Oklahoma governor declines to sign warrant to extradite Dusten Brown #BABYVERONICA

press conference

Upcoming court action

Wednesday: South Carolina Family Court will hear motions from Brown and the Cherokee Nation.

Aug. 23: Deadline for Brown to contest South Carolina's order in Oklahoma court.

Sept. 4: A Cherokee tribal court will consider extending a temporary guardianship for Veronica's stepmother and grandparents, potentially claiming jurisdiction over the case.

Sept. 12: Brown to return to Sequoyah County Court for a hearing on his extradition.

Oklahoma governor declines to sign warrant to extradite Dusten Brown to South Carolina to face charge in Veronica case

• Glenn Smith
• Posted: August 14, 2013

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin declined Tuesday to act on South Carolina’s extradition warrant for Dusten Brown until the birth father of Veronica has a chance to challenge the legality of his arrest for failing to turn her over to her adoptive parents on James Island.

Fallin said she had received Gov. Nikki Haley’s signed warrant seeking Brown’s extradition to South Carolina and had spoken to her counterpart in the Palmetto State.  But Fallin said in a statement she has declined Haley’s request to sign the warrant until Brown has a chance to contest the action at a Sept. 12 court hearing in Sequoyah County, Okla.

Related Content

• Capobiancos in Oklahoma on quest to bring Veronica home, press conference set for today

“This is a difficult and sad situation for everyone involved, and Gov. Haley is working with law enforcement, the state of Oklahoma, and the family to resolve it as quickly as legally possible,” said Doug Mayer, Haley’s spokesman, by email in response. “Regardless of the varying personal opinions on this case, it is every governor’s first priority to uphold the rule of law and that is what must happen here. Both the U.S. and South Carolina Supreme Courts have spoken and the governor remains committed to returning baby Veronica back home safely.”

Brown is wanted in Charleston County on a custodial-interference charge for failing to surrender his 3-year-old daughter to Matt and Melanie Capobianco.  He surrendered to Oklahoma authorities on Monday but was quickly released on a $10,000 bond.  South Carolina authorities are now trying to get him back in custody and sent to South Carolina.

The Capobiancos, expressing frustration at the delay in reuniting with Veronica, vowed Monday to travel to Oklahoma and retrieve the little girl, whom they described as a “captive.”  Word surfaced late Tuesday that they had indeed traveled to the Sooner State and planned to hold a press conference in Tulsa this morning.

A statement from Fallin’s office said she “believes that Mr. Brown should have the opportunity to argue his case in a court of law, and she will not act on the rendition order before that date. However, the governor encourages both the Capobianco family and Mr. Brown to reach a resolution outside of court as quickly as possible.”

Read more:  HERE

Capobianco Press Conference: here

The adoption industry's ugly side Op-Ed (from NCAI)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/the-ugly-side-of-the-adoption-industry-90091.html (see more below)

Great Column on BlogHer: http://www.blogher.com/baby-veronica-growing

ALARMING!

ON TWITTER: Krista Robertson @kdrobertson

is directly connected to Jessica Munday PR agent for the Capobiancos:

http://www.trio-solutions.com/resources/articles/nonprofit_nook.html

The adoption industry’s ugly side

The authors say the adoption case to be argued is a sad example of disturbing trends. | REUTERS

By John Echohawk, Jacqueline Pata and Terry Cross

04/16/2013 

On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.  The facts of the case are straightforward:  A South Carolina couple is seeking to force Dusten Brown, an Iraq war veteran and member of the Cherokee Tribe, to give his daughter Veronica up for adoption.  Brown, who is now raising Veronica at his home in Oklahoma, has prevailed so far in every court that has considered this matter, including after a full, four-day trial by the South Carolina Family Court and in a decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Poke beneath the basic facts, though, and you will find the ugly underbelly of the American adoption business. All across this country – but especially in states that are home to multiple Native American Tribes – unethical adoption attorneys are purposely circumventing the federal law that is meant to protect Native American children. Even worse are the continuing attempts by some adoption lawyers to take advantage of active duty service members in the process of being deployed to combat, or in active deployments.

Brown’s case is a sad example of both of these disturbing trends. At its very heart, this case is about a father’s deep desire to raise his daughter, named Veronica. Veronica’s mother and Brown were engaged when she was conceived, but her mother broke off the engagement while Brown was serving in the Army and stationed at Fort Sill, Okla. Unbeknownst to Brown, his fiancé began the process of placing her child up for adoption.

In the final months of pregnancy, the mother cut off all communication with Brown and worked closely with an agency and attorney to place the child with a non-Indian couple from South Carolina, the Capobiancos. Brown was not informed of Veronica’s birth on September 15, 2009. Instead, Veronica was placed with the Capobiancos three days after her birth in Oklahoma, and they relocated her to South Carolina shortly thereafter.

Four months later, the day before Brown’s scheduled deployment to Iraq, the couple’s lawyer (who was also the lawyer for the adoption agency) finally served Brown with notice of their intent to adopt Veronica. The notice was served to Brown in the parking lot of a mall.

Immediately, Brown went to court to request a stay of the adoption until after his deployment (which, because of his military status, is provided for by federal law). He also began the legal steps to establish paternity and gain custody. He was then deployed to Iraq. Because the Capobiancos waited until just days before Brown was deployed, the adoption hearing was not completed until he returned home.

At this hearing, the South Carolina Family Court denied the Capobiancos’ petition to adopt and ordered Veronica’s transfer to her father. The court found that federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied in this case, that Brown had acknowledged and established paternity, and that an exception to ICWA called the “Existing Indian Family Exception” (EIFE) was inapplicable. Most decisively, it found that Brown had not voluntarily consented to the termination of his parental rights or the adoption.

The Capobiancos appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals to stay the transfer of custody, where they lost. They then appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which upheld the family court’s decision. Last October, they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In early January, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review.

The tragedy of this case is the failure of some of the adoption lawyers involved in that process - failures that have caused great heartache for all of the families involved. Had the adoption lawyers done their jobs from the start, the child would never have left Oklahoma.

The adoption lawyers knew from the outset that the father was Native American and that, once he learned of their plans, he intended to fight them to be able to raise his daughter. The adoption lawyers also knew from the start that ICWA would protect the rights of the father and the child.

Nonetheless, the lawyers forged ahead, ignoring the law, providing inaccurate information to Oklahoma authorities, and removing the child from the Cherokee Nation prematurely.

Brown’s cause is supported in briefs filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on behalf of the United States of America, 19 state attorneys general, current and former members of Congress, and a wide array of other groups. Many of the briefs highlight the findings of the South Carolina Family Court, which found that “the birth father is a fit and proper person to have custody of his child” who “has convinced [the Court] of his unwavering love for this child,” – findings upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, though, Brown’s case is not unique, and other fathers in his position – particularly those serving in the military – are not able to battle the adoption system in the way he has. It is time for the Congress to hold hearings and expose for all to see the tactics of lawyers who are continuing to evade the federal law designed to protect Native American families.

John Echohawk, Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund; Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians; and Terry Cross, Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare Association.