BACK UP BLOG

This blog is a backup for American Indian Adoptees blog
There might be some duplicate posts prior to 2020. I am trying to delete them when I find them. Sorry!

SURVEY FOR ALL FIRST NATIONS ADOPTEES

SURVEY FOR ALL FIRST NATIONS ADOPTEES
ADOPTEES - we are doing a COUNT

If you need support

Support Info: If you are a Survivor and need emotional support, a national crisis line is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week: Residential School Survivor Support Line: 1-866-925-4419. Additional Health Support Information: Emotional, cultural, and professional support services are also available to Survivors and their families through the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Health Support Program. Services can be accessed on an individual, family, or group basis.” These & regional support phone numbers are found at https://nctr.ca/contact/survivors/ . MY EMAIL: tracelara@pm.me

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Civil Right Complaint Filed in #BabyVeronica Dispute





Posted by Turtle Talk





Complaint here.


NCAI press release:


Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown
Statement of Support Issued by Tribal Governments and Leading Native American, Civil Rights, Child Welfare and Legal Advocates along with Arizona and New Mexico State Attorneys General to Stop Violation of “Baby Veronica’s” Civil Rights by South Carolina Courts


Washington, DC (July 31, 2013) - Today, the Native American Rights Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court in South Carolina to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts. The filing comes after the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state’s family court on July 17 and 24, calling for the removal of Veronica from her father and a transfer her to the adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest.


The lawsuit was supported in a national statement released today by a broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, adoption advocates, legal authorities, tribal governments, and Native American advocacy groups. These groups and individuals joined with the National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and National Indian Child Welfare Association in releasing the national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights, and the rights of all children, to a hearing of best interest.


The litigation was filed on behalf of Veronica, by Angel Smith, an attorney appointed as counsel for the child by the courts of the Cherokee Nation, in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and asks the Court to determine whether Veronica has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful hearing in the state courts to determine what is in her best interests. Furthermore, the litigation asserts that Veronica, as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act, has a federally protected right to have the state courts fully consider and appropriately weigh her best interests as an Indian child. Daniel E. Martin, Jr., the judge for the family court system of South Carolina, is named as the defendant in the suit.


According to the filing, Veronica “doubtless has a liberty interest in remaining with her father and such an interest justifies at a minimum a plenary hearing on her current status, her relationships with others and her genuine need for stability… Despite the finding of the family court and the implicit assumption by the Supreme Court of South Carolina that [Veronica’s] best interest would be served by being with her father, two years later the court now determines, despite the passage of time and [Veronica’s] stage of development at age four, that her ‘best’ interests will now be served by being removed from him and given back to the adoptive couple. Again, this order is without any consideration to the present circumstances, psychological and emotional well-being, and future impact on [Veronica]. This is an arbitrary result, depriving [Veronica] of any opportunity to be heard on her own behalf, irrespective of the competing interests of the adult litigants in her young life.”



Broad National Support for the Litigation


Also today, on behalf of broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, legal authorities, tribal governments and Native American advocacy groups, the National Congress of American Indians, along with the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association released a national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights to be upheld. The statement of support has been endorsed by a broad coalition of tribal governments, state and federal legal authorities including two state attorneys general – Arizona and New Mexico – civil rights institutions such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, child welfare and adoption organizations including the Child Welfare League of America, and leading national and regional Native advocacy organizations representing the interests of almost every tribe located within the United States (see full list below).


According to the letter:


[T]he rights promised to our children are being compromised in the courts of the State of South Carolina … The recent [South Carolina Supreme Court] ruling in the case denies the basic fundamental right of an almost four-year-old Indian child to a hearing of her ‘best interests’ before removing her from her biological father after almost two years of child-rearing, bonding and establishing a loving home environment. Plainly stated, this is a denial of Veronica’s human rights and constitutional rights to due process as a citizen of the United States.


The following organizations and individuals have signed on to the letter of support for the civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of Veronica: Read more of this post



Civil Right Complaint Filed in #BabyVeronica Dispute

Posted by Turtle Talk

Complaint here.
NCAI press release:
Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown
Statement of Support Issued by Tribal Governments and Leading Native American, Civil Rights, Child Welfare and Legal Advocates along with Arizona and New Mexico State Attorneys General to Stop Violation of “Baby Veronica’s” Civil Rights by South Carolina Courts
Washington, DC (July 31, 2013) - Today, the Native American Rights Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court in South Carolina to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts. The filing comes after the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state’s family court on July 17 and 24, calling for the removal of Veronica from her father and a transfer her to the adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest.
The lawsuit was supported in a national statement released today by a broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, adoption advocates, legal authorities, tribal governments, and Native American advocacy groups. These groups and individuals joined with the National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and National Indian Child Welfare Association in releasing the national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights, and the rights of all children, to a hearing of best interest.
The litigation was filed on behalf of Veronica, by Angel Smith, an attorney appointed as counsel for the child by the courts of the Cherokee Nation, in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and asks the Court to determine whether Veronica has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful hearing in the state courts to determine what is in her best interests. Furthermore, the litigation asserts that Veronica, as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act, has a federally protected right to have the state courts fully consider and appropriately weigh her best interests as an Indian child. Daniel E. Martin, Jr., the judge for the family court system of South Carolina, is named as the defendant in the suit.
According to the filing, Veronica “doubtless has a liberty interest in remaining with her father and such an interest justifies at a minimum a plenary hearing on her current status, her relationships with others and her genuine need for stability… Despite the finding of the family court and the implicit assumption by the Supreme Court of South Carolina that [Veronica’s] best interest would be served by being with her father, two years later the court now determines, despite the passage of time and [Veronica’s] stage of development at age four, that her ‘best’ interests will now be served by being removed from him and given back to the adoptive couple. Again, this order is without any consideration to the present circumstances, psychological and emotional well-being, and future impact on [Veronica]. This is an arbitrary result, depriving [Veronica] of any opportunity to be heard on her own behalf, irrespective of the competing interests of the adult litigants in her young life.”
Broad National Support for the Litigation
Also today, on behalf of broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, legal authorities, tribal governments and Native American advocacy groups, the National Congress of American Indians, along with the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association released a national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights to be upheld. The statement of support has been endorsed by a broad coalition of tribal governments, state and federal legal authorities including two state attorneys general – Arizona and New Mexico – civil rights institutions such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, child welfare and adoption organizations including the Child Welfare League of America, and leading national and regional Native advocacy organizations representing the interests of almost every tribe located within the United States (see full list below).
According to the letter:
[T]he rights promised to our children are being compromised in the courts of the State of South Carolina … The recent [South Carolina Supreme Court] ruling in the case denies the basic fundamental right of an almost four-year-old Indian child to a hearing of her ‘best interests’ before removing her from her biological father after almost two years of child-rearing, bonding and establishing a loving home environment. Plainly stated, this is a denial of Veronica’s human rights and constitutional rights to due process as a citizen of the United States.
The following organizations and individuals have signed on to the letter of support for the civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of Veronica: Read more of this post

Civil Right Complaint Filed in #BabyVeronica Dispute

Posted by Turtle Talk

Complaint here.
NCAI press release:
Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown
Statement of Support Issued by Tribal Governments and Leading Native American, Civil Rights, Child Welfare and Legal Advocates along with Arizona and New Mexico State Attorneys General to Stop Violation of “Baby Veronica’s” Civil Rights by South Carolina Courts
Washington, DC (July 31, 2013) - Today, the Native American Rights Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court in South Carolina to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts. The filing comes after the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state’s family court on July 17 and 24, calling for the removal of Veronica from her father and a transfer her to the adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest.
The lawsuit was supported in a national statement released today by a broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, adoption advocates, legal authorities, tribal governments, and Native American advocacy groups. These groups and individuals joined with the National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and National Indian Child Welfare Association in releasing the national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights, and the rights of all children, to a hearing of best interest.
The litigation was filed on behalf of Veronica, by Angel Smith, an attorney appointed as counsel for the child by the courts of the Cherokee Nation, in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and asks the Court to determine whether Veronica has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful hearing in the state courts to determine what is in her best interests. Furthermore, the litigation asserts that Veronica, as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act, has a federally protected right to have the state courts fully consider and appropriately weigh her best interests as an Indian child. Daniel E. Martin, Jr., the judge for the family court system of South Carolina, is named as the defendant in the suit.
According to the filing, Veronica “doubtless has a liberty interest in remaining with her father and such an interest justifies at a minimum a plenary hearing on her current status, her relationships with others and her genuine need for stability… Despite the finding of the family court and the implicit assumption by the Supreme Court of South Carolina that [Veronica’s] best interest would be served by being with her father, two years later the court now determines, despite the passage of time and [Veronica’s] stage of development at age four, that her ‘best’ interests will now be served by being removed from him and given back to the adoptive couple. Again, this order is without any consideration to the present circumstances, psychological and emotional well-being, and future impact on [Veronica]. This is an arbitrary result, depriving [Veronica] of any opportunity to be heard on her own behalf, irrespective of the competing interests of the adult litigants in her young life.”
Broad National Support for the Litigation
Also today, on behalf of broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, legal authorities, tribal governments and Native American advocacy groups, the National Congress of American Indians, along with the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association released a national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights to be upheld. The statement of support has been endorsed by a broad coalition of tribal governments, state and federal legal authorities including two state attorneys general – Arizona and New Mexico – civil rights institutions such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, child welfare and adoption organizations including the Child Welfare League of America, and leading national and regional Native advocacy organizations representing the interests of almost every tribe located within the United States (see full list below).
According to the letter:
[T]he rights promised to our children are being compromised in the courts of the State of South Carolina … The recent [South Carolina Supreme Court] ruling in the case denies the basic fundamental right of an almost four-year-old Indian child to a hearing of her ‘best interests’ before removing her from her biological father after almost two years of child-rearing, bonding and establishing a loving home environment. Plainly stated, this is a denial of Veronica’s human rights and constitutional rights to due process as a citizen of the United States.
The following organizations and individuals have signed on to the letter of support for the civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of Veronica: Read more of this post

Civil Right Complaint Filed in #BabyVeronica Dispute

Posted by Turtle Talk

Complaint here.
NCAI press release:
Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown
Statement of Support Issued by Tribal Governments and Leading Native American, Civil Rights, Child Welfare and Legal Advocates along with Arizona and New Mexico State Attorneys General to Stop Violation of “Baby Veronica’s” Civil Rights by South Carolina Courts
Washington, DC (July 31, 2013) - Today, the Native American Rights Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court in South Carolina to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts. The filing comes after the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state’s family court on July 17 and 24, calling for the removal of Veronica from her father and a transfer her to the adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest.
The lawsuit was supported in a national statement released today by a broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, adoption advocates, legal authorities, tribal governments, and Native American advocacy groups. These groups and individuals joined with the National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and National Indian Child Welfare Association in releasing the national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights, and the rights of all children, to a hearing of best interest.
The litigation was filed on behalf of Veronica, by Angel Smith, an attorney appointed as counsel for the child by the courts of the Cherokee Nation, in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and asks the Court to determine whether Veronica has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful hearing in the state courts to determine what is in her best interests. Furthermore, the litigation asserts that Veronica, as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act, has a federally protected right to have the state courts fully consider and appropriately weigh her best interests as an Indian child. Daniel E. Martin, Jr., the judge for the family court system of South Carolina, is named as the defendant in the suit.
According to the filing, Veronica “doubtless has a liberty interest in remaining with her father and such an interest justifies at a minimum a plenary hearing on her current status, her relationships with others and her genuine need for stability… Despite the finding of the family court and the implicit assumption by the Supreme Court of South Carolina that [Veronica’s] best interest would be served by being with her father, two years later the court now determines, despite the passage of time and [Veronica’s] stage of development at age four, that her ‘best’ interests will now be served by being removed from him and given back to the adoptive couple. Again, this order is without any consideration to the present circumstances, psychological and emotional well-being, and future impact on [Veronica]. This is an arbitrary result, depriving [Veronica] of any opportunity to be heard on her own behalf, irrespective of the competing interests of the adult litigants in her young life.”
Broad National Support for the Litigation
Also today, on behalf of broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, legal authorities, tribal governments and Native American advocacy groups, the National Congress of American Indians, along with the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association released a national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights to be upheld. The statement of support has been endorsed by a broad coalition of tribal governments, state and federal legal authorities including two state attorneys general – Arizona and New Mexico – civil rights institutions such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, child welfare and adoption organizations including the Child Welfare League of America, and leading national and regional Native advocacy organizations representing the interests of almost every tribe located within the United States (see full list below).
According to the letter:
[T]he rights promised to our children are being compromised in the courts of the State of South Carolina … The recent [South Carolina Supreme Court] ruling in the case denies the basic fundamental right of an almost four-year-old Indian child to a hearing of her ‘best interests’ before removing her from her biological father after almost two years of child-rearing, bonding and establishing a loving home environment. Plainly stated, this is a denial of Veronica’s human rights and constitutional rights to due process as a citizen of the United States.
The following organizations and individuals have signed on to the letter of support for the civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of Veronica: Read more of this post

Civil Right Complaint Filed in #BabyVeronica Dispute

Posted by Turtle Talk

Complaint here.
NCAI press release:
Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown
Statement of Support Issued by Tribal Governments and Leading Native American, Civil Rights, Child Welfare and Legal Advocates along with Arizona and New Mexico State Attorneys General to Stop Violation of “Baby Veronica’s” Civil Rights by South Carolina Courts
Washington, DC (July 31, 2013) - Today, the Native American Rights Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court in South Carolina to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts. The filing comes after the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state’s family court on July 17 and 24, calling for the removal of Veronica from her father and a transfer her to the adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest.
The lawsuit was supported in a national statement released today by a broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, adoption advocates, legal authorities, tribal governments, and Native American advocacy groups. These groups and individuals joined with the National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and National Indian Child Welfare Association in releasing the national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights, and the rights of all children, to a hearing of best interest.
The litigation was filed on behalf of Veronica, by Angel Smith, an attorney appointed as counsel for the child by the courts of the Cherokee Nation, in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and asks the Court to determine whether Veronica has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful hearing in the state courts to determine what is in her best interests. Furthermore, the litigation asserts that Veronica, as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act, has a federally protected right to have the state courts fully consider and appropriately weigh her best interests as an Indian child. Daniel E. Martin, Jr., the judge for the family court system of South Carolina, is named as the defendant in the suit.
According to the filing, Veronica “doubtless has a liberty interest in remaining with her father and such an interest justifies at a minimum a plenary hearing on her current status, her relationships with others and her genuine need for stability… Despite the finding of the family court and the implicit assumption by the Supreme Court of South Carolina that [Veronica’s] best interest would be served by being with her father, two years later the court now determines, despite the passage of time and [Veronica’s] stage of development at age four, that her ‘best’ interests will now be served by being removed from him and given back to the adoptive couple. Again, this order is without any consideration to the present circumstances, psychological and emotional well-being, and future impact on [Veronica]. This is an arbitrary result, depriving [Veronica] of any opportunity to be heard on her own behalf, irrespective of the competing interests of the adult litigants in her young life.”
Broad National Support for the Litigation
Also today, on behalf of broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, legal authorities, tribal governments and Native American advocacy groups, the National Congress of American Indians, along with the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association released a national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights to be upheld. The statement of support has been endorsed by a broad coalition of tribal governments, state and federal legal authorities including two state attorneys general – Arizona and New Mexico – civil rights institutions such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, child welfare and adoption organizations including the Child Welfare League of America, and leading national and regional Native advocacy organizations representing the interests of almost every tribe located within the United States (see full list below).
According to the letter:
[T]he rights promised to our children are being compromised in the courts of the State of South Carolina … The recent [South Carolina Supreme Court] ruling in the case denies the basic fundamental right of an almost four-year-old Indian child to a hearing of her ‘best interests’ before removing her from her biological father after almost two years of child-rearing, bonding and establishing a loving home environment. Plainly stated, this is a denial of Veronica’s human rights and constitutional rights to due process as a citizen of the United States.
The following organizations and individuals have signed on to the letter of support for the civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of Veronica: Read more of this post

Civil Right Complaint Filed in #BabyVeronica Dispute

Posted by Turtle Talk

Complaint here.
NCAI press release:
Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Veronica Brown
Statement of Support Issued by Tribal Governments and Leading Native American, Civil Rights, Child Welfare and Legal Advocates along with Arizona and New Mexico State Attorneys General to Stop Violation of “Baby Veronica’s” Civil Rights by South Carolina Courts
Washington, DC (July 31, 2013) - Today, the Native American Rights Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court in South Carolina to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts. The filing comes after the South Carolina Supreme Court issued two controversial orders to the state’s family court on July 17 and 24, calling for the removal of Veronica from her father and a transfer her to the adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest.
The lawsuit was supported in a national statement released today by a broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, adoption advocates, legal authorities, tribal governments, and Native American advocacy groups. These groups and individuals joined with the National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and National Indian Child Welfare Association in releasing the national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights, and the rights of all children, to a hearing of best interest.
The litigation was filed on behalf of Veronica, by Angel Smith, an attorney appointed as counsel for the child by the courts of the Cherokee Nation, in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and asks the Court to determine whether Veronica has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful hearing in the state courts to determine what is in her best interests. Furthermore, the litigation asserts that Veronica, as an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act, has a federally protected right to have the state courts fully consider and appropriately weigh her best interests as an Indian child. Daniel E. Martin, Jr., the judge for the family court system of South Carolina, is named as the defendant in the suit.
According to the filing, Veronica “doubtless has a liberty interest in remaining with her father and such an interest justifies at a minimum a plenary hearing on her current status, her relationships with others and her genuine need for stability… Despite the finding of the family court and the implicit assumption by the Supreme Court of South Carolina that [Veronica’s] best interest would be served by being with her father, two years later the court now determines, despite the passage of time and [Veronica’s] stage of development at age four, that her ‘best’ interests will now be served by being removed from him and given back to the adoptive couple. Again, this order is without any consideration to the present circumstances, psychological and emotional well-being, and future impact on [Veronica]. This is an arbitrary result, depriving [Veronica] of any opportunity to be heard on her own behalf, irrespective of the competing interests of the adult litigants in her young life.”
Broad National Support for the Litigation
Also today, on behalf of broad coalition of civil rights, child welfare, legal authorities, tribal governments and Native American advocacy groups, the National Congress of American Indians, along with the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association released a national statement of support for Veronica’s civil rights to be upheld. The statement of support has been endorsed by a broad coalition of tribal governments, state and federal legal authorities including two state attorneys general – Arizona and New Mexico – civil rights institutions such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, child welfare and adoption organizations including the Child Welfare League of America, and leading national and regional Native advocacy organizations representing the interests of almost every tribe located within the United States (see full list below).
According to the letter:
[T]he rights promised to our children are being compromised in the courts of the State of South Carolina … The recent [South Carolina Supreme Court] ruling in the case denies the basic fundamental right of an almost four-year-old Indian child to a hearing of her ‘best interests’ before removing her from her biological father after almost two years of child-rearing, bonding and establishing a loving home environment. Plainly stated, this is a denial of Veronica’s human rights and constitutional rights to due process as a citizen of the United States.
The following organizations and individuals have signed on to the letter of support for the civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of Veronica: Read more of this post

New Roundtable: Will Veronica Become the Next Lost Daughter?

With Sad Hearts, the Lost Daughters Welcome Baby Girl Veronica to the Tribe
Posted: 30 Jul 2013
As Lost Daughters of adoption, we've been following the heart-breaking legal progress of the case(s) to decide who has parental rights over Veronica. We've tried to put aside the emotional triggers that this case is bringing up in our adoptee hearts and have added our voices to the conversation.
Our voice may very well be joined by "Baby" Veronica's ... in about fourteen years, or so.
Here's great resource for those who want to catch-up, thanks to the National Indian Child Welfare Association.  

How adoptee rights are related to the Baby Veronica case

Samantha Franklin-- As an reunited OK adoptee and advocate for adoptee rights to their original birth certificates, this case is very close to my heart. I have attended open hearings at our state Capitol during an "Adoption Review Task Force" (on which NO adult adoptees were appointed). Around the table were adoption agency "professionals" who spent the entire time arguing the point that legislators should NOT put a cap on "expenses and fees" charged in adoptions in OK. They were very concerned that potential "birthmothers" would not see OK as "adoption friendly" if lawmakers put more ethical laws in place. It was physically sickening to be at these public hearings and realize the complete truth that adoption agencies are truly businesses that profit from adoption and are concerned about supplying the demand for their consumers who are willing to pay top dollar for a baby. This was a series of meetings over two years, held mainly because of an OK Supreme Court ruling over an adoption attorney who charged thousands of dollars for an adoption which was contested and reviewed. It seemed as if the legislators became weary of the constant discussion from the "professionals" in adoption. Finally, at the last meeting (after two years of sitting and listening, without voices not being heard), did they "address" the issue of adult adoptees obtaining their original birth certificates in adulthood. It was determined, and I quote, by a legislator, after hearing testimony from the same adoption agency "professionals" WHY the law didn't need to be changed, "if it ain't broke, why fix it."
Well, Mr. Legislators, the Baby Veronica case and so many other states passing legislation restoring the identity rights of adoptees only serve to prove that it IS broken, and we need to fix it. We need to remove the money in adoption. "Counseling" provided by adoption agencies is a conflict of interest. Adoptees are not commodities. We are not perpetual children. We deserve human rights.
 

What can be done to guard paternal rights?

Julie Stromberg -- This case is weighing on my heart as well, Sam. My father and paternal grandparents fought Catholic Charities to stop my adoption. They wanted to raise and keep me. Fathers had no rights at all to raise their own children back in 1971. Apparently, not much has changed since then. This saddens me.

Veronica is not a child in need. She is being raised by the father and family who created her. She should have a right to be raised by her own family. Allowing her adoption to go through will legally erase her origins through the falsifying of her birth certificate. And open adoption agreements are not legally enforceable. So she will not be guaranteed continued contact with her father and paternal family. The Capobiancos will hold all of the legal control over both Veronica and her father should the adoption be finalized.

If this adoption goes through, Veronica will be a Lost Daughter, just like all of us.

Samantha -- Hugs to you Julie, I'm so sorry you were separated from your father and his family. My heart is so heavy over these issues and the fact that "popular" opinion is so swayed towards stranger adoption.
Karen Pickell -- It is physically difficult for me to spend too much time reading all the articles that have been written about the Baby Veronica case, especially the most recent developments which point toward this child unnecessarily being taken away from her own biological family. I am not overstating my reaction; my body literally hurts when I read about this. Why? Because I know firsthand the struggles Veronica will go through having been disconnected from her biological relatives and forced to live with strangers. I know firsthand all the questions she will have about who she is and why she couldn’t have stayed with her own family.

Even worse, I know that one day in the not-too-distant future, she will be able to read and hear and watch all the media coverage about her life, and she will understand very clearly what has happened. Even worse than knowing her mother did not want to keep her, Veronica will know that her own mother basically sold her to strangers. She will know that her own mother preferred that she be torn away from her father to be raised by strangers. Veronica will know that her mother tried to dismantle a law designed to protect Native American children from being stripped of their cultural heritage, that her own mother did not care that Veronica herself is Native American—that her own mother did not think about how striking a blow against the Native American community is the equivalent of striking Veronica.

This case is worse than the ugliest divorce. The Capobiancos should have backed off a long time ago, when it became abundantly clear that Dusten Brown never intended for his daughter to be adopted out to strangers and when it became abundantly clear that he is, in fact, a perfectly fit parent for Veronica, more fit than the Capobiancos will ever be now that they’ve made it obvious that they do not care about the bond between this child and her biological family. At this point, I honestly do not care about the Capobiancos’ emotional distress over this case, nor do I care about the money or time they’ve put into their fight to take this child. And I do hope they read this, because they need to hear how adult adoptees feel about what they are doing. If they do end up raising Veronica, she herself will be an adult adoptee one day, a lost daughter, one of us. Do they think she’ll be grateful that they stole her away from her father? Do they think she’ll thank them for purchasing her from Christy Maldonado? Think again.

Many people are saying that Dusten Brown turned his back on Veronica and then changed his mind. Many versions are circulating of what supposedly took place during Maldonado’s pregnancy and during the first four months of Veronica’s life. I don’t know any of the parties involved. I don’t know exactly how it all went down. What I do know is that Dusten Brown is a father who wants to raise his daughter, and the Capobiancos, along with Christy Maldonado, are trying as hard as they can to keep him from doing so. As an adopted person and on behalf of Veronica, I ask why? Why would anyone work so hard to keep a child from her own father?
Deanna Doss Shrodes -- I am grieved in my spirit about this case. Dusten Brown is a perfectly fit father and WANTS to raise his daughter. Why is this case even being debated? Adoption should take place only when there is absolutely no other option of a child being raised in their original family. And in fact, Veronica's adoption has not even taken place! The child is not even adopted YET, and still, she has (at the present) been placed with the Capobiancos. So, a father comes forward BEFORE an adoption takes place, declaring his intentions to raise his daughter and she is...placed for adoption anyway?

So basically... Veronica will have to deal with a plethora of post-adoption issues that she would not have to deal with, all because the Capobiancos have made an investment?

Their emotional distress or financial investment is of no consequence in comparison to a child who will now have to face identity issues and much more than could have all been avoided had they just done the right thing.'
Lynn Grubb -- My sisters before me have clearly spelled out the issues in this sad case. I fear that this case is setting a legal precedent that fathers (still) have inferior legal rights in this country. This case shows (again) that money is more important than children's rights.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is designed to protect Native American children. I think it is very telling that Christy Maldanado is suing to remove this law. She clearly has no respect for the ICWA, Native Americans and the father of her child. I believe she is on a power trip and has clearly lost sight that her child is drowning while she is grasping the media spotlight.

I believe the legal team behind Maldonado and the Capobiancos intended to bypass the ICWA and Dusten's legal rights and got caught. Dusten represents the inferior way we treat fathers in this country. How many other Veronicas will have to be passed back and forth before the Courts make a clear decision about father's rights? As my husband says, fathers are important only when they open their wallets. And when they do, they get every other weekend visits.

The ICWA should not be abolished and in fact, there should be sanctions and disbarring of attorneys who attempt to get around the laws in the first place.
Julie Stromberg-- I, too, believe that the legal representatives for Maldonado and the Capobiancos attempted to bypass Brown's rights as both a father and Native man. There is such a double standard in this country when it comes to adoption. Society chastises fathers who don't step up to help raise their children--unless the mother wants to place the child for adoption. Then society expects the father to ride off into the sunset. We have reached a point in this country when every sexually active adult male should register with the putative father registries in states that have them and prepare a legal document stating that they intend to raise any child they create--before engaging in sexual activity with any woman.

I am having a really difficult time garnering any sort of sympathy for the Capobiancos at this point. While I understand that yes, Maldonado selected them and took $10k plus medical expenses from them in return for Veronica (society does not view this as buying a child, of course), they were aware of the issues surrounding Brown. And they opted to protect their "investment" instead of considering that rights of both Veronica and her father.

Clearly, they are not fighting to take possession of Veronica because they want to adopt a child in need. Veronica is not in need. So I can only assume that the Capobiancos are desperately clinging to the belief that Veronica somehow "belongs" to them because they paid Maldonado thousands and thousands of dollars for her. To be blunt, it seems to me that they paid their money and they want the merchandise. The fact that Veronica's father is willing, able and fit to raise his own child is of no concern to the Capobiancos.

I recently read a blog post written by an adoptive parent who wondered how the Capobiancos will look Veronica in the eye during the years to come and say "we fought hard to take you from your father, who wanted to keep you."

I am wondering the same thing.
Deanna -- Veronica's case IS part of a much larger problem in society -- the blatant disrespect of fathers and their rights.

From the very beginning, Maldanado decided what would happen with absolutely no regard for Dusten Brown --the father of the child they BOTH created.

Society at large seems to not care about Brown because they thought it was Maldonado who had the right to make the exclusive decisions regarding this child's fate from the very beginning.

People tend to believe in SOME rights for fathers, but definitely not equal ones. If we as a society believed in equal rights for fathers they would be equal from the get-go.
Karen Pickell -- I wholeheartedly agree with you all on the issue of fathers' rights. It takes two to create a child. If I'm not mistaken, every one of us participating in this roundtable is a mother as well as an adoptee. We are all women who know what it means to give birth to a child. However, we also know how important our children's fathers are in their lives, and how much our own biological fathers mean to us. Some of us have taken considerable effort to reunite with our birth fathers. Others of us are still searching, still hoping to resolve that missing connection. Veronica should not have to experience this type of loss in order to satisfy the needs of the Capobiancos.

I know Julie has said this, but I'm going to say it again: Veronica is not a child who needs to be adopted, and adoption should be about a child's needs, not about the needs of adults who want a child.
Deanna -- Karen, you bring up an excellent point. As one who is searching for my biological father, I cannot even fathom finding him and being told that he wanted me and fought to raise me but some strangers who had not even legally adopted me yet, prevented him from doing so. Quite honestly, it would slay me. I hope the Capobiancos aren't just saving for college but for long term therapy.
Julie Stromberg -- Absolutely, Deanna. This whole ordeal is all about what some people want instead of what Veronica needs. The Capobiancos do not need to raise Veronica. And Veronica does not need them to raise her. She is happy and thriving with her own father and within her family of origin. This is exactly what Veronica needs.

My father and paternal grandparents wanted me. They fought to keep and raise me. My adoptive parents, however, didn't know this. They were in no way responsible for me not being raised by my own family. This will not be the case for Veronica. She will know that the people raising her purposely fought to take her away from her father and paternal family. I can only begin to imagine the sense of hurt and betrayal Veronica might feel one day when she is able to fully process what happened to her.

In order for an adoption to occur, something bad must happen first. A child must lose his or her first parents. Adoption or not, Veronica will already have to process the fact that her mother did not want to raise her and the sense of loss that comes with it. As adopted women ourselves, we know how difficult this can be. And if the Capobiancos get their way, Veronica will then have to process the fact that she lost her father because of the people who are feeding her and putting a roof over her head. It disgusts me that these adults are knowingly and willingly fighting to put a child through all of this.

They can't say they didn't know how it might affect Veronica. Right here at Lost Daughters, they have access to several of Veronica's adult counterparts who are expressing exactly what this adoption would put Veronica through. Will they listen? Will they consider what we have to say as adult adopted women? Or will they continue to allow their wanting of Veronica to overshadow the reality of what they are doing?
Deanna -- Love "does not demand it's own way..." I Corinthians 13:5 (NLT)

Love is not possession.
Julie J -- The default setting should ALWAYS be with family. Family should never have to prove they are better than any random stranger. Adoption should never be on the table for any child as long as they have family willing & capable of raising them as this child clearly does. Family members are not interchangeable. There are beneficial, intangible factors of being with your own people that will always outweigh alternatives. That's what's not being acknowledged or respected in this case. I am saddened that laws that were set up to protect children from exactly these types of scenarios were blatantly ignored. The Capobiancos are not her parents. They are nothing more than child consumers, more concerned with themselves than Veronica.

Really listening to us may involve arriving at the conclusions that there are good reasons to prioritize the preservation of families first, and that adoption should be avoided whenever unnecessary. Some adults simply cannot consider that being subjected to an unnecessary adoption and losing one's family, heritage, & identity could have adverse effects on us because they don't see anything undesirable about adoption at all. To listen to our voices on this would mean them having to re-examine their own beliefs and values. Some adults simply cannot go there when it comes to the sacred cow of adoption.

Yes, we may expect Veronica to join our ranks in the future when she finds her own voice on this matter. I wish she didn't have to lose her family again. I wish all the Veronicas could stay with their own families who love them & want them. How many more Veronicas must experience this so that legal & genetic strangers get to experience "parenthood"? We are witnessing an example of pro-adoption over pro-child.

Monday, July 29, 2013

“Baby Veronica” case back at the Court (UPDATED)

UPDATED Monday 11:30 a.m.  The Chief Justice has called for a response to the application; it is to be filed by 2 p.m. on Friday of this week.
——————-
The birth father of the little girl known as “Baby Veronica,” seeing a potential opening in the Supreme Court decision that he lost a month ago, has asked the Court to put on hold a decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that would promptly move the child to live with a couple who would adopt her.  In the application (Birth Father v. Adoptive Couple, docket 13A115), the father — a member of the Cherokee Nation tribe — said he plans a swift appeal of that ruling.

Although the case continues, in the legal filings, to use anonymous names, the father is Dusten Brown of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and the non-Indian couple that has been awarded custody and an adoption right are Matt and Melanie Capobianco, who live near Charleston, South Carolina.  The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that “Baby Girl,” her litigation name, is to become a part of the Capobianco family as soon as arrangements can be made; she has been living with her father since December 2011.  She will be four years old in September.
In a five-to-four decision on June 25, in the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Court ruled that a federal law governing custody for Indian children did not protect Brown from having his parental rights ended.  The state supreme court, which earlier had ruled in the father’s favor under the federal law, interpreted the Adoptive Couple ruling as clearing the way for it to decide on the adoption issue itself, to bring an early end to the legal fight.
While the June 25 decision went decidedly against the legal claims that Brown had made, in his new plea to delay the state court ruling while he pursues an appeal, Brown’s lawyers argued that opinions by Justice Stephen G. Breyer — who joined the majority opinion with some qualifications — and by the four dissenting Justices provided an opening for him to pursue a new claim to the child’s custody.
According to the application, both the Breyer and Sotomayor (dissenting) opinions, the state court would have an opportunity when the case returned to it to consider possible adoption by others in Brown’s family, and an opportunity especially to consider — on the basis of current conditions for the child — what would be in the best interests of “Baby Veronica.”
The application argued that, while the latest ruling by the state court said it was ruling that it was in the child’s best interests to have her adopted by the Capobiancos, that perception could not have been based on current conditions.   The child has lived with her father for nineteen months, the application noted.
Brown’s mother and father — the child’s Cherokee grandparents — and Brown’s wife have sought to adopt the child, to help assure that she continues in a Cherokee family.  The state court, however, said that the only persons seeking custody of the child before the state courts were the Capobiancos.
Brown and his wife, have filed for adoption of the child in an Oklahoma state court, and a Cherokee tribal court has issued an order granting joint legal custody to Brown’s parents and to his wife.   After that, Brown renewed his attempts in the South Carolina Supreme Court to seek custody, but the state court rejected all such efforts and ordered a transfer of the child to the Capobiancos as soon as that can be worked out by a family court in South Carolina.
The application for a postponement of that order was filed with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who handles emergency legal matters from the geographic Fourth Circuit area, which includes South Carolina.   The Chief Justice has the option of acting on his own on the application, or of sharing it with his colleagues.
Meanwhile, news stories have recounted that the child’s birth mother, identified as Christy Maldonado, who chose the Capobiancos as the preferred adoptive couple, has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, challenging parts of the federal Indian child law on which the Supreme Court based its June 25 decision.   Ms Maldonado lives in Oklahoma.

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, “Baby Veronica” case back at the Court (UPDATED), SCOTUSblog (Jul. 26, 2013, 4:11 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/baby-veronica-case-back-at-the-court/

CT Adult Adoptees want access to OBC

By MICHELLE GOLLADAY , The Connecticut Law Tribune , July 26, 2013
"Who am I?" "Why am I?" These are two basic questions human beings ask themselves upon growing older—especially when one's birth parents are not the same as the parents he or she grew up with.
For now, in Connecticut, it's nearly impossible for some people to find answers. Adults who were adopted when they were children don't have access to their true birth certificates. Now, an organization that includes a handful of lawyers, and a legislator with a J.D. degree, are advocating for a law change that would lift that restriction.
Access to birth certificates would not only identify a person's birth parents and connect them to other blood relatives, but it would also allow them to find out about possible genetic probems and address and anticipate possible health issues.
"To cut a human being off from their genetic heritage is insane," said lawyer and psychotherapist Karen Caffrey, who has a counseling practice in West Hartford. "We have to correct this inequality and injustice to Connecticut citizens, just like we did for women voters years ago."
Caffrey and other advocates are members of a group called Access Connecticut, which is lobbying for a change in the law.
Working alongside Connecticut's movement is state Representative David Alexander, an Enfield Democrat, an adoptee and a member of the legislature's Public Health Committee. He plans to try to push a bill through the committee in the 2014 legislative session that would allow adult adoptees to receive both of their birth certificates.
"I am a captain of the Marine Corps, and initially when I joined, I had to obtain and produce my birth certificate," said Alexander, who graduated from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 2006. "My original [birth certificate] existed, it was there in the government office, and the town clerk was like, 'I'm sorry, I can see it, but you can't.'"
Alexander said he has lined up several co-sponsors, and if the measure passes the Public Health Committee, it will be forwarded to the Judiciary Committee. The bill would allow adoptees over the age of 18, and who were adopted after 1983, to get their birth certificates. "It's weird that the government and the state have complete acccess to this document, said Alexander, and the adult adoptee does not.
Two Certificates
For most people, obtaining a birth certificate is as easy as visiting a government office in the state of birth upon turning 18 years old. For those same people, there is only one birth certificate to obtain—the original documentation of birth.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill

Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name








Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!

Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill





Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name

















Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!



Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill

Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name








Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!

Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill

Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name








Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!

Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill

Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name
Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!

Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill

Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name
Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!

Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill

Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name
Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!

Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

An interview with Rhonda Noonan-Churchill

Adoptee Rhonda Noonan Churchill, author of The Fifth and Final Name
Please check out my other blog: www.larahentz.wordpress.com to read an amazing interview with adoptee Rhonda Noonan-Churchill, the author of "The Fifth and Final Name." I interviewed Rhonda about her new memoir which is full of mystery and intrigue as she searches to find her birth family. The famous name Churchill is a hint!

Visit Rhonda at her website: www.TheFifthandFinalName.com.  Her new book (ISBN: 978-0-9886597-0-4, Chumbolly Press) is available online (at Amazon.com) and in other fine bookstores.

CLICK OLDER POSTS (above) to see more news

CLICK OLDER POSTS  (above) to see more news

BOOKSHOP

Please use BOOKSHOP to buy our titles. We will not be posting links to Amazon.

Featured Post

Does adopting make people high? #WonderDrug

reblog from 2013 By Trace A. DeMeyer  Hentz I’ve been reading blogs by Christian folks who saved an orphan and plan to do it again.   Appar...

Popular Posts

To Veronica Brown

Veronica, we adult adoptees are thinking of you today and every day. We will be here when you need us. Your journey in the adopted life has begun, nothing can revoke that now, the damage cannot be undone. Be courageous, you have what no adoptee before you has had; a strong group of adult adoptees who know your story, who are behind you and will always be so.

OUR HISTORY

OUR HISTORY
BOOK 5: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects