Cherokee Indian girl's father faces arrest in adoption dispute

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2013-08-11 16:16

Article here. Excerpt:

'The biological father of a 3-year-old Cherokee Indian girl faces arrest in a custody dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dusten Brown, who is a Cherokee and is currently training with the National Guard in Iowa, had been ordered to turn over his daughter, Veronica, to a South Carolina adoptive couple who had initially raised the girl.

An arrest warrant has been issued on a charge of custodial interference because has failed to do so.'

Regarding this topic:

Native News Network: Soldier Dusten Brown in the Fight of His Life – To Keep His Daughter Veronica
Wikipedia: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Excerpt:

'Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that holds that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American (Indian) biological fathers who were not custodians of an Indian child. The court held that involuntary termination procedures required by the ICWA did not apply when the child had never lived with the father and that therefore active remedial requirements were also not required. Preferred placement in the act did not apply when no other party had formally sought to adopt the child.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

for a variety of reasons.

about once a week I come across an article about some 'noncustodial' father losing his kids to the adoption agency industry. it is a growing industry, and this denial of fatherhood happens in many western countries every day. if it ever happened to any competent woman there would be heads rolling.

'the tribes' still try to claim all sorts of rights just regular 'Americans' don't have, and the bennie$ that come with that perpetual victim status. recent attacks by Indian tribes trying to seize ancient remains in the u.s., that are obviously (and proven to be) Caucasian in origin, has shown just how gov. handout$ can influence so called tribal decisions. I can think of several times recently where they tried to strong-arm locals using fed. power (and an outdated treaty) to not allow scientific investigation to occur.

examples: 1) in kennewick, wash. the Kennewick man, an approx. 9-10,000 year old Caucasian man discovered in a const. dig, was immediately claimed by the u.s. corps of engineers for the local tribes. an extensive court battle and decision finally gave the seven interested scientists access to him for some limited study.

2) in titusville, fla. another const. project (housing) dug up another caucasian body. when they finally quit digging around 150 europeans, about 7-9,000 y.o. mummies (some still containing pliable brain tissue) had been unearthed. they were lovingly buried in this watery, swampy (zero pH) cemetery for a couple thousand years. there were many more mummies still there and left underwater and undisturbed for future generations. the people buried there were from all over europe. talk about real original Americans.

and there are more, many more - and older ones. the oldest so far was found on catalina island. haven't heard about it? didn't learn about it in school? me neither, until I started paying attention. these first 2 digs (above) were done in the 80's, and schools are still not teaching the truth.

just about everything we have been told about our world human history may well be a lie. that is the real problem, the MRA problem, our country's problem. we have governments out of control. handouts all around, except for men, white men, black men, purple men. the bigger the lawyer crook on the local level, the bigger the lawyer crook he becomes on the fed. level.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Tue, 2013-08-13 02:29

I think the father should have rights to his daughter, and the adopting couple should bow out of this fight and look for an orphaned child to adopt. However, there are some details to this case which did not make it an easy decision for me.

Other reports on this story paint a differnt picture and indicate that the father signed over his paternal rights when the mother was pregnant, then he stopped all contact with the mother (some reports say he made no contact until child was four months old, some say a whole year). He made no request for pics, sent no baby gifts, he did not ask questions about the birth, none of his family enquired about the child, he did not ensure his child had any of his empoyment benefits, etc. He had no contact and no communications with the mother. Seems strange, if it is true.

I think the father had a concerns about child support which is why he signed away his rights. Then his desire to be a father to his child made him regret and he needed to come up with a legal defense. (I am not comvinced that he didn't know what he was signing; and I thought he had no affiliation with the tribe until he learned he could use it as a legal defense)

This is why child support/custody in unmarried situations needs to give fathers equal rights and considerations so men dont feel pressured to abandon parenthood. Shared custody if possible without any child support or perhaps full custody to the father might have prevented him from signing away his rights to begin with.

Also fathers should be given the same oppurtunity to change their minds about adoption just like mothers get. If adoption agencies had a stronger legal obligation to get the fathers consent for adoption after the birth regardless of what was signed before birth, we would all have a better understanding as to what this father's true intent was. Right now there are conflicing reports.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2013-08-13 08:08