Injustice Continues, More Broken Laws Defined all in the Name of an Unethical Adoption

On September 29th, 2011, Adoptive Couple vs Baby Girl also known as the Unethical Adoption of Veronica Rose Brown was settled.

South Carolina Family Court Judge Malphrus ruled that upon hearing all the various court testimonies of Christy Maldonado, Dusten Brown, Alice Brown, Melanie Capobianco, Matt Capobianco and the rest of the key players in the Veronica Rose Brown case several key issues:

• They found Dusten Brown’s paternal rights were intact and had to be terminated first in order to have Veronica Rose Brown to be an adoptable child.
• They found terminating  Dusten Brow’s  paternal rights was NOT in Baby Girl’s best interest.  They would not terminate them.
• They found that the birth mother, Christy Maldonado, lied and her testimony was not credible.
• They found adoptive couple, Melanie  and  Matt Capobianco, to be untruthful when seeking to terminate his rights based solely on lack of support for six consecutive months.
• They found Adoptive Couple was trying to use a loophole to get around the paternal rights of Dustin Brown, specifically in regards to the Interstate Compact  for Placement of Children, where Veronica’s status as an Indian Child was hid from the state of Oklahoma.
• They found Dusten Brown tried to be involved with his daughter, but wasn’t allowed to be.
• They found adoptive couple to be impeding contact between Mr. Brown and his daughter denying visitation and any attempts of contact.

On top of ALL that, which really, should be enough, they found that Indian Child Welfare Act did apply, and there was sufficient evidence that Dusten Brown had a connection to the Cherokee Nation, specifically the Wolf Clan,  and there was no evidence that his parenting of Veronica Rose would constitute any danger to her child welfare.

Feel Free to Read the Complete and Final ruling of South Carolina Family Court Judge Malphrus in the matter of  Adoptive Couple vs Baby Girl

Dusten Brown Ruled as a ‘Thwarted Father’

“Even if ICWA does not apply, I find that birth father’s consent to the adoption was necessary, and he has not consented to the adoption. I find that he was a “thwarted father” as that them is defined in Abernathy verses Baby Boy and subsequent cases interpreting Abernathy and further defining a “thwarted father’. I make this finding on the fact that birth mother and birth father were engaged at the time the child was conceived. Instead of shirking his responsibilities, he implored birth mother to move the wedding date forward.”

So what is a “thwarted father’?  Essentially a father, usually involved in an adoption case, where the other parties purposely sought to keep him out of this child’s life in order to terminate his parental rights.  If you look into the case mentioned by Judge Malphrus, the story of the case are so incredible similar in circumstance that it’s almost uncanny:

“Julie discovered she was pregnant and informed Mitchell by telephone that he was the father…He offered to support her and the child. However, Mitchell had orders for sea duty, and Julie told him they would discuss the situation upon his return. ..Mitchell also offered to send Julie to college and stay home to take care of the child if she would work part-time…While Mitchell was at sea, Julie determined that she desired no further involvement with him. ..When Mitchell returned in September, Julie rebuffed his advances and rejected his offer of marriage. Julie informed Mitchell that she had considered the idea of putting the child up for adoption, but had discarded the notion and would keep the child. Julie thereafter avoided contact with Mitchell, refused his telephone calls, and “was kind of hiding away from him….Sometime after Mitchell returned from sea duty, Julie met the prospective adoptive parents, the Abernathys, through her roommate. Julie and the Abernathys agreed that the Abernathys would adopt the child. Julie remained on active duty until January 25, 1992, when the baby was born. The child was placed with the Abernathys with Julie’s consent on January 27, 1992, and the adoption action was commenced on January 30, 1992. Mitchell, who by this time was stationed elsewhere, learned of the birth and of the pending adoption action, and filed a crosscomplaint to intervene, contest adoption, and request custody on January 31, 1992.”

More cases where an adoption agency had deceitfully thwarted a young father’s rights, can be found such as this 1999 NY ‘thwarted father’ case where a  judge in Brooklyn awarded a 20-year-old man custody of his infant son on Friday, and described their two-year separation as a ”human tragedy.”

The Timeline of Veronica Rose’s Unethical Adoption Screams Injustice

Now there are a few key points that I really would like to point out concerning the timeline of the attempted adoption seizure of Miss veronica Rose Brown:

 9-15-09 Veronica was Born in the presence of Melanie  and  Matt Capobianco in  her home state of Oklahoma.  Please not that the presence of the adoptive couple in the birthing room, as verified by Matt. “cutting the cord” is considered an unethical and coercive adoption practice.

9-16-09 Christy Maldonado signed the first relinquishment consent required. Please not that the signing of a relinquishment consent while still in the hospital is considered an unethical and coercive tactic.

9-18-09 the adoption paperwork was filed in the state of South Carolina. Per south Carolina’s own law section 63-9-50, the child must be “present within this State at the time the petition for adoption is filed” This alone should make the adoption petition itself invalid as Veronica was STILL in the state of Oklahoma per the court transcripts as Melanie  and  Matt Capobianco were still waiting for clearance from the ICPC.

Furthermore, it is stated that Oklahoma would not have approved the ICPC and allowed Veronica to leave Oklahoma with Melanie  and  Matt Capobianco IF her heritage would have been correctly identified as Native American rather than “Hispanic”

So the ethical and coercive adoption tactics aside,  the law has already been broken twice by this time and Veronica is not even two weeks old. By the time, this case was properly settled by the SC court ruling in September of 2011, Dusten Brown had already been denied the rights of raising his child and yes, this does constitute a human tragedy.

” A child is not property, and the right of custody cannot ripen simply by virtue of the passage of time. Custody and parental rights cannot be gained by  adverse possession”

Upon this ruling the case SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVER! That’s it. Done.  And in case you haven’t looked at a calendar lately that was almost TWO full years ago. All parties should have taken their lawyers and gone home in the best interest of Veronica Rose, but that is NOT what Melanie  and  Matt Capobianco choose to do, because, according to her own testimony, Melanie  Capobianco wanted her more. Not because Veronica was in any danger, not because Dusten Brown was really a bad guy, not because of any really fact except they wanted her.  They had already lied and cheated and skirted the law, so they kept fighting using connections and influence and TV spokesmen and PR companies.

This human tragedy continues…