Not So Unusual an Unethical Adoption in the United States: Part 1

So the other day someone mentioned to me that they thought the Veronica Rose Brown “adoption” story was  an “unusual” situation.

I had to explain that no, it’s not an unusual situation at all. In Adoption.

What is usual about the “Attempted Adoption” of  Veronica Rose Brown is that it has gone on for so long and gotten such national media attention. What is unusual about this case, is that poor Dusten Brown is still hanging in there. What is usual about this case, is, thankfully, he has the power of the Cherokee Nation and the Native American Community behind him. But other than that, it’s not very unusual at all. Over and over again we do here the same story in the media; a father has gotten screwed and demands his human right to raise his child. The wanna be adoptive parents whine about “their poor baby ripped away from the only home their child has ever known!!!”

Every day in the United States another biological father, or another biological mother or another natural family gets screwed out of their child because they do not have the money, the connections, the power, or the resources to fight to the adoption industry machine.
News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

What is MOST usual about the story of Veronica Rose Brown is that people might actually see for once that adoption in the United States is insanely political and horrible unethical and really, is often tantamount to baby selling or outright kidnapping.   Call it adoption and pretend it is all sweet and loving, but those with more money are able to help themselves to the offspring of the people with less. It’s an unfair fight and for once we are witnessing a story where  it’s all too clear the amount of corruption that is condoned in the name of adoption.

A Careful Examination of South Carolina’s Adoption Relinquishment Laws

Anyway, I spent a good portion of time last night looking at the South Carolina Publish Opinions of the Supreme Court in Adoptive Couple v Baby Girl and the actual South Carolina Adoption Statutes as they relate to this case. Now granted I am not a lawyer, but I can read and I do understand adoption law pretty well. What I was particularly interested in was the original findings as to whether Dusten Brown was found to have actually relinquished his parental rights and then also, how then South Carolina could turn around after the Supreme Court ruling to throw out ICWA  provisions and allow the Capobiancos to “adopt” Veronica.

In other words, let’s go back to the beginning and figure out how we got here, coz Lord knows, I don’t want another family to have to get here again!  Bare with me. This is going to be a long ride.

A Careful Examination of South Carolina’s Adoption Relinquishment Laws

Now you can read the whole of Title 63 – South Carolina Children’s Code; CHAPTER 9. ADOPTIONS Title 63 – South Carolina Children’s Code, but I have taken all 15,000 plus words and copied them here. Now some of the areas are just not relevant to this case and I will pull them out and indicate as such, since it’s 44 pages right now. What I will do instead is leave the basics of the law and add my notes in the “quote boxes” which will be purple indented. That should be clear enough.

South Carolina Adoption Act Subarticle 1. General Provisions

SECTION 63-9-10. Short title. This article may be cited as the “South Carolina Adoption Act“.

HISTORY: 2008 Act No. 361, Section 2.;The purpose of this article is to establish fair and reasonable procedures for the adoption of children and to provide for the well-being of the child, with full recognition of the interdependent needs and interests of the biological parents and the adoptive parents. However, when the interests of a child and an adult are in conflict, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the child. Children may be adopted by or placed for adoption with residents of South Carolina only, except in unusual or exceptional circumstances.

Ok, Please note here what I have bolded: “when the interests of a child and an adult are in conflict, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the child.” This will be important later on.

SECTION 63-9-30. Definitions: Specifically Consent and Relinquishment to Adoption:

I’m going to pull out the definitions as they are basic and remedial, with the exception of “consent” & “relinquishment” as we are focusing on that most exclusively. Once again, I have bolded certain parts.

(6) “Consent” means the informed and voluntary release in writing of all parental rights with respect to a child by a parent for the purpose of adoption, or the informed and voluntary release in writing of all custodial or guardianship rights, or both, with respect to a child by the child placing agency or person facilitating the placement of the child for adoption where the child’s parent previously has executed a relinquishment to that agency or person.

(8) “Relinquishment” means the informed and voluntary release in writing of all parental rights with respect to a child by a parent to a child placing agency or to a person who facilitates the placement of a child for the purpose of adoption and to whom the parent has given the right to consent to the adoption of the child.

OK, so take note. INFORMED and VOLUNTARY RELEASE in WRITING of parental rights by a PARENT. Parent, one would assume, meaning mother or father as the sex of the parent is not established here. I have pulled out the following sections as they are not of that much interest to me here:

SECTION 63-9-40. Jurisdiction; venue.
SECTION 63-9-50. Children who may be adopted.

The following IS being kept in part, to call attention to a few previsions:

SECTION 63-9-60. Persons who may adopt.

(A)(1) Any South Carolina resident may petition the court to adopt a child. Placement of children for adoption pursuant to this article is limited to South Carolina residents with exceptions being made in the following circumstances only:

(b) there has been public notoriety concerning the child or child’s family, and the best interests of the child would be served by placement outside this State;

(e) there are unusual or exceptional circumstances such that the best interests of the child would be served by placement with or adoption by nonresidents of this State;

I would say in the case concerning Veronica Rose Brown “public notoriety concerning the child or child’s family” and ” unusual or exceptional circumstances” are both understatements at this time.  Based on the “conflict must be resolved in favor of the child” and the continued news coverage for the past three plus years, the State of South Carolina, but their own laws, have stated due cause why they do not NEED to ensure that Veronica is adopted by SC residents. IE: they have a way out written in.

Leaving out the copy for SECTION 63-9-70. Advertising prohibited to place or accept child for adoption; exception; penalties. 

SUBARTICLE 3. CONSENT AND RELINQUISHMENT

SECTION 63-9-310. Persons who must give consent or relinquishment.

(A) Consent or relinquishment for the purpose of adoption is required of the following persons:

(1) the adoptee, if over fourteen years of age, except where the court finds that the adoptee does not have the mental capacity to give consent, or that the best interests of the adoptee are served by not requiring consent; and either

(2) the parents or surviving parent of a child conceived or born during the marriage of the parents; or

(3) the mother of a child born when the mother was not married; and either

(4) the father of a child born when the father was not married to the child’s mother, if the child was placed with the prospective adoptive parents more than six months after the child’s birth, but only if the father has maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child as demonstrated by:

(a) payment by the father toward the support of the child of a fair and reasonable sum, based on the father’s financial ability; and either

(b) visits by the father to the child at least monthly when the father is physically and financially able to do so, and when the father is not prevented from doing so by the person or agency having lawful custody of the child; or

(c) regular communication by the father with the child or with the person or agency having lawful custody of the child, when the father is physically and financially unable to visit the child, or when the father is prevented from visiting the child by the person or agency having lawful custody of the child.

Ok This part is interesting. We’re looking at #4 as it is Dusten Brown’s consent which is under question.  Per the ABOVE; this would come into part NOW, as the ACTUAL “Adoption” of Veronica was not established by South Carolina until AFTER the SCOTUS ruling and obviously, Veronica was more than 6 months old. Now granted, she has not been PLACED with the Capabianco’s since then, as she still resides in Oklahoma, but if she is forced to return to SC at age 4, then she would be an ” child born when the father was not married to the child’s mother, if the child was placed with the prospective adoptive parents more than six months after the child’s birth” AND he HAS “maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” as he has been raising her and caring for her exclusively for the past 19 months! So in this way, his voluntary consent would be REQUIRED by South Carolina Adoption Law! But let’s wind down the clock and look at the original “placement” just for shits and giggles!

The subjective intent of the father, if unsupported by evidence of the acts specified in subitems (a), (b), and (c) of this item (4) of subsection (A) of this section, does not preclude a determination that the father failed to maintain substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child. In making this determination, the court may not require a showing of diligent efforts by any person or agency having lawful custody of the child to encourage the father to perform the acts. A father of a child born when the father was not married to the child’s mother, who openly lived with the child for a period of six months within the one-year period immediately preceding the placement of the child for adoption, and who during the six-months period openly held himself out to be the father of the child is considered to have maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child for the purpose of this item (4) of subsection (A) of this section; or

(5) the father of a child born when the father was not married to the child’s mother, if the child was placed with the prospective adoptive parents six months or less after the child’s birth, but only if:

(a) the father openly lived with the child or the child’s mother for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the placement of the child for adoption, and the father openly held himself out to be the father of the child during the six months period; or

(b) the father paid a fair and reasonable sum, based on the father’s financial ability, for the support of the child or for expenses incurred in connection with the mother’s pregnancy or with the birth of the child, including, but not limited to, medical, hospital, and nursing expenses.

This, my friends, is where they ultimately “got” Dusten Brown. While there never was any question that he was/is Veronica’s biological father, according to the law if he hasn’t LIVED with the child and mother for 6 months previously or paid child birth and expenses, then his CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED. Apparently, wanting to pay for such expenses and being refused, is not good enough. Apparently wanting to marry a child’s mother is also not good enough.  Now here, I will liberally refer to the published opinions of the South Carolina Supreme Court that, as you will recall, originally upheld the findings of the Sept 2011 trial, for facts that are submitted and accepted by the South Carolina courts.

“Father and Mother became engaged to be married in December 2008, and Mother informed Father that she was pregnant in January 2009.1 At the time Mother became pregnant, Father was actively serving in the United States Army and stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, approximately four hours away from his hometown of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, where his parents and Mother resided.”

As an actively serving member of the US Army, Dusten Brown could NOT live with Christy Maldonado. He was stationed 4 hours away, so there is not question as to whether they were living together.
The question of whether or not Dusten Brown’s consent as a biological father his daughter to adoption falls under whether or not he paid money for her support. And here, we have a case of “he said- she said”. Again, I quote for the SCSC findings:

“Upon learning Mother was pregnant, Father began pressing Mother to get married sooner. The couple continued to speak by phone daily, but by April 2009, the relationship had become strained. Mother testified she ultimately broke off the engagement in May via text message because Father was pressuring her to get married. At this point, Mother cut off all contact with Father. While Father testified his post-breakup attempts to call and text message Mother went unanswered, it appears from the Record Father did not make any meaningful attempts to contact her. It is undisputed that Mother and Father did not live together prior to the baby’s birth and that Father did not support Mother financially for pregnancy related expenses, even though he had the ability to provide some degree of financial assistance to Mother.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. Mother never informed Father that she intended to place the baby up for adoption. Father insists that, had he known this, he would have never considered relinquishing his rights.

The testimony of Mother and Father surrounding the circumstances of the parties’ relationship during this time is conflicting. For example, Father testified he was “very happy” when he learned they were expecting a child and claimed he desired to get married sooner so that the child would not be born out of wedlock. On the other hand, Mother testified Father “didn’t really have a reaction” and “every time [she] would bring it up, he really didn’t say a whole lot,” [ Yeah.. isn’t that like a normal Guy reaction to a lot of stuff? I mean, he’s a dude. Was she one of those girls who expected him to  start signing lullabies’ and making planning family camping trips? Sorry I have a personal annoyance for women who get all stupid and get disappointed in guys who act like guys. Get over it] and stated Father pressured her to get married for monetary purposes because the military would increase his pay for “family living.”

Mother testified she asked Father for financial assistance before she made her first pre-natal doctor’s appointment, and Father stated he would not assist her financially unless they were married. Father denies that Mother asked for financial assistance and testified he would have supported her if she had asked.

Now, I do not pretend to know exactly what went on with the relationship between Christy and Dusten. None of us can, but please use your own recollection of perhaps your own previous and perhaps more immature relationships as a basis here.

At one point this was a happy couple – at least happy enough to be engaged to be married, have sex and make a baby. From the court records and  from Christy’s own testimony, she called off the engagement and broke off the relationship because Dusten was “pressuring her to get married.” Ok, that’s her prerogative, but I personally do wonder why that is seen as a such a bad thing. Obviously, at one point she wanted to marry him they were engaged. I would assume, that if he had done something actually wrong, that would have come out in the various character assignations, but the worst thing this guy did was want to marry her?  Maybe she decided that she didn’t want to be an army wife. Maybe she didn’t want to have a child! I don’t know, you don’t know, hell,  probably they don’t even know!

Now she testified that he was into the marriage for the money, but isn’t that part logical? He was in the Army. He knew that eventually he would be going to active duty. He had a child along the way. Not only would there be more money to support the child if they were married, BUT if he happened to hurt or killed, marriage would also assure that both Christy and Veronica would be taken care of. Not only would her medical expenses for the pregnancy be covered as a military wife, (and I’m not a military brat, but my understanding that she would have housing as well and they probably could then love together) She would get his pension and have income if he, god forbid, died.

Now she says she asked for help financially and he said No, not until we are married. And again, I ask.. isn’t this logical? I mean imagine it.. he wants to marry her. They have a child coming. Why put out money that the Army would take care of if only they could just get married. I mean. If you take that one line it comes off as cold and callous and controlling, but I could see it. I would do that.  I’d be like Jeeez, lady.. yeah, I’ll help you: Let’s get married and then we’re all set!  Of course, looking back, considering how much heartache and years of stupid court battles could have been avoided if he had done things differently, but really? We are going to damn this man forever for essentially being stupid and perhaps a bit more stubborn that legally astute? He has to lose his child to strangers because he fucked up?

And yes, that is exactly what the South Carolina Courts have deemed as legal and just here.  See, Dusten Brown did NOT voluntarily relinquish and give his consent to have his child Veronica Rose Brown Adopted.  That part is not in question. The original trial found that he did not consent  and based on the ICWA, a father of native child must consent. When the Supreme Court of the United States threw out the use of ICWA as unconstitutional, Dusten Browns consent was no longer required and essentially, it does not matter what he wants.

I realize that this is already rather long and I have much, much more to go into so, let’s just assume that there will be a part two and most likely a part three and probably a part four.

Read all the posts about Veronica Rose Brown’s Unethical Adoption