Updated: Baby Veronica, ICWA, and adoption in general
For Charlestonians and those who follow Indian Affairs or the SCOTUS, this case has been on the horizon for much too long given the age of the child involved. It started when the father decided four months after the birth of Baby Veronica to claim custody of her. While a fair number of sided with the father as the natural parent who wants to care for his child we need to remember this boy did not act as a father during the entire pregnancy, did not financially or emotionally support the mother in any way, and contrary a popularly stated issue he was NOT away in a war zone during her pregnancy as he did not ship out until four months after the birth of Baby Veronica. Another issue is that as found by the SCOTUS he relinquished his parental rights during the mother's pregnancy.
In any other setting this adoption would have continued on course, but the father is a member of "Cherokee Nation" and the Indian Child Welfare Act was abused in this case to stymie the adoption proceedings and improperly remove Baby Veronica from the only parents she had known from the day of her birth--her adoptive parents and her birth mother who remain in contact with Baby Veronica. Many claim that his dedication to Baby Veronica is proved by the fact he immediately sought to stay the adoption proceedings when she was four months old after he was notified of the pending adoption proceedings. This is the biggest hogwash I've heard in a long time. Yes, the mother broke off their engagement as she had every right and she should not have felt pressured to marry the father or marry him sooner than planned due to her pregnancy.
The mother gave him a choice while she was pregnant--pay child support or relinquish his parental rights. This where things are often misconstrued everyone says he was getting to go off into a war zone and simply thought he was giving the mother full custody of the child as she could care for the child better than him due to his deployment. HUH?! For starters, even if he was being deployed during the pregnancy and was not married to the mother he could have ensured the child was added to his military benefits once she was born and he could have provided financial support for the child and at least partial support of the mother's prenatal care. This is screams of a lazy way of trying to get around the fact that if you want to claim a child as your own you must provide for this child in every way you financial are able.
In all actuality the boy was deployed four--get that four--months after Baby Veronica was born not during the pregnancy and the quest for adoptive parents began during the pregnancy so he several months to attempt to be involved in this child's life. Instead, he refused to pay child support--blackmail maybe in attempts to push the mother into marrying him--and did not make any attempts to contact the birth mother. The reason why I wonder if this is blackmail of some sort is that he was fine with the mother keeping the child and him not paying child support, but wanted to prevent adoption proceedings. This is the biggest load of garbage I have heard in a long time. You must keep this child and I will do nothing to support it, but if you have this child adopted that I refuse to support I must raise the child. I've seen this type of emotional abuse before and it isn't pretty. This type of behavior is a great example of why the mother was on target to end things with the father.
Straight from the Supreme Court of South Carolina confirming my belief this was a form of blackmail as he simply didn't want to accept the mother's decision that "we're over."
If he wanted to truly to be part of his child's life knowing the mother already has two other children and would be in financial strain with a third child without child support he would have stepped up to the plate.
I'm of the mind that if a man is not listed on the child's birth certificate--typically in the case of unmarried couples the father cannot be automatically listed on the birth certificate as the mother has to name the father and then he has to sign a formal document accepting responsibility for the child or the courts have to make this determination--and is not paying child support he should have no say in adoption proceedings. (SC law states that if a man/boy is not living with the mother for six months before the birth of a child and is not providing financial support he has does not have any parental rights.) If an unmarried mother doesn't want to name the father he should have NO say in the child being adopted or any other rights that she does not give him. If he's paying child support then he has every right to stop in and say NO. In this matter I believe the ICWA and other state laws provide a system that is unfairly stacked against the mother as if he refuses to accept the child she must take him to court to prove the child is his to receive child support which costs money yet even if the child is not his on paper he can stop adoption proceedings.
Now back to the ICWA, from the beginning I couldn't understand how on earth this act was properly enacted. For starters, in my humble opinion, it is bogus to use this act when the mother who was the only person involved in the care for this child is not American Indian. The father proved he was not truly interested in raising and supporting this child unless it was according to his terms. This act was to keep families from being intentionally ripped apart by child welfare agencies not to keep a non-American Indian mother from allowing her child to be adopted. As the SCOTUS ruled, the father is not a custodial parent and this act cannot be accurately used by a noncustodial parent.
Another issue often brought up is that Baby Veronica was inaccurately listed as Hispanic instead of Native American at her birth which prevented the Cherokee Nation from stepping in before Baby Veronica was removed from the state. Be that as it may, I would think one's ethnicity would be determined by the highest percentage of blood relation without primary weight given to an ethnicity that is less than 2% of her heritage. If Hispanic was the highest percentage then that was an accurate decision. Seriously, I have more American Indian blood that this child and I am considered "Caucasian non-Hispanic."
This is a tragic case for Baby Veronica as she has been a pawn in a war--a war that was started by her biological father when he didn't get his way. This boy destroyed the relationship Baby Veronica had with the couple seeking to adopt her and her birth mother since this was an open adoption when he refused to allow the birth mother and the adoptive couple to visit Baby Veronica until a final decision was made regarding her future. This is yet another manipulative maneuver to get his way as the lack of continued relationship could have easily been used to prevent the adoptive couple from adopting her. Thankfully, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled the adoption is to continue. Let's hope his temper tantrum ends sooner rather than later and the Indian Nation stops with the rhetoric that implies this is some sort of racial discrimination ends soon.
In any other setting this adoption would have continued on course, but the father is a member of "Cherokee Nation" and the Indian Child Welfare Act was abused in this case to stymie the adoption proceedings and improperly remove Baby Veronica from the only parents she had known from the day of her birth--her adoptive parents and her birth mother who remain in contact with Baby Veronica. Many claim that his dedication to Baby Veronica is proved by the fact he immediately sought to stay the adoption proceedings when she was four months old after he was notified of the pending adoption proceedings. This is the biggest hogwash I've heard in a long time. Yes, the mother broke off their engagement as she had every right and she should not have felt pressured to marry the father or marry him sooner than planned due to her pregnancy.
The mother gave him a choice while she was pregnant--pay child support or relinquish his parental rights. This where things are often misconstrued everyone says he was getting to go off into a war zone and simply thought he was giving the mother full custody of the child as she could care for the child better than him due to his deployment. HUH?! For starters, even if he was being deployed during the pregnancy and was not married to the mother he could have ensured the child was added to his military benefits once she was born and he could have provided financial support for the child and at least partial support of the mother's prenatal care. This is screams of a lazy way of trying to get around the fact that if you want to claim a child as your own you must provide for this child in every way you financial are able.
In all actuality the boy was deployed four--get that four--months after Baby Veronica was born not during the pregnancy and the quest for adoptive parents began during the pregnancy so he several months to attempt to be involved in this child's life. Instead, he refused to pay child support--blackmail maybe in attempts to push the mother into marrying him--and did not make any attempts to contact the birth mother. The reason why I wonder if this is blackmail of some sort is that he was fine with the mother keeping the child and him not paying child support, but wanted to prevent adoption proceedings. This is the biggest load of garbage I have heard in a long time. You must keep this child and I will do nothing to support it, but if you have this child adopted that I refuse to support I must raise the child. I've seen this type of emotional abuse before and it isn't pretty. This type of behavior is a great example of why the mother was on target to end things with the father.
Straight from the Supreme Court of South Carolina confirming my belief this was a form of blackmail as he simply didn't want to accept the mother's decision that "we're over."
In June 2009, Mother sent a text message to Father asking if he would rather pay child support or surrender his parental rights. Father responded via text message that he would relinquish his rights, but testified that he believed he was relinquishing his rights to Mother. Father explained: "In my mind I thought that if I would do that I'd be able to give her time to think about this and possibly maybe we would get back together and continue what we had started." However, under
cross-examination Father admitted that his behavior was not conducive to being a father.
I'm of the mind that if a man is not listed on the child's birth certificate--typically in the case of unmarried couples the father cannot be automatically listed on the birth certificate as the mother has to name the father and then he has to sign a formal document accepting responsibility for the child or the courts have to make this determination--and is not paying child support he should have no say in adoption proceedings. (SC law states that if a man/boy is not living with the mother for six months before the birth of a child and is not providing financial support he has does not have any parental rights.) If an unmarried mother doesn't want to name the father he should have NO say in the child being adopted or any other rights that she does not give him. If he's paying child support then he has every right to stop in and say NO. In this matter I believe the ICWA and other state laws provide a system that is unfairly stacked against the mother as if he refuses to accept the child she must take him to court to prove the child is his to receive child support which costs money yet even if the child is not his on paper he can stop adoption proceedings.
Now back to the ICWA, from the beginning I couldn't understand how on earth this act was properly enacted. For starters, in my humble opinion, it is bogus to use this act when the mother who was the only person involved in the care for this child is not American Indian. The father proved he was not truly interested in raising and supporting this child unless it was according to his terms. This act was to keep families from being intentionally ripped apart by child welfare agencies not to keep a non-American Indian mother from allowing her child to be adopted. As the SCOTUS ruled, the father is not a custodial parent and this act cannot be accurately used by a noncustodial parent.
Another issue often brought up is that Baby Veronica was inaccurately listed as Hispanic instead of Native American at her birth which prevented the Cherokee Nation from stepping in before Baby Veronica was removed from the state. Be that as it may, I would think one's ethnicity would be determined by the highest percentage of blood relation without primary weight given to an ethnicity that is less than 2% of her heritage. If Hispanic was the highest percentage then that was an accurate decision. Seriously, I have more American Indian blood that this child and I am considered "Caucasian non-Hispanic."
This is a tragic case for Baby Veronica as she has been a pawn in a war--a war that was started by her biological father when he didn't get his way. This boy destroyed the relationship Baby Veronica had with the couple seeking to adopt her and her birth mother since this was an open adoption when he refused to allow the birth mother and the adoptive couple to visit Baby Veronica until a final decision was made regarding her future. This is yet another manipulative maneuver to get his way as the lack of continued relationship could have easily been used to prevent the adoptive couple from adopting her. Thankfully, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled the adoption is to continue. Let's hope his temper tantrum ends sooner rather than later and the Indian Nation stops with the rhetoric that implies this is some sort of racial discrimination ends soon.
Comments
Post a Comment