Source: http://keepveronicahome.com/index.php/fact-check
1. “He signed his rights away.”
TRUTH:
“It is undisputed that the only consent document Father ever signed
was a one-page ‘Acceptance of Service’ stating he was not contesting the
adoption, which was purportedly presented for Father's signature as a
prerequisite to the service of a summons and complaint. Thus, Appellants
did not follow the clear procedural directives of section 1913(a) in
obtaining Father's consent. Moreover, even if this ‘consent’ was valid
under the statute, then Father's subsequent legal campaign to obtain
custody of Baby Girl has rendered any such consent withdrawn. Therefore,
neither Father's signature on the ‘Acceptance of Service’ document, nor
his stated intentions to relinquish his rights, were effectual forms of
voluntary consent under the ICWA.” – South Carolina Supreme Court
There
is a legal way to “sign away rights” for good reason, Dusten never came
close to any legal relinquishment of parental rights.
2. “He texted his rights away”
TRUTH:
In no state in the country can a father relinquish parental rights by
text message. These text messages WERE NOT EVIDENCE at trial because
the attorney for the Adoptive Couple would not produce the phone that
showed Birth Mother’s messages to father, instead they attempted to
introduce photocopies, even though the cell phone was allegedly in a
safe at the office of the Guardian Ad Litem’s attorney. The Family Court
did not consider these text messages as evidence.
3. “He abandoned his daughter”
TRUTH:
“All attempts to contact Maldonado by Brown and his family members
were refused by Maldonado. Shortly after the child’s birth, Brown’s
family members purchased some items for the child and attempted to
deliver them to Maldonado, but these were rejected. It was clear that
Maldonado wanted to have Brown completely and permanently removed from
her life and placing the child for adoption without his knowledge or
consent would further this goal.” – Family Court
“Father testified he
asked friends and family if they had seen Mother because she would not
reply to his text messages. His mother testified she attempted to
contact Mother on several occasions and once left Mother a voice message
before Baby Girl's birth to tell Mother she had money and some gifts
for the baby, including items she hand-knitted, but Mother never
returned her telephone calls. Mother testified that none of Father's
family members contacted her regarding gifts for Baby Girl.” – Family
Court The Family Court repeatedly stated that it did “not find birth
mother’s testimony credible.” – Family Court Bench Ruling, United States
Supreme Court Brief
4. “It is in Veronica’s best interest to be adopted”
TRUTH:
The only findings based on evidence of Veronica’s best interests found that she should be with her father.
“Brown is the father of another daughter. The undisputed testimony is
that he is a loving and devoted father. Even Maldonado herself
testified that he was a good father. There is no evidence to suggest
that he would be anything other than an excellent parent to this child. .
. . Brown has convinced me of his unwavering love for this child.” –
Family Court
“The family court order stated, ‘[w]hen parental rights and the best
interests of the child are in conflict, the best interests of the child
must prevail. However, in this case, I find no conflict between the
two.’ Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl's best interests are not
served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not
presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared
for if raised by Father and his family.” South Carolina Supreme Court
“Plainly, the family court determined that there was no conflict
between Father's best interests and Baby Girl's best interests.” – South
Carolina Supreme Court
5. “He’s not really ‘Indian’”
TRUTH:
Dusten Brown has been a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation
since he was a child. Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court found
true cultural ties to the Cherokee Nation:
“The Record establishes that Father's family has a deeply embedded
relationship with the Cherokee Nation. For example, not only does the
Record indicate that Father and his family are proud of their heritage
and membership in the Wolf Clan, the home study performed on Father's
parents states the following:
[Father's father] is Cherokee Indian. He grew up knowing he was
Cherokee and being proud of who he was. [Father's parents] . . . prepare
the following traditional foods in their home: grape dumplings,
buckskin bread, Indian cornbread, Indian tacos, wild onions, fry bread,
polk salad and deer meat. [Father's mother] state[d] she cooks these
foods in her home on a regular basis and all of her children have eaten
these items.
[Father's parents] attend the Cherokee Holiday in Tahlequah,
Oklahoma[,] when they can and do participate in eating traditional
foods, viewing the arts and crafts and watching the traditional games.
[Father's father] participates in voting in the Cherokee elections[,] . .
. . took part in learning about the Cherokee culture when his children
were in high school by learning to make Indian crafts and learning to
play the drum[, and] . . . . is sometimes seen at the Nowata Indian
Health Clinic but receives the majority of his health care from the
Veterans hospital. He claims his family is from the Wolf Clan, and he
has been to, as well as participated, in stomp dances.
[H]is family had Indian land which was located in Pryor, Oklahoma and
Cayuga, Oklahoma. He claims to have very traditional ties with his
extended family and considers geneology [sic] a hobby by researching his
Cherokee culture. [Father's parents] have many Native American items in
their home. Decorative Native American pieces are scattered throughout
their home in nearly every room.
Thus, the Record demonstrates that Father and his family are well-positioned to introduce Baby Girl to her Indian heritage.”
6. “He just wants her for money.”
TRUTH:
As all Cherokee Nation citizens know, we don’t get any money for
“being Cherokee” or for having “Cherokee kids.” The only people who have
made money in this case are the adoption agencies and attorneys.
7. “Cherokee Nation paid Dusten’s legal expenses”
TRUTH:
Cherokee Nation has never spent a single a dime on attorney fees for
Dusten Brown. He and his family used every extra dollar they had to pay
for attorneys and after that was exhausted, Dusten’s amazing attorneys
donated their time because they believed in him and believed that
Veronica belonged with her father.
8. “We didn’t know Veronica was Cherokee.”
TRUTH:
“Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a
registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this
information "important" throughout the adoption process. Further, she
testified she knew that if the Cherokee Nation were alerted to Baby
Girl's status as an Indian child, "some things were going to come into
effect, but [she] wasn't for [sic] sure what." Mother reported Father's
Indian heritage on the
Nightlight Agency's adoption form and testified
she made Father's Indian heritage known to Appellants and every agency
involved in the adoption. However, it appears that there were some
efforts to conceal his Indian status. In fact, the pre-placement form
reflects Mother's reluctance to share this information:
Initially the birth mother did not wish to identify the father, said
she wanted to keep things low-key as possible for the [Appellants],
because he's registered in the Cherokee tribe. It was determined that
naming him would be detrimental to the adoption.”
“Adoptive Mother testified that, because they hired an attorney to
specifically inquire about the baby's Cherokee Indian status, ‘when she
was born, we were under the impression that she was not Cherokee.’”
But,
“Adoptive Mother testified that the Nightlight Agency's pre-placement
report was ‘probably . . . something I read and didn't think twice about
it.’”
9. “The Guardian Ad Litem supports the Adoption”
TRUTH:
The Family Court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) who has filed a
brief in this Court that purports to be on behalf of Baby Girl and
asserts that Baby Girl’s interests would be best served by awarding
custody to petitioners. In fact, the GAL is not a neutral party.
Although appointed by the Family Court, that court noted that the GAL
and her attorney both “were unilaterally selected by [petitioners’]
counsel”; the GAL had a continuing business relationship with
petitioners’ attorney, with whom she had worked frequently in cases in
2009.
In this case, although the GAL had performed a comprehensive home
study of petitioners, she resisted repeated requests from Father’s
attorney to conduct a home study of Father. When the GAL finally did
conduct such a study, well over a year after her appointment and some
five months after counsel’s request, she informed Father and his family
that “she knew the adoptive couple prior to the child being placed in
their home” and “had worked with them before the child had been placed”;
that petitioners were a well-educated couple with a beautiful home,
could afford to send Baby Girl to any private school that they chose
and, when she was older, to any college she wanted; and that there was
nothing that Baby Girl needed that petitioners could not buy for her.
The GAL therefore told Father’s family that they “really need[ed] to
get down on [their] knees and pray to God that [they] can make the right
decision for this baby” (id. at 148), and they “needed to talk to God
and pray about taking the child from the only family that she has
known.” At trial, Father stated that the GAL treated him and his family
as “a bunch of * * * rednecks that can’t * * * afford anything, that
we’re not able to provide this child with proper education, schooling * *
*. Pretty much that we weren’t fit to love this child and raise her.”
The GAL’s initial report did not note Baby Girl’s Native American
heritage because the GAL thought that was “not something * * * the
courts need to take into consideration.”
As for the GAL’s view of Native
American culture, she stated that the advantages of having Native
American heritage “include[ed] free lunches and free medical care and
that they did have their little get togethers and their little dances.”
Given the GAL’s obvious bias, respondents initially sought her removal.
But rather than delay the proceedings, respondents ultimately
withdrew this motion on the understanding that the Family Court would
not consider either the GAL’s conclusion regarding Baby Girl’s best
interests or the GAL’s custody recommendation. See Pet.
Indeed, South
Carolina law precludes a guardian ad litem in a private adoption from
providing a custody recommendation unless one is requested by the court;
no such request was made here. – United States Supreme Court Brief by
Father
Cancelled transition plan for Veronica: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1307/veronica_transition_plan.pdf
And this news: http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Baby_Veronicas_biological_family_Court_fight_will_move/20130806_11_0_ASouth583850
+(513x306)_edited+(513x306).jpg)
