ICWA law at center of adoption controversy

Had Dusten decided to be a good father to begin with we also would not be here arguing this.

Had the Law been followed we would not be arguing this. Someone dropped the ball on this attempted adoption.

Thank God there are so many people now who can see the truth and the injustice of what has happened to this little girl - as well as the fact this kind of thing is happening to many, many children every year. I pray the attention on this will mean this horrid law will be changed and the best interest of children will be held more important than the best interest of tribal government. My husband was 100% Minn. Chippewa - and didn't want his children under the jurisdiction of tribal government. He lobbied Congress for years to change ICWA - but died of cancer without seeing it happen. Too many in Congress are too afraid to touch this law. PLEASE - write your Congressmen and push them to do something to protect the children! US Citizens should have the right to choose whether they want to be involved with the reservation system.

Cherokee citizenry is not determined by blood quantum, it depends on whether or not your grandparents had a roll number, and if you apply for citizenship, you don't have to be any certain percentage, my father was half, and had a roll number, so I am enrolled as a citizen, my kids father is Muskogee Creek, they had the choice of which tribe they wanted to enroll with, they chose Muskogee Creek. I don't know this man who is the babies father, but in my experience, she will probably not be better off with him judging by the people who had given her a home, they seemed to really love and want her, I fear for her health and safety.

The CNO states that best interest of the child does not trump the RIGHTS of the tribe. That comment right there tells you all one needs to know about what their motives are. Their interest is not what's best for a child -a human being-!!! But rather, what's best for the tribe. Deplorable. SHAMEFUL.

Please consider the plight of this innocent child. She is more than a drop of blood. She has human rights that are being ignored under the manipulated ICWA "law". This is a travesty of monumental proportion.Blood, regardless of the amount doesnt define your whole life.

I personally have not seen it. One of the sc news agencies did before the gag order, if I am not mistaken. It was viewed in the back ground. But, family of the adoptive family say yes, he did. There are witnesses, as well. His side claims he was "tricked" into signing it. They say he thought he was signing temporary custody to the biomother. So they say, without saying it directly, he did sign it. If you have ever seen a TPR for the state of South Carolina- there really is no mistaking it. He is also a member of the US Military. One is required to be able to read. Moreover, if you were signing a document relating to your child, wouldn't you at least "glance" over it? If it were me, I'd go over it with a fine tooth comb. But even just glancing at the name of the document in big bold letters, it tells you what it is. So, between both sides, he did sign it. The dispute is whether he knew what he was signing or not. No judge in the world would have bought his story for 2 cents. Even if the adoption were final, the ICWA could have stepped in and removed her. This is a once just law turned nightmarish. This has to stop.

notright-Where did you get the information that he signed a TPR? Have you seen a copy? This would really clear things up for a lot of people like myself who have seen many red flags in this case. If he was properly counseled by an adoption professional and signed a TPR after the baby was born consenting to the permanent termination of his rights and to the adoption, then I feel invoking the ICWA would be wrong. Now, if he was not counseled by an adoption professional and did not sign a TPR after the baby was born, then I would have a lot of questions on why an adoptive placement took place without involving the father who was known to the mother and by name to the adoptive family and their attorney.

The adoptive parents and their attorney DID do their homework and DID check for Native American heritage, which is always part of the "checklist" done in adoptions. They were given the okay by the Cherokee Nation at the time, because Mr. Brown's first name had been spelled wrong..."Dustin and it should have been Dusten." But the bottom line in all of this is that Veronica's adoption does not constitute the "break up of a Native American family." By Mr. Brown's own testimony, he has never had a relationship with the tribe and is only invoking ICWA as a means to gains custody. There should be greater vetting process for what is to be considered a Native American family than just blood alone. My great grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee Indian, but I don't think that entitles me to say I am a Native American family...having no relationship with a tribe or any tribal customs. That is why many of us consider this a misuse of ICWA and under SC law without ICWA Mr. Brown's lack of support during the birthmother's pregnancy, and lack of involvement for 30 days after Veronica's birth would be considered abandonment, and he would not have won in court, not to mention he that he legally, with full understanding signed away his rights and agreed not to contest the adoption. He was not tricked in any way, despite what he is claiming now. Veronica should be with her parents, the Capobianco's and hopefully the SC Supreme court with rule with greater judgement and insight than the previous judge in this case. This is the United States and she has rights too. ICWA treats children as though they are possessions to be distributed amongst a select group of people, rather than human beings.

Mr. Brown signed a TPR. Further, under SC law, he had no rights, he waived those rights by not responding in 30 days of notice. Even without the TPR, he waived his rights. Had the CNO not stepped in, this child would be where she belongs- with the Capobiancos. It really is that clear.