. Women with resources are, as usual, the demographic antis are least able to affect.

          • Valde

            And explain gay sex while you’re at it. Why do gays have sex if they cannot reproduce?

          • fiona64

            Replying over here: Myintx has apparently got her tattle-hat on; I got three warnings from LibbyAnne. So, tread gently.

          • Valde

            Ayup. Just saw. I got one warning a few days ago, Jennifer another.

            The thing is, myintx is fucking trolling, essentially. The fact that she utterly refuses to debate like an adult is rather annoying.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She says the same things over and over (and over) . And she either pretends not to understand the points I make or she simply refuses not to address them at all. It’s crazy.

          • Valde

            Yep, and all Libby Anne saw were the insults from us.

          • fiona64

            Because MY when crying to Mummy when her poor widdle feewings got hurt.

          • Valde

            Heh, some people are thanking Libby for slapping us on the wrist.

            Funny how myintx essentially gets a free pass eh? And we are the ones who get in trouble.

          • sam

            I was banned completely. :(

          • Valde




          • sam


            agreed. suckage bigtime.

          • Valde

            well wmdkitty is at least standing up for us over there:P

            she says, to libby:

            I wish you’d stepped in two weeks ago, and put a halt to myintx’s
            constant accusations of selfishness. We’ve had two and a half weeks of
            it, and I, for one, am so. damn. tired of it that I’m going to bloody
            well scream if ANYONE calls me “selfish” again.

          • Valde

            bullshit that norm has basically gotten away with nothing BUT childish insults

          • fiona64

            I’m now flagging MY every time she says “pro-death,” because Libby Anne specifically called her out for that. Two can play the game.

          • Jennifer Starr

            (((((((Hugs))))) Sam.

          • Valde

            We have to watch our step over there, and on other feminist sites.

            If you recall our chat with Alix, some folks like to play the oppression olympics:P

            Even if you don;’t think you’re doing anything wrong, you will be called out as a misogynist *simply because you use the wrong terminology*.

            I would suggest that you stop using the B word (on certain blogs). To some, it’s pure misogyny. Even though, quite clearly, you are the furthest thing from that…well, you know how people are. I think some people just look for reasons to get offended – even if the people they are upset with are on their side.

          • Valde

            Well, at least myintx did get one warning:

            Libby Anne


            3 hours ago

            myintx, you might want to reread my comment policy. Calling someone “pro-death” is a violation.

          • fiona64

            I think I’m going to take my profile private … if I can figure out how, LOL.

          • Valde

            second option from the top – edit settings – profile

            easy peasy

            unfortunately, I won’t be able to follow all of your great comments when disqus is acting up, however, it’s probably the safest thing atm

            I just made mine private again as well

          • fiona64

            Yep, I figured it out. I suspect it’s a temporary thing. :-)

          • sam

            except that was replied to by me (presumably instead of replying to myintx). I’m sad that I was banned without warning or notice, but oh well. Thanks “myintx.

          • Jennifer Starr

            ((((((((Hugs))))))))) Sam

          • sam

            thanks Jennifer <3

          • Valde

            http://www dot patheos dot com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/09/chatter-1.html#comment-1044990801

          • Valde

            Depends how she banned you.

            You could try changing your name.

            Or make a new disqus account.

            If you were banned by IP, change IP and name if that’s possible.

          • Lizzie

            good ideas! ;D

          • Valde


          • Valde

            Start flagging myintx more inflammatory comments please.

          • fiona64

            Looks like she’s coming over here to down-vote.

          • Valde


            she’s so pathetic

            don’t know if you saw my message the other day, but it was about churches receiving *federal funds* and then refusing to use that money to help feed people unless they could force religion down their throats…

            suffice to say, the government said no, you can’t do that…so the church said…fuck the poor!

          • fiona64

            I didn’t see it, no. :-/ Lovely.

          • Valde


            and mytinx is ignoring me now:P

          • fiona64

            She’s probably pissed because this article hit a little too close to home …

          • Valde

            She was ignoring me before that. She really doesn’t like being taken to task for her hypocrisy regarding IVF embryos.

            I also chose to relentlessly spam her with it – because after all, that is what she has been doing to us. /OMGWTFDEADBABIESELFISHBBQ etc

          • Valde

            http://www dot patheos dot com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/09/chatter-1.html#comment-1044990801

            get your butt over here

            everyone is complaining about my:)

          • Valde

            Help me with Carl Seaton when you get the chance. He is really starting to irritate me. Lyric says xe respects him because he doesn’t want abortoin to be illegal, however he keeps saying stupid shit like:

            1) sluts use abortion as birth control

            2) lame emotional appeals – will NOT stop talking about arms and legs being ripped off

            3) just accused me of being in the abortion industry because otherwise how would I know so much??!

            I can’t keep track of your posts so maybe you have been replying to him. Anyways, you can just check his chat history to see all the stupid shit he’s said over the last 12+ hrs

          • fiona64

            I have been replying to him, with facts and citations … but he continues to insist that women are using abortion as primary birth control. Cognitive dissonance. Uh.

          • fiona64

            We all know it’s because MY got her knickers in a twist and went whining to Libby Anne … she doesn’t like it very much when she gets a much-deserved chewing-out. Did I get out of hand with obscenities? Maybe. But I seriously got to the point where I could NOT remain civil with that nasty individual.

          • fiona64

            I’ve gone through her history and “flagged” every single comment where she used “pro-death” in that thread. Like I said, two can play the game.

          • Valde


            I went through and flagged one from 4 days ago, then stopped, there was too much bullshit to wade through!

            Oh, and I think that some people are finally beginning to realize how full of shit and inflammatory she really is: “PP is a baby killing factory” – FFS!

          • liberaldem

            No. Consenting to a sexual act is consenting to a sexual act. People engage in sex for intimacy, to express love, to be close to one another. That is why people use contraception, so that they do not have to expose themselves to potential pregnancy when they have sexual intercourse.

          • SurplusMama

            I completely agree that there are a multitude of reasons to engage in sex. I also agree that not everyone wants to have a child at the present moment so they use contraception. However, biologically speaking, regardless of intent, sexual intercourse (as opposed to the wide variety of “sex acts” available to human beings) is reproductive in nature. It’s just a biological fact. So… Since intercourse is a reproductive act AND no contraceptive is 100% effective AND killing other human beings is an inappropriate response to the hazards of a person’s recreational activity THEN one should choose wisely when and with whom they engage in said reproductive act.

          • colleen2

            No, that’s why normal women use effective contraception when we are allowed access to it. I understand that you believe the argument that no contraception is 100% effective invalidates this but the majority of women who use effective contraception strongly disagree with you and have sex for the many reasons normal, psychologically healthy women have sex. These reasons have nothing to do with reproduction.
            My suggestion to you is that you limit the times you have sex to those moments in life when you AND YOUR PARTNER want to have children and allow other women to choose their own paths without the benefit of lectures about human sexuality from someone who clearly does not understand how most people deal with being human.

            Otherwise we might see you walking around with a sign that reads “I regret my abortion” for attention rather than trolling here.

          • SurplusMama

            Colleen, I have no problem, whatsoever, with people engaging in sex for any number of reasons and I absolutely do not believe that the fact that no contraception is infallible invalidates the fact that many men and women enjoy sex for a variety of reasons. NONE OF THAT changes the fact that sex is a reproductive act and killing innocent human beings is wrong. I don’t believe that people should engage in intercourse only when they want a child, but it is simple reasonable that adults consenting to sex understand that they are always at risk of conception and that killing others that you happen to bring into the world in pursuit of your own pleasure is absolutely wrong. I certainly don’t advocate for sex only when one wants to procreate, just that people don’t expect other human beings to pay with their lives for their choice to engage in recreational sex. (Again, the fact that a participant’s intention is not reproduction does not change a reproductive act to a non-reproductive act. If it did, the abortion debate would be moot.)

            I’m hardly a troll just because I don’t agree with your opinion. As a staunch supporter of Dusten Brown and his daughter, Veronica, I was drawn to this article. The fact that someone else brought up abortion just gave opportunity for an alternative, rational perspective.

          • colleen2

            Repeating the same arguments after they have been thoroughly refuted does not make your perspective rational and it certainly does not make you less of a worthless troll.

          • Valde

            Sex also exists for social bonding. And there is nothing wrong with engaging in sex to feel closer to your special other. People shouldn’t have to have a baby every 9 months.

          • SurplusMama

            I absolutely agree that there are many other worthwhile reasons to engage in sex. Responsible people recognize it as a procreative act, however. Knowing such, one should not engage in “social bonding” with someone they don’t want to be attached to via a child for the rest of their life.

          • Valde

            Right, so you expect people to be punished, specificaly, women, for ‘mistakes’

            And btw, contraception fails. And guess what, women who have abortions 1) already have kids 2) use contraception

            So, do you expect married couples to never have sex for the rest of their lives so they can be 100% sure that they never get pregnant again?

            Don’t be stupid.

          • SurplusMama

            I don’t believe I’m being stupid, Valde. I believe I’m being quite common sensical and responsible. Yes, contraception fails. Yes, unplanned pregnancies happen. The responsible and humane decision in such an instance is NOT to kill your offspring.

            My husband are a married couple. We regularly engage in intimate relations. Should a child result from those intimate relations we have this crazy plan: raise the child.

            Children are not “punishments” – they are human beings. If one dreads them to the point that they would kill one, then one should find a different way to meet the desire for “social bonding.” There is no other recreational activity that humans engage in in which we consider it acceptable to kill another human being in the pursuit of our own pleasure. In fact, most people would find the idea of killing others so we can enjoy ourselves to be sick and wrong.

          • Valde

            Children are not “punishments” – they are human beings

            Who do not deserve to be brought into this world as punishment for engaging in non-procreative sex.

            Every child should be wanted. Unwanted children suffer.

            If one dreads them to the point that they would kill one, then one
            should find a different way to meet the desire for “social bonding.”

            People are going to have sex whether you want them to or not. Abstinence only does NOT work because sex = irresistable. The states with the highest teen pregnancy rates teach abstinence only education.

            And yes, you are a fool if you expect a couple to remain abstinent through 30-50 years of marriage as insurance that they will not be FORCED to raise more children.

          • Valde

            OH, and you are begging the question.

            A zygote is NOT a human being. It is only a potential one. You might have a point if every time people had sex they went out and shot a newborn in the head.

            BUT THEY DON’T.

    • SurplusMama

      The fly in your ointment, Brista, is that all courts who have ruled on this agree that Brown never legally relinquished his parental rights.

    • Amy Hunter

      The father did not relinquish his rights… the courts have found that he did not relinquish his right. Additionally, all children have two parents and both those parents are important and ought to have equal say.

  • SurplusMama

    ALL children, actually, should have the protections provided Native children by ICWA. Given that common sense tells us, and research has confirmed, that all children fair better in a home with a reasonably fit parent, family preservation should always be the first priority in any Foster or Adoption situation. In this case, it is quite obvious that remaining with her father is in Veronica’s best interests – and that should be primary.

  • UnethicalAdoptionWatcher

    Most folks don’t realize that there are major differences between “custody” and “parental rights” – all this business about “he signed away his parental rights!” is inaccurate. Here’s an analogy: In a divorce, one parent can have non-custodial status and pays child support to the custodial parent.This father did not “sign his parental rights away”, as is evidenced by the judge’s Bench Ruling in the underlying TPR case. What the father did was sign what he believed was a CUSTODIAL agreement with the mother whilst facing deployment – which does not relieve of of his child support obligation nor does it TPR him. What do folks think that the Capobiancos were trying to do for 27 months? They were trying to terminate the father’s PARENTAL RIGHTS involuntarily to free V for adoption. They would not have needed to do so if he had already “given up his rights”. Now, as far as the “abandonment” issue. Adoption agencies often coach bio-mothers re how to create an artificial “abandonment” claim pre- and after birth in order to later quash a father’s PARENTAL RIGHTS – cut off contact, refuse financial and other birthfather assistance, pre-place with the PAPs without notice or consent, etc. This was the situation here. As a matter of fact, this case is a textbook example of unethical adoption as well as an ABC primer on how to circumvent a father’s rights to his child.

    • http://alittleitchy.blogspot.com/ brista

      “According to Oklahoma law, there is only 90 days after birth in which a father can show his interest in paternity. If he does not do this, he loses his right to object to an adoption. He is not considered a legal parent.

      Mr. Brown exceeded that. He also exceeded the limits under South Carolina law. He admitted in the first family court – documented on the court record for all to see – that he did not, in truth, make any attempt to contact, inquire about, or provide for this baby in any way, shape or form. By the laws of both states, he had lost his right to object to an adoption. In the meantime, Matt Capobianco was there at the birth and cut the cord. THAT is the fact that the states have been ruling on.”

      • UnethicalAdoptionWatcher

        Sorry, Brista, you are wrong. Again, do you not grasp the difference between CUSTODY and PARENTAL RIGHTS? I would also like to suggest that you read the available COMPLETE testimony, as well as the following bench ruling, before making anymore assumptions: The judges finding on 9-29-2011 … “I do not find the birth mother’s testimony credible as to any type of assistance she may have sought – – she may have sought form birth father. To the contrary, I find that it was her desire, and she made active efforts, to have no contact whatsoever with birth father and herself and birth father and the minor child prior to or after the birth of the minor child. I find it credible to believe that the birth mother so wanted to limit the contact between her and birth father that she sought out the adoption option so that birth father would have no reason to be in her life.”
        “As to evidence and testimony relating to birth father agreeing to ‘sign his rights away,’ I find that birth father believed that in making this statement, all he was agreeing to was allowing birth mother to have sole custody of the child. I do not find birth mother’s testimony credible that birth father did not want to pay child support for this child.”

        Quick translation: Unethical adoption and circumvention of parental rights.

  • Jo Anna Hoffmann

    I have read ALL of the transcripts that are available – if anyone else has and still believes after what you have read that Veronica belongs with the Capobiancos – let me know. I would love to discuss it with you – in a yes or no dialogue. Thank you!

  • Patti

    This child needs to stay with her biological father. He has raised her for the past two years and took steps to take care of her when he found out what the birth mother was up to. These religious nutters seem to be trying to pollute every bit of our justice system. All because they want their way and no one should be able to get in the way.

  • Pattielaine

    The article doesn’t tell the real story. Maldonado refused to marry Brown. He wanted a family. She got pregnant to have a child and be a single parent with him giving her money to support her and the baby.

  • kym

    The situations you describe are very different. For Veronica’s father, “years” didn’t pass by before you claim he changed his mind – 4 mths after she was born (and yes, he fought for custody for another 2 yrs), and within a day after he signed a one piece of paper that he was misinformed about.

    And Veronica’s father has NEVER been accused of being an unfit father, in fact, Christy, under oath, said that he seemed like a good father.

    And retaining heritage isn’t a concern when the parent is the biofather or biomother, because they’ll be related and share their own heritage.