Biological dad returns 4-year-old Veronica to adoptive parents

[Heidi]

Source: CNN

updated 12:04 AM EDT, Tue September 24, 2013

(CNN) -- The 4-year-old girl at the center of a lengthy, high-profile custody dispute between her Native American father and her adoptive parents has been returned to the couple, an attorney for the biological father said Monday.

Earlier in the day, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Dusten Brown, the girl's father, must return the girl, named Veronica, to Matt and Melanie Capobianco, who live in South Carolina.

The Capobiancos adopted Veronica at birth in 2009 and have been involved in a custody battle since then with Brown, who lives in Oklahoma.

<snip>

The Cherokee Nation Attorney General also issued a statement late Monday night in response to the news, praising Brown for the "peaceful and dignified" transfer of Veronica to her adoptive parents, and saying the 4-year-old would "always be a Cherokee citizen."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/us/native-american-custody-dispute/

[MADem]

1. No winners.

A family court judge had ruled in Brown's favor in late 2011, and he took his daughter to Oklahoma. The Capobiancos had fought since to have Veronica returned, arguing federal law does not define an unwed biological father as a parent.

[Recursion]

5. Pretty much every part of the system failed here

Awful

[RobinA]

6. I'm Not Sure

that the system can do anything BUT fail in a situation like this. Some things are just not solvable. Much as we like to believe otherwise.

[StevieM]

36. The system could have succeeded. They could have left Ronnie Brown with her father.

But instead they gutted the ICWA and gave that poor child to a couple of self-entitled jerks.

[me b zola]

46. This is solvable

REturn the daughter to her father.

[Hardlyaround]

56. Won't happen. The Supreme Court ruled against the father

and after going all the way to the Supreme Court and winning, I don't believe the adoptive parents are in the mood to give the child back.

[JimDandy]

62. Was not at the U.S Supreme Court...only the Oklahoma S.C. n/t

[Hardlyaround]

63. U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Supreme Court rules against Oklahoma man in Cherokee adoption case

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law intended to keep Indian families together doesn't automatically give custody to a Cherokee father in Oklahoma. His 3-year-old daughter was adopted by a South Carolina couple at her birth.

http://newsok.com/supreme-court-rules-against-oklahoma-man-in-cherokee-adoption-case/article/3856084

[JimDandy]

65. The Supreme Court sent the case back to South Carolina courts

so you are right it made it to SCOTUS.

"The Supreme Court sent the case back to South Carolina courts to determine custody.

Chrissi Nimmo, an attorney for the Cherokee Nation, which is a party in the case, said Tuesday that the tribe would argue the child's best interests would be served by staying with her father.

'This has been a long, emotional case, and it is by no means over,' Nimmo said.

Nimmo said she expected action in the courts relatively soon and that she hoped proceedings wouldn't drag out for years."

[davepc]

2. That poor little girl

[JI7]

3. i'm not sure i agree with this ruling, it just seems unfair, but the best thing

now would be for her to just settle with the family and not be moved around again.

[StevieM]

142. If her father was allowed to come get her tomorrow, she would be jumping for joy.

She would be more than happy to be "moved around again." This girl wanted to stay with her real family. She was crying when they took her away. And her grandfather had to be rushed to the hospital, having had what they were worried was a heart attack (although that early diagnosis has not yet been confirmed).

But the Capobianco's spin machine is in full gear, with nonsense stories of a family reunited. They don't care about this child--they covet her. The want the parenthood experience, and this is their shot at it.

[JI7]

145. that capobianco guy kind of creeps me out

[StevieM]

147. I heard he got a hair cut to make him look more like Dusten Brown (eom)

[Rhiannon12866]

4. These stories are always heartbreaking for everyone involved.

[cosmicone]

7. Everyone loses

although a) having two parents who loved enough to fight for her and b) getting out of Oklahoma may be a tiny bit of a good thing for the girl.

[StevieM]

41. She wasn't just taken from Oklahoma, she was taken from the Cherokee nation. And I don't believe

that her adoptive parents love her--they covet her. They loved the idea of parenthood so much that they were willing to take a child away from her biological father. And they knew from the beginning that he wanted her, and did everything they could to facilitate the adoption anyway.

Everyone did not loose. Veronica and her dad lost. The adoptive parents won and the lawyer who made money off the adoption won.

[cosmicone]

49. That is a bit cynical

Every adoptive parent takes the child from a biological parent unless a child is a true orphan with both parents deceased. I suppose it takes far more love to enter a lengthy and expensive legal process to get a child back. If they had simply coveted her, they could have let Veronica go and taken on another adoptee to covet.

Veronica's dad shows up after the fact -- where was he when Veronica was being born and her single mom was taking care of her without his help?

[StevieM]

58. Veronica's dad wanted to marry the mother and raise the child together. He backed off to give her

the space she was asking for. He agreed to let her have sole custody, but never to leave his daughter's life permanently. He had no knowledge that Veronica's mom was going to do an adoption. And both she and the adopters knew that he would never have allowed it. That is why they deliberately waited until he was about to deploy before telling him and that is why they deliberately misspelled his name and gave the wrong birth date--so that he wouldn't be contacted and wouldn't be able to invoke to ICWA. When Dusten realized that he had been tricked, he immediately gave his father power of attorney to act on his behalf while he was deployed in Iraq.

It isn't that easy to find an infant to adopt. There are far more prospective adoptive parents then there are babies available for adoption.

[JimDandy]

64. This kind of duplicitous behavior by the adoptive parents

should have made them ineligible to adopt the child in the first place. People with those kind of morals have no business even being allowed to adopt in the first place. I feel so sorry for the child that the courts have allowed her to be raised by people with such low moral fiber.

[IdaBriggs]

80. While "recovering dead beat dad" totally should get the kid.

I mean, he gave the sperm, after all.

[JimDandy]

97. No...a biological father who wants his child absolutely should get his child!

Really? Reducing the dad's nuianced, complicated and gut-wrenching legal battle for his child to an inaccurate description of him as a "dead beat"? Please!!

Read the thread thoroughly...especially the links to the supporting court docs and you will see that this father was tricked, manipulated and lied to by everyone: the bio mother, the adoptive couple and their attorney. Pretty sick actually. (There was a similar sick case in Utah some years back.)

He never knowingly agreed to give his child up for adoption and always meant to be a father to his child. As a single parent in the military, he would have been required to sign a form legally transfering the custody and responsibility for the care of his child to another adult. When not deployed, he could still have the child live with him, even full-time, but legal responsibility for her had to remain in someone else's name.

(I've been in the military and as a single parent was also required to relinquish the legal responsibility for my child to a suitable adult. I chose my child's father, and when not in training, our verbal agreement was that our child would continue to live with me full-time. It's scary having to give up legal responsibility for your child, because there is always that fear of: "What if things sour between me and the person to whom I gave custody of my child", hanging over your head.)

The bio mother undoubtedly knew of this requirement by the military and was aware that his upcoming deployment to Iraq put time constraints on him that made it impossible at that time for him to go to court to establish legal paternity and to then engage in a custody battle. She used that knowledge to her advantage to pressure him into backing off so that he gave her sole custody and she even offered to not ask him for financial help in supporting the child. Of course she was perfectly willing to do that, because unbeknownst to him, she had been secretly planning all along to give their child up for adoption to an out-of-state couple. And all the while, he was thinking this was a workable temporary arrangement just until he got back from Iraq and could be a physical presence in his child's life.

Agreements such as what she engineered are not legal nor enforceable in the eyes of the law, though, and the state always has an interest in seeing that a child is financially supported by both parents. In addition, even if the father had been a willing party in this adoption, both he and the mother legally had the right to change their minds right up until the second the adoption was finalized in court.

In any case, non-payment of child support by a parent, whether in a case such as this or in a normal child custody case, is NEVER a justifiable reason to remove a person's parental rights and the courts have acknowledge that.

[IdaBriggs]

101. The facts do NOT support your assertions.

From the NPR interview:

Whatever happened in the first few months of the pregnancy, Dusten eventually texted Christy that he was giving up his parental rights and would not support the child (my bold).

"It punched me in the gut, knowing that the father of my child did not want her at all," Christy says. "That's when I pretty much decided I had to do something because I could barely even put food on the table for the kids at that time."

[/blockqote]

He *knew* he was signing away his parental rights TWICE (with clearly labeled ADOPTION paperwork the second time) and agreed to it so he wouldn't have to pay child support.

He did not provide either financial or emotional support during the pregnancy. He was not present at the birth or make arrangements to see her. He was not tricked into this - he wanted away from the situation because of his personal issues with the mother.

After repeatedly stating he wanted no parental responsibilities AND SIGNING LEGAL DOCUMENTS TO THAT EFFECT, he made no provisions for child support (which would indicate a desire to have a parental relationship) or for either himself or his family members to begin building appropriate emotional bonds. His plan, as stated in the interview was:

"I just figured the best interest would be ... for to have the full custody of her, but for me to still be in the picture — be able to come visit and stuff," he says.

To recap: his parenting plan was "to come visit and stuff" while the magical fairy of Not His Problem waved the wand of diapers, formula, housing and ACTUAL PARENTING.

Because putting the best interests of his child above the feud with his ex is apparently something he couldn't do (especially if he was going to have to pay child support to cover the bills instead of being "gift daddy&quot .

You see a victim tricked by his evil ex whose financial problems were well known to her "fiance"; I see a deadbeat who signed away his rights TWICE because he didn't want the responsibility, then changed his mind because he wasn't in control of his participation.

He was still in country when she was born - the adoptive parents (who paid the bills, by the way) took her home from the hospital. He NEVER made any attempts to see her - and he knew she'd been born because if he hadn't signed the paperwork, he was going to get child support papers.

Pregnancy and child birth are major life events. He opted out. The child is where she belongs.

[StevieM]

105. He did not opt out. Christy perjured herself. And there is no such thing as a father simply

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2020, 02:39 AM - Edit history (1)

opting out. If there was, then any man who wanted to could simply refuse to pay child support. If the adoption had happened in front of a judge.....the adoption would not have happened.

Ronnie Brown is not where she belongs--and one day, I believe, she will return home to her REAL family. In the meantime, our nation has been disgraced. This is a sad day in American history.

[IdaBriggs]

109. The second quote was from him. The text was from him.

What part of this DIRECT QUOTE is unclear?

"I just figured the best interest would be ... for to have the full custody of her, but for me to still be in the picture — be able to come visit and stuff," he says.

PARENTING is not about being "able to come visit and stuff" especially when you knowingly sign away your parental rights so you don't have to pay child support.

Men usually have two choices: pay child support or surrender parental rights. You cannot surrender parental rights if there is not someone to take them over (as in "adoption&quot . He knew what was going on because the adoptive parents were paying the tab, at the hospital, took her home, and he had to sign paperwork TWICE.

Once is a trick. The second time the papers he signed and handed back had "ADOPTION" all over them.

Option 1: Pay child support, arrange for visitation, be a parent.

Option 2: Surrender parental rights, don't pay child support, let someone else be the dad.

Telling the mother "I want nothing to do with you and I won't help raise the child," then signing legal documents to that effect, clearly says that was his intention.

Unless we assume he was an idiot who didn't know he should be contributing to the care of his child financially, who couldn't read, and who never utilized the court system to initiate visitation even though he had free legal aid with the military.

So which is it? My opinion (and the courts, and the mother, and his texts, and his legal agreements) all say he wasn't planning on "parenting" his child until several months after her birth when he changed his mind.

[StevieM]

111. He didn't "want nothing to do with her"....he wanted to MARRY her

He backed off to give her the space she was demanding. If she felt that he wouldn't pay child support, then she could have taken him to court. She knew that wasn't the issue....and she knew that he wouldn't agree to the adoption.

He began fighting the adoption immediately....and the PROSPECTIVE adoptive parents knew that he didn't want it from the beginning. And, yes, I am saying that criminal activity was committed to get him to sign something he didn't understand--he thought that he was giving the mother custody. He should have been less naive and more responsible--but the Capobiancos and their lawyer shouldn't have broken the law. If they thought he wanted the adoption, then why not take him before a judge, as the ICWA clearly required?

And no, men do not have the right to surrender parental rights to get out of child support. They just have to pay it.

[IdaBriggs]

113. Read the quote. He didn't want to pay child support.

The only way to NOT pay child support is to surrender parental rights to either the state or to someone else who is willing to take them on who has been thoroughly vetted by a reputable agency.

This is a quote from the NPR story which is pretty obviously well researched:

One fact, though, is beyond dispute: Whatever happened in the first few months of the pregnancy, Dusten eventually texted Christy that he was giving up his parental rights and would not support the child.

"It punched me in the gut, knowing that the father of my child did not want her at all," Christy says. "That's when I pretty much decided I had to do something because I could barely even put food on the table for the kids at that time."

His intent is clear both by his actions, and lack of: no child support, no attempts at visitation, and (recently discovered by me) no notification to the military that he had a new dependent.

None of those things was dependent on his marrying his baby's mother. All of them are common knowledge. And in my experience in the real world"giving her space" is best read as code for "busy with someone new."

[StevieM]

115. This is nonsense. He backed off at the behest of the mother. He never intended to leave

his child's life for good. If Christy wanted child support, she could have taken him to court. She didn't want that--she wanted an adoption.

The man was leaving for Iraq, there wasn't a lot of time for visits--and the mother made it clear that he wasn't welcome. Her claims that she felt punched in the gut, and was feeling helpless, are BOLD FACED LIES. They are what she was told to say by lawyers and the Capobiancos.

If all of this was true, then she could have arranged for him to surrender his rights in the presence of a judge, something that Capobiancos lawyer KNEW was required. They deliberately didn't allow that because THEY KNEW he wouldn't agree.

[IdaBriggs]

118. That makes no sense. What would the mother's wishes have to with

him reporting her as a dependent?

Let us pretend your version makes sense.

To believe that, we have to ignore his texts saying he doesn't want to pay child support and is willing to relinquish his parental rights to that end.

We have to ignore the fact he signed two sets of legal documents to this effect several months apart.

We have to ignore the fact he didn't report his new dependent to the military or initiate child support payments or offer financial support during the pregnancy or document in ANY FASHION his wish for visitation with either himself (in person while in town/via skype while deployed) or with his extended family because he was putting the mother's wish for "space" above the natural desire to bond with his daughter / see her before going into a potentially dangerous combat situation, and trust that even though he was too "busy" to do those things, he was planning on being an involved co-parent while deployed.

All because his bad judgment had him screwing around with an evil woman who "gave away his child" while he wasn't looking / didn't read any of the legal documents because --

I don't buy it. Apparently the Guardian ad litem (whose job is to look out for the best interests of the child) didn't buy it either.

Nobody buys it. Except you. Oh, and a couple of other folks who would rather believe his ex did this out of malice instead of desperation.

I could be wrong. It doesn't seem likely.

[StevieM]

120. If all of you assertions are true, then why not bring him before a judge, as required by the ICWA?

Why did they deliberately avoid mentioning he is Cherokee? Why did they misspell his name and give a false birthday?

The accusations you make are based on the lies that Christy and the adopters have been making. There is a simple reason they are smearing Dusten--they are evil people.

If Dusten ever signed something that was tantamount to relinquishment papers, then the Capobiancos would have successfully proceeded with the adoption. But they were never her adopted parents until recently, because the father was unwilling to relinquish all along--and they knew it. They argued in court that as an unmarried, biological father he was not a legal parent. Their argument was the exact opposite of the one you describe.

The Guardian ad litem works for the state, and the state is pro-adoption.

Since when is a hazy, cryptically defined text message a means of relinquishment? If the mother really thought he was gone from the picture, and wanted nothing to do with parenting, she would have told him about the adoption--she never did. Because she knew he wouldn't allow it, and that is why she deliberately deceived him, as well as the courts.

And yes, Dusten used very bad judgment. He didn't realize how many evil people there are in the world, including corrupt attorneys who will break the law.

[IdaBriggs]

124. You make no sense.

He signed adoption papers BUT the mother never told him. Pick one.

He signed another set of papers relinquishing his parental rights BUT he wanted his child. Pick one.

He planned to parent his child BUT he didn't report her as a dependent.

He cared about her welfare BUT he never saw her despite not being deployed when she was born and for a period thereafter.

He was a member of the Cherokee nation BUT * he* didn't submit his daughter's paperwork until legal battle commenced.

He did NOTHING to indicate he wanted to be her parent until several months after her birth BUT he was going to be a great dad (except for never meeting her, never making arrangements for her financial well being, and telling everyone he didn't want to be legally responsible for her).

He is a nice guy, and he screwed with an evil woman. Yes, everything is everyone else's fault. Poor him.

[StevieM]

126. This is nonsense. He was fighting the adoption immediately. I don't know what you are

referring to, regarding the "second" document, but I know that he was fighting the adoption immediately. If not, then the adoption would have gone through. It doesn't take months to make it happen if both parents are willing. And he didn't see Christy because she didn't want to see him.

You have chosen to believe the lies of the adopters. The Capobiancos and their lawyers are deceivers--you are merely deceived.

[IdaBriggs]

130. Four months old when the second "final" paperwork was presented.

That is NOT immediate.

Please explain why his child was not listed as a military dependent or a tribal member and he paid no child support during those four months.

Please explain why anyone gives a hoot about whether their ex wants them to see their child if THEY want to see their child. Please further explain why he made no appeals to the court for visitation before he was deployed or for his extended family to "Skype" with her while was deployed.

Please note he was not deployed when his child was born.

Please - I am waiting to hear how Christie used her magic mind control to prevent herself from receiving funds that would benefit her and their child.

[StevieM]

133. We only have Christy's word that she asked child support and he refused. And I am calling her a liar

if that is even something she outright said. If you want child support, you demand it, and go to court if you don't get it.

It is ridiculous to suggest that unfiled paperwork, when he was oversees in a war zone, constitute evidence that he had no intention of parenting, and intended to relinquish. The actions of the mother and the Capobiancos demonstrate that they understood he would not agree to an adoption.

He temporarily backed off at Christie's request, in a hope not to alienate her. Claims that he was not looking to support his daughter, or be a part of her life, are blatant lies by the mother and the proponent's of Ronnie's adoption.

[IdaBriggs]

136. He was NOT deployed when she was born so please stop saying that.

Four months after the birth of the baby girl — as Dusten was about to deploy to Iraq, and as the adoption was about to become final — per NPR

The texts are from him. He *admitted* the plan was this:

Brown, who was not married to Veronica's non-Indian mother when she was conceived, signed a legal document agreeing to put the girl up for adoption and relinquishing his parental rights in exchange for not paying child support.

per CNN

Bonus Fact: he didn't put his child on as a military dependent (free medical at no cost to him), didn't pay child support, didn't register her as a tribe member, didn't meet her (who cares if his ex didn't like it?), didn't introduce her to extended family, pass out photos, send diapers, etc. and made no legal attempts to secure visitation for FOUR MONTHS while he was in the United States (which isn't a war zone).

That is why I keep saying TWICE with the paperwork. He had to sign the first "relinquish parental rights" to get the adoption started. The second set has "ADOPTION" all over it which he ALSO signed.

And she shouldn't have had to ASK for child support; his daughter was entitled to his financial support, and he could have "not alienated the mother" by sending some money to help cover the expenses that come with a pregnancy. It is a common practice that RESPONSIBLE parents commonly engage in even after relationships end.

But he made a deal - someone could have his parental rights and the responsibilities that came with it, and he would get eighteen glorious years of child support freedom (plus bonus of getting to be a drop in dad when it was convenient).

Such a victim.

[StevieM]

138. This is ridiculous. He backed off at her request. He never said "I won't pay child support."

If that had been the case, she could have taken him to court, and a judge would have assigned a numerical amount he was required to pay. Christie fully understood that he would support his daughter if she asked him to--that's why she never asked.

NPR's reporting is filled with misinformation, because journalists in this country are biased towards adoption--just watch Dr. Phil and all the lies that he tells. I am only aware of one set of papers that Dusten signed, and when he learned what it was--and that the attorney had deceived him--he demanded the papers back. The lawyer threatened to have him arrested if he took them back.

Besides, this is not what the Capobiancos argued in court. They argued, at least by the end, that as an unmarried biological father Dusten had no rights.

If the Capobiancos truly loved Ronnie Brown, they would have left her with her REAL family. The Capobiancos are evil people who have allowed their selfish desire to play house with another man's daughter to trump the best interests of the child.

[IdaBriggs]

141. Fact: relinquished rights shortly after born which started the adoption process.

Fact: texted his intent to relinquish rights / refused to help financially while his ex was pregnant.

Fact: never OFFERED to pay child support, and had signed documents so he didn't have any legal responsibilities for his child.

Fact: signed FINAL (second set of documents) adoption paperwork without ever meeting her while still in the country when she was FOUR MONTHS OLD.

Fact: later changed his mind.

Facts are not bias. The reality is you have to keep making stuff up ("he was in a war zone" - no, he wasn't; "he would have paid" - he said he wasn't going to, and signed papers so he didn't have to; "he was giving her space" - what type of man doesn't at least see his child with a peek in the nursery window, or initiate some type of visitation with the courts if he is prevented by a malicious ex from seeing his child?; "he was tricked!" - with free legal services available and clear language on the documents he was signing; "he wanted her!" - except he gave her up for adoption) to make this guy appear sympathetic.

He isn't. DEAD BEAT DAD.

[StevieM]

144. He didn't understand what he was signing because he was FLAT OUT LIED TO

He thought the lawyer represented Christie, and he was giving her full custody. He didn't know that the Capobiancos existed. He couldn't have "changed his mind" because there was nothing to change his mind about--the Capobiancos didn't exist in his mind.

Calling a text message a signed document is preposterous. Not to mention that the baby wasn't born, so he couldn't legally relinquish at that point.

Christie KNEW that he wouldn't consent to the adoption--that's why, by her own admission, she deliberately provided false information to evade the ICWA. So even the mother doesn't challenge that he wasn't looking to allow an adoption, but then changed his mind. Of course, the adopters' version of events is that he changed his mind ONE MINUTE later.

Dusten thought he was "relinquishing" custody--not his future role in his daughter's life. And yes, it is her responsibility to state what amount she expects in child support. Dusten offered to marry her and support her.

I said he was going to war zone when referencing the fact that the adopters deliberately waited four months to finalize the adoption, in order to make his situation difficult, because they KNEW he would object. Adoption don't take four months. They happen quickly, and adopters want to get the papers signed ASAP, in order to make certain that the birth mother doesn't change her mind.

As for what kind of man gives a woman this amount of space, I suspect that the answer is a man who knows that the mother who will be raising the child has already been through a lot, including losing custody of her first two children.

Dusten Brown is NOT a dead beat dad. He is a man who wanted to keep his daughter, but was confronted by diabolical adopters who didn't care about his rights or the welfare of the child that they covet. And there are a lot of cases like this one. Noah Medeiros, in Rhode Island, is another example of a man whose family is currently being victimized by the adoption industry.

The adoption industry is a plague on this country. And as I said before--they are deceivers. You are merely deceived.

[IdaBriggs]

149. You keep making stuff up. You need to educate yourself.

Go here:

http://www.scadopt.net/CM/Custom/FAQs-About-Adoption.asp

What rights does the birth father have?

In the state of South Carolina, the birth father has the same rights to the child as a birth mother; however, he only retains those rights if he is actively involved in the birth mother's pregnancy and assertively makes his desire to be a father known.

Although the situation varies from case to case, a court will generally evaluate whether a birth father has abandoned his rights because he has not revealed himself, offered financial support for the baby before or after birth, or has shown no inclination to be responsible to the child. Because each case is unique, please contact our office if you have any concerns about the birth father and his rights.

How long does the adoption process take?

No matter how smoothly it may run, adoption is a long process. The State of South Carolina (like many states) requires a waiting period after placement before an adoption can be officially finalized in court. In South Carolina, an adoptive couple must wait at least three months from when the baby is born before the case can be considered for finalization.

During those three months before the finalization, many birth mothers fear that they will be completely forgotten about once the baby is delivered and the adoption is finalized. However, even after your baby is placed, our office still provides you with counsel and assistance to help you get settled.

That was two seconds of googling "how long does an adoption take in South Carolina" -- this is what EVERYONE goes through, and there is no reason to assume a man with a high school diploma who is in the military couldn't find this out either through the internet, legal counsel, or any of the people around him.

Get it? He didn't help with the pregnancy, sent texts he didn't want to be involved / pay child support, signed documents to that effect when she was born, never met her/she went home with the adopting parents, never provided for her financially, and then signed a second set of documents with the word "ADOPTION" all over them.

He had the same amount of time the birth mother did to change his mind - in South Carolina that is three months.

It wasn't deception. It was abandonment.

You really seem to be missing one of the key points of parenting which he failed: to put his child's needs above his own. His needs might have included "not dealing with the crazy ex", but if you don't, and you sign off your parental rights and responsibilities, the people who step up get to be her "REAL" family.

Here is another two seconds of googling "what happens if I surrender my parental rights in South Carolina" (which he did when she was born so the adoption process could begin)?

http://www.ehow.com/info_8679332_child-stop-terminate-parental-rights.html

Whether Or Not You Can Do It

While some TPRs are involuntary, most states do allow a voluntary termination under some circumstances. This will require the cooperation of your local Department of Social Services or the other parent; the other side asks for termination, and you either sign a consent (NOTE: he did) or simply don't respond to the TPR petition. While the law varies from state to state, you will not be allowed to unilaterally give up your rights. Since ending parental rights also ends parental responsibility, courts won't approve an uncontested TPR without some kind of justification and the assurance that taking you completely out of the children's lives is in their best interests. Even parents who haven't seen their children in years can be obligated to pay child support.

Finality And Adoption

When a TPR is granted, it becomes as if you died; the children no longer have you as a parent. Since you have no rights, the other parent is free to deny you contact with the children even if he or she promised to still let you have visitation if you didn't resist the proceeding. Another effect of a TPR is that once it's done, your consent to an adoption is no longer required. Your ex's new husband or wife, or a pair of complete strangers, can now adopt your child.

If he really didn't "get it" because he was deceived, it was self-deception. This information took LITERALLY two seconds to get. I am a stranger who is not intimately involved in the case. The man who should have been willing to give his life for his daughter, in your version of events, didn't bother to do his own investigation.

He also didn't pay child support, which seemed to be his main concern.

I am confident I know who is lying about what they thought was going to happen. You and reality are not looking like friends.

[StevieM]

174. He did make it known to the mother that he intended to be part of his daughter's life

He never relinquished his parental rights--he thought he was relinquishing custody. And the mother deliberately worded her text that way, in order to lay the ground work for TPRing him against his wishes. If she wanted child support, she could have easily gotten it. The mother, the Capobiancos and their attorney were already laying the groundwork to deny him his daughter--as proven by the fact that they deliberately sought to evade the ICWA.

If you think that SC law makes it easy for a father to have the same rights as a mother, and not be TPRed against his wishes, then I have a bridge that I would like to sell you. That link you put up says it all: "he only retains those rights if he is actively involved in the birth mother's pregnancy and assertively makes his desire to be a father known." If the mother denies him the right to be involved in the pregnancy, as Christie did, then that is it for the dad--he is out of luck. Dusten tried to MARRY the mother--but that isn't good enough. If she wants him out, then he is out. And who defines what constitutes "assertively"? The state--the pro-adoption state. Dusten had no shot with these people. Apparently, the mother and the adopters felt that he was assertive enough that they deliberately sought to evade the IWCA.

[LisaL]

121. She couldn't afford to take care of the child. She had two other children already.

What did he expect her to do? I am guessing, based on his words, he expected her to take full care of the child, and he would be able to visit without paying child support. How nice for him.

[StevieM]

125. Well then she could have taken him to court. Or demanded child support.

She did neither. Dusten was never asked to sit down and negotiate child support. She didn't ask because she didn't want that--she wanted an adoption, and knew he would never agree. So she deliberately deceived him.

If Christy didn't want custody, then she could have simply asked Dusten to take custody, or his family. They would have done it, especially if confronted with the alternative of adoption. Christy didn't do that because she might have had to pay child support, like she already did to her parents, after they took her two older children away. Maybe she couldn't afford that. But that should have been worked out with a judge, just like the adoption request should have been worked out with a judge.

[IdaBriggs]

137. The negotiation for her child support went like this:

Brown, who was not married to Veronica's non-Indian mother when she was conceived, signed a legal document agreeing to put the girl up for adoption and relinquishing his parental rights in exchange for not paying child support.

He signed the first document shortly after she was born relinquishing his parental rights and responsibilities, which formally started the process. He pretended she did not exist for FOUR MONTHS. He was not in a war zone. He had access to legal counsel during this time, which (if he is to be believed) he did not consult. He signed the final adoption paperwork THEN CHANGED HIS MIND.

Deadbeat dad.

[StevieM]

139. That is not what really happened. That is the LIE that Christie has told at the behest of

the adopters and their diabolical lawyer.

And Dusten contacted an attorney to block the adoption within eight days of the fraud that was perpetuated against him and his daughter. The adopters knew IMMEDIATELY that he didn't want it, because their lawyer threatened to have him arrested if he took the document back. Actually, the knew BEFOREHAND because they deliberately sought to evade the ICWA.

And in court, they did not make the arguments that you are making. Dusten did make the argument that he never intended to relinquish, in addition to invoking the ICWA (which the Supreme Court rejected in a remarkably strained interpretation, to paraphrase Justice Sotomayor)

[IdaBriggs]

143. Dude, this guy was a sperm donor for all that he was involved.

You obviously have some deep seated issues with adoption because you keep insisting that everyone except this guy is lying.

While some might find the fact he changed his mind admirable, I am not one of them. The more I find out about both his actions, and more damning, his inactions, the less sympathetic I find him.

I believe the right decision was made, and I hope you will quit misrepresenting the case.

He did sign his rights away TWICE.

He was not in a war zone.

He had no relationship with her.

He did not act like a good father, or indicate he had any interest in her until he changed his mind about what he had done.

These things were no one else's fault but his. The train wreck he has made with this situation is of his own making.

That is my opinion. You are welcome to your own.

I wish you the best as you try to find peace with whatever makes you think there is an adoption conspiracy with malicious intent to hurt people, which I do not find a credible issue except in rare cases in other centuries.

Good luck.

[StevieM]

146. That is correct. Everyone else (the mother, the Capobiancos, their lawyer) is lying.

That is indeed my position.

And there most certainly is a malicious conspiracy, by a multi-billion dollar adoption industry, to steal children from parents who love them, and who are understood to want them.

Other centuries? I guess you haven't heard of the Baby Scoop Era. That didn't involve rare cases, and it wasn't all too long ago.

Finally, let me be clear that although this thread is about a man, most victims of the adoption industry are women.

[IdaBriggs]

150. Everyone else - the mother, the adoptive parents, the lawyer, the guardian ad litem,

the social workers, the military, the man's family, the man himself through texts and legal documents are lying.

The guy who did everything EXACTLY RIGHT if you want to give your kid up for adoption and then admits to changing his mind is telling the truth because when he signed paperwork saying "ADOPTION" and "I agree to terminate my parental rights so I don't have to pay child support" is telling the truth that he really wanted her from day one (even though he never saw her or made any effort to do so).

Right.

Have you considered investing in real estate? There is this amazing bridge in Brooklyn, and I know we can get it for you at very reasonable price.....

[StevieM]

175. The people you mention are all the proponents of adoption

And it doesn't matter what the social workers/Guardian ad litem think, they were not direct witnesses. So you are just padding your numbers. The people lying are the adopters, their corrupt attorney and the mother. I base my assumption that they are lying on two things: First, they deliberately sought to evade the IWCA. Second, according to their version, Dusten supposedly changed his mind ONE MINUTE after "signing" the adoption papers.

And there is no such thing as "terminating your parental rights to not pay child support." The very concept does not exist--it isn't legal. This was just manipulation by the Capobiancos, to later set the stage for terminating the rights of a man who they understood wanted to parent his daughter. If the mother wanted child support, she would have gotten it, and she knew that perfectly well.

[IdaBriggs]

176. Your mind is not influenced by the facts.

He has publicly stated he signed to terminate his parental rights in order to not have to pay child support.

If he had wanted his daughter, he had four months to demonstrate it. Instead he signed off on her on two separate occassions, and followed the letter of the law in order to facilitate an adoption (which he clearly knew about).

[StevieM]

177. Your mind is closed to reality.

He did not and could not have terminated his parental right to avoid child support--you are not allowed to do that.

If he really wanted an adoption he would have gone before a judge. The adopters did not arrange that because THEY KNEW he would not agree. They knew that the ICWA applied and the adoption HAD TO take place in front of judge--that's why they DELIBERATELY gave false information regarding his name and birthday. Simply put, they are criminals.

Calling a text message signing off is silly. And to say that he followed the letter of the law is preposterous. He had never even heard of the Capobiancos, and the first time he heard their name was after learning that the criminal who represented them had tricked him into signing papers that he DID NOT understand. He thought the lawyer worked for Christie and that he was giving her custody.

But according to your version, he changed his mind ONE MINUTE later and then unleashed this whole fight out of nowhere.

[IdaBriggs]

178. Ooh! I found more information proving you wrong!

Did biological father pay child support?
(snip) In fact, he was in trouble with the law already for back child support of his other daughter for approximately $11,000 (“The mother of his first child was forced to take court action after Father had amassed a child support arrearage of approximately $11,000.” Pg52 SCSC ’12).

(more)

Did the biological father always want to be a part of his daughter’s life?
While it appears he now has a desire to raise his child, the facts show that during the pregnancy and up to the first four months of Veronica’s life Dusty made no attempt to be involved in his daughter’s life. (“Father was aware of Mother’s expected due date, but made no attempt to contact or support Mother directly in the months following Baby Girl’s birth.” Pg6 SCSC ’12) – (“Father claims his abandonment was conditioned on his belief that Mother would raise the child—not place her for adoption.” Pg66 SCSC ’12)

Is it true that the biological father was overseas with the Army and couldn’t see his daughter?
No. This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. (“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.” Pg2 ’12) He remained stationed there throughout the pregnancy, and four months after birth, when he was deployed to Iraq in January 2010. (“Mother gave birth to Baby Girl on September 15, 2009“) – (“Father departed for Iraq on January 18, 2010”)

Did the biological father believe he was signing a temporary custody agreement to the biological mother because he was being deployed?
No. While Dusty has recently tried claiming that he believed to be signing a TPR or ‘Full Custody’ to Christy while he was deployed, in court he admitted to believing he was signing his parental rights to Christy to raise and support the child alone. (“Father sent a return text message to Mother expressly indicating his desire to give up his parental rights. Father later claimed he would not have “given up” his parental rights had he known Mother planned to place the baby for adoption. However, during Father’s cross-examination the following exchange took place: Q. But you were prepared to sign all your rights and responsibilities away to this child just so as long as the mother was taking care of the child? A. That’s correct. Q. And you would not be responsible in any way for the child support or anything else as far as the child’s concerned? A. Correct.” Pg33 SCSC ’12) – (“Father testified he believed he was relinquishing his rights to Mother and did not realize he consented to Baby Girl’s adoption by another family until after he signed the papers.” Pg6 SCSC ’12) – (”Father claims his abandonment was conditioned on his belief that Mother would raise the child—not place her for adoption.” Pg66 SCSC ’12)

Are the adoptive parents trying to shut the biological family out of Veronica’s life?
From the beginning of Veronica’s birth, the adopted parents kept the relationship open for Veronica to remain in contact with her biological family. Christy was involved in her life from day one. Dusty never asked for visitation until Family Court was coming to a close, (“Moreover, while Father was in Iraq until December 2010, Father failed to request visitation until he was deposed in this case. At the time of his request, Baby Girl was twenty-two months old, and Father had returned from active duty seven months earlier.”) Since the beginning of the case in Jan. 2012, the Adoptive Parents have stated their desire to keep everyone involved in Veronica’s life. They have never wavered from their wish to have everyone involved, and hope to be able to continue a relationship between Dusty’s family and Veronica once she returns home.

Drat those legal documents that say stuff - everybody is lying, including him, because he loved her so much (as long as he didn't have to support her). CONDITIONAL ABANDONMENT -

[Hardlyaround]

180. Thank you for the research you've done.

So far, you're the only one with links to prove what you've been saying, I haven't seen anything other than this father, and I use that term very loosely, didn't want anything to do with this baby until he had a moment of regret.

Nobody has proven that there was any subterfuge involved by the adoptive parents.

The courts ruled correctly and now this baby girl is with parents who will raise her with all the love she deserves.

[IdaBriggs]

183. Thank you. For some reason this case really moved me.

At first the idea of someone "stealing" a child completely infuriated me, but the more I looked into it, the worse it looked for the Dead Beat Dad brigade. I understand that his relationship ended acrimoniously, and with $11,000 in back child support owed to his "other baby mama" I am not surprised he wanted to avoid paying for her. I think the text messages are pretty clear on his intent, and he obviously filed the first batch of paperwork to start the proceedings, and even admits to signing the second ("final&quot paperwork.

He changed his mind. It happens. If he had been there when he was needed, or taken advantage of the 90 day waiting period, this would have been a different story. I understand his regret, but he does not win "father of the year" from me.

[StevieM]

182. First of all, that is the majority opinion in a 3-2 ruling.

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2020, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I imagine that the minority opinion would read quite differently. Second, I have come right out and said that the adopters and the mother are bold faced liars who manipulated the situation. Third, the adopters are not planning on allowing Dusten to see his daughter, even as she cries out for him as we speak. Fourth, it doesn't take 4 months to get an adoption done. They deliberately waited until he was about to deploy in order to complicate his ability to contest, which they fully expected. Fifth, Dusten thought that Christie wanted him out of the picture, and he was giving her what she wanted temporarily, so as not to upset her--she had already lost her other two children to her parents.

The South Carolina SC was not witness to any of these events. And the judges you quote are pro-adoption and skewing the facts, as did the Capobiancos lawyer. The KNEW they were taking a child from a father who wanted her.

I don't know what happened with his child support, but I do know that there is another Dustin Brown who was in arrears and at times this Dusten has been confused with him. I also know that the mother of Dusten's older daughter has described him as a great father.

I have to hit the road, so go ahead and take the last word.

[IdaBriggs]

185. Do you deny he signed away his parental rights shortly after she was born?

Do you deny there is a 90 day period by South Carolina law where he could change his mind? (This is why the 4 month period is relevent - its the law.)

Do you deny he stated that he *planned* to relinquish his parental rights, as quoted in the court documents I have referenced?

"Great fathers" rarely end up $11,000 in arrears and have to have their baby mama's take them to court. Please provide a link where she said he was a great father.

[StevieM]

194. I honestly have to go, I can reply to your comments at a later date,

but for now I have to be on the road--I am late as it is.

He didn't know what the word "relinquished" meant, as they were using it. He thought it meant custody. There is no such thing as a father relinquishing unless there is an adoption. And he never once even heard the word "adoption."

Here is the link you requested.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/07/19/inseparable-sisters-adoption-order-exacts-toll-baby-veronicas-family-150500

[kcr]

193. Judges can make some truly fucked up rulings.

There was a case years ago where a Chinese couple came to the US and fell on some hard times financially while they were here, and a wealthy American couple said they'd help them and look after their children while they got back on their feet. When it came time for them to go back home to China, the wealthy couple fought to keep their young daughter in the US and adopt her, because she'd been with them since she was a baby and "China is no place for a little girl to grow up", citing best interests of the child. The court agreed and gave the American couple custody and started adoption proceedings. They basically had their child stolen from them and the court allowed it. The couple fought this ruling for years. They finally won and were able to return to China with their daughter but they lost years of time with her.

[IdaBriggs]

179. And his JUNE text messages (she was born in September) - he's a winner!

June 8, 10:45 p.m.

Well it sounds like u hav throught this thru. And u hav mad ur mind up. Its a hard decision 2 make. But I think that I will just sign my rites away. I'm ...

June 8, 10:59 p.m.

I'll get sum papers signed up and send them 2 u. I don't kno how 2 get those papers but I will find out from my batter commander

June 24, 9:23 p.m.

I'm still tryun 2 get the paper work 4 signin my rites away. But my dad is wonderin when he can come over and get my stuff.

[Hardlyaround]

181. That seems to be pretty definitive proof that he didn't want anything to do with baby Veronica.

[StevieM]

184. He thought he was talking about custody....he was using the words differently than you are

and then the adopters later portrayed. But I agree that the choice of words is fishy--to me it just shows that the Capobiancos and the mother knew what they were doing all along. They knew he wanted the baby, and were determined to take her away PERMANENTLY, which was never his intention. This is further proven by their DELIBERATE and ADMITTED evasion of the ICWA.

And you cannot sign your rights away before a child is born--there is no such thing. Heaven help us if the adoption industry ever gets their way about that.

[IdaBriggs]

187. We *finally* agree - you can't sign your rights away before a child is born.

But you can spend the months of June through September 2009 (which he did) getting the documents in order so you can send them when the child is born (which he did).

If he had not done this, the 90 day period for "changing his mind" would not have begun, which was why he was handed "final" documents (which he signed) when she was nearly four months old.

Everyone complied with the law, including him. Then he changed his mind, but it was too late.

ON EDIT: Just what do you think he meant by "it sounds like u have throught this thru....Its a hard decision 2 make. But I think that I will just sign my rites away."

Per her, it was a discussion about "surrendering his rights" versus "him stepping up and helping out." And in the court documents, although he was supposed to be paying child support for his six year old (the one he was in arrears on), the "Mother claims that Father has another daughter whom he does not support, but this was never substantiated by the evidence." There is also this little gem from the testimony, "Mother...stated Father pressured her to get married for monetary purposes because the military would increase his pay for 'family living.'"

[Hardlyaround]

189. Do you have any proof of this,

other than the fathers word?
So far all I've seen from you is innuendo and allegations and heresay, nothing proveable, unlike Ida, who has provided proof with links.

And for the record, I am the product of an adoption to loving parents, and also have 2 grown twin daughters that my wife and I adopted at birth. Other than the usual problems with teen daughters, we never had any problems as far as they wanting to see their biological parents, and they knew early on that they were adopted, we never kept that a secret from them.

[kcr]

191. Exactly. Why aren't we seeing the texts that's responding to.

And just like I said in another post. If there were any contact whatsoever between him the Capobiancos, or anything at all indicating his consent to go through with the adoption, they'd be showing it. It's very telling that there isn't.

[Nine]

186. Signing those papers was the very LAST step in the process, not the first step.

No wonder you think adoption in this country is messed up if you're under the impression that having someone sign a single piece of paper is all it takes. Are you aware that adoption costs run into the tens of thousands, minimum? A large part of those costs are for legal services to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed on the mountains and mountains of paperwork and red tape that must be completed. To say that this man, who had access to free legal counsel, was tricked into signing a piece of paper he didn't understand is preposterous. He had months and months to initiate even the smallest measure of action toward being a father. Maybe he did have regrets "one minute" after, but that was one minute after crossing the finish line, not one minute after starting the race.

[kcr]

188. I think you have that backwards.

"He had months and months to initiate even the smallest measure of action toward being a father." Backwards. He was her father. It's the adoptive parents who take steps toward becoming the parents, here. Not the other way around. If there was evidence of contact between him and the prospective adoptive parents during the process they would be waving it all over the place to show it. See? He knew! Here's proof! But there isn't. That's how I truly believe it was "Here, sign this paper, a mere formality you see, never you mind, off to war you go!"

[StevieM]

190. This is nonsense. He didn't even know who the Capobiancos were, or that their was

an adoption being planned. He was never told. He wasn't part of the process--they made sure of that by LYING to avoid the ICWA and giving false data (a crime, by the way).

He signed what he thought were custody papers, a belief he had because the lawyer for the Capobiancos is a CRIMINAL.

[Hardlyaround]

192. Speaking from experience, you are 100% correct.

My wife and I adopted 2 baby girls and the legal expenses and paper work involved was quite extensive.

This man wasn't tricked into anything, he knew what he was doing from the start and I can't generate any feelings of sympathy for him.

For Veronica, I'm glad it's over and now she can be raised in a loving home without the turmoil.

[Nine]

154. "The adopters knew IMMEDIATELY that he didn't want it"

Immediately? Veronica was four months old at the time. The adoptive parents had attended the birth and taken their child home with them. The biological father had been completely out of the picture since relinquishing rights to the biological mother in order to get out of paying child support. Do you have children? Would you be willing to give them up four months after bringing them home from the hospital? The biological father hadn't even met this child. He apparently didn't even know that she was already living in her adoptive home. Why would the adoptive parents have had any inkling that he was going to suddenly change his mind and decide he wanted custody of this child? I suppose if the final paperwork had been done when Veronica was 14 months old instead of 4 months, that's when he would have suddenly remembered his offspring and decided he wanted to be a father.

You claim the adoptive parents and biological mother deliberately sought to evade the ICWA. Yet they submitted the proper paperwork, only with two errors. Why do you insist this was done deliberately? Believe me, no adoptive parents want to have any hitches like that in their paperwork that could put them at risk. What happened is every adoptive parent's worst nightmare. "Dusten" is not the standard spelling of Dustin, and an error in a birthdate is not unheard of. I really believe these were just minor errors in a good faith effort.

Without the ICWA aspect, this man never would have stood a snowball's chance in court. That is not even in dispute, except here on DU, apparently. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to attempt to address the ICWA technicalities, especially since even SCOTUS didn't agree on all aspects of it. But I can certainly address the moral and ethical aspects of this. This man had abandoned his daughter in every way. That is not my opinion, that's established fact. He hadn't even met her by the time she was four months old. No member of his family had met her. He had not made any financial contribution. He didn't even know her whereabouts. He had explicitly chosen to relinquish his rights to her. Ida Briggs has posted what he himself testified - that he had wanted the biological mother to take care of Veronica without any financial support or other involvement from him, but he still wanted to be able to come by and visit when he felt like it - which apparently did not mean at her birth or at any point in the first four months of her life. And you actually believe him when he says he just wanted to give the birth mother her "space"?

Four months in, after Veronica is settled happily in her home with parents who love her, that is when this horrible excuse for a human being decides to throw a wrench in the works? At 27 months is when Veronica gets ripped from the arms of the only parents she's ever known. This man you're defending and portraying as a victim is, in my opinion, a monster .

[IdaBriggs]

160. ^=== This.

BEAUTIFUL. Just BEAUTIFUL.

[kcr]

152. You know, I fully support holding parents to their child support obligtion

and having nothing but contempt for those who weasel out. But it still doesn't excuse what happened. This was a travesty and adoption needs to be more heavily regulated to avoid this mess. Adoptions should not go forward unless it is absolutely clear that both parents have willingly signed off on it openly and fully aware.

[IdaBriggs]

155. The evidence is that it happened like it was supposed to.

1) He told the mother he didn't want anything to do with the baby, and didn't want to pay child support. He did this verbally, and via text message. (Apparently the break-up was acrimonious.)

2) He had nothing to do with the mother during the pregnancy, and provided zero financial support for her with pregnancy related expenses.

3) When the baby was born, he signed documents relinquishing his parental rights, did not attend the birth, never met the child (who went home with the adoptive parents), did not inform the military of his new "dependent", did not register her as a tribal member, did not offer or pay any form of child support, and did not make any moves to initiate visitation either with himself or his extended family (who did not make plans to "welcome" a new addition to the family with gifts, baby showers, etc.).

4) The pregnancy, while unplanned, was known to him; there was no "surprise! you're a daddy!" because he knew about it and discussed his unwillingness to be involved in providing parental child support.

5) The adoptive parents provided financial support to the mother for pregnancy related expenses, including medical bills. Again, he did not.

6) The child went home with her new parents from the hospital who were present in the room when she was born. Again, he was not, and made no effort to see her.

7) The three month waiting period, initiated because *both birth parents* signed documents relinquishing their rights to her, began.

8) After the end of the three month waiting period, during which the adoptive parents were monitored / had visits with appropriate agencies, he was presented with "final" adoption paperwork, which he signed. His daughter, who he had never seen or so much as bought a diaper for, was nearly four months old by the time he signed the documents with the word "ADOPTION" in large letters.

9) He was not deployed at any point in time during this process, had access to free legal counsel, and he *personally* followed the requirements of South Carolina law so that the adoption could take place.

This wasn't trickery; it was planned abandonment of his parental responsibilities. He had four months *after* she was born and multiple opportunities to change his mind - all he had to do was either not sign the papers, or "assert his intent to parent". One text message from him would have given his lawyer all the ammunition needed to stop the process before he signed off the SECOND time: "I hate you, but I want my child."

Babies rarely spring into the world without people knowing about it. He knew. He was just busy with his life doing other things instead of preparing for a child. One can reasonably surmise this was because he wasn't planning on being intimately involved in her life, as evidenced by both his actions (signing off on his rights to her) and his inactions (not taking any steps to financially care for her).

The most damning thing FOR ME is that, if he wanted her, why wasn't she listed as a military dependent or put on his life insurance policies as a potential beneficiary as he prepared for deployment? She was nearly four months old when he was handed the "final paperwork" - where was he?

I have provided links in post 149 that clearly spell out what was going down. It took me two seconds to google the information, and I am not intimately involved. The guy knew what he was doing.

He changed his mind, but he changed it too late. Life happens that way sometimes.

[kcr]

157. Where, in post 149, does it show it went down that way

it's just links showing the law, unless I missed something. Yes, everyone on the side of the adoptive parents claim he knew what he was doing. But I've yet to see any evidence of that.

[IdaBriggs]

158. The links show the law.

He followed it.

The part where he wasn't supposed to be involved with the pregnancy and state that he didn't want to be involved? He sent a text message and verbally confirmed it.

The part where he signed off on his parental rights? He did that right after she was born.

The part where he wasn't supposed to "assert any interest in parenting her"? He followed it to the letter: no money, signed documents, no registering her as a dependent, etc. He *never* met her.

Then he signed the ADOPTION paperwork after the three month waiting period completed.

He wasn't deployed and had access to free legal aid. "If you don't want to pay child support, sign here" followed up with "never seeing his daughter for four months" kind of speaks for itself.

The evidence is the common sense of why would a guy do all of that if he wanted to parent his child?

The evidence is what a guy who WANTS to parent his child does: he helps cover the bills associated with the pregnancy, meets her at birth or shortly thereafter, inquires as to her health and well being, makes arrangements to spend time with her, introduces her to extended family, makes financial arrangements for her with child support, access to military dependent health care, puts her on as a beneficiary in his life insurance in case "something happens", provides diaper changing service, and if the mother is being difficult, he initiates court proceedings so his rights to spend time with her are protected.

He did NONE of that. NONE.

If he is confused about any of these things - like the difference between "guardianship while deployed" and "termination of parental rights" (which the papers he signed after she was born clearly stated), then he either uses the intertubes to check things out, talks to his legal aid, or asks a family member for advice.

The ninety day waiting period is there for him to do all of those things. He let it expire, and even signed the FINAL adoption paperwork - and then changed his mind.

Pretending it was "out of respect for the mother" is insulting to common sense. He could have either registered her as a military dependent or a tribal member without the mother's consent, and both actions would have indicated his intent to parent.

He didn't. He didn't want to pay his ex child support for eighteen years, and signed off so he wouldn't have to. Then he changed his mind.

Claiming he was "tricked' is insulting to common sense. "I didn't know doing that made babies! I didn't know signing stuff saying I was giving up my parental rights meant I was giving up my parental rights! I didn't know babies need diapers! I didn't know the military provides medical care for dependents! Plus, she's EVIL - she gave away the baby I didn't want to raise!" Seriously?

I've said the same thing over and over. Honestly, it is common sense, but I am a parent, and I know what I would do for my children, so his actions (and lack thereof) are frankly incomprehensible to me - pretending she didn't exist, signing off to avoid child support -



If you can find one thing he did prior to the "oh my god, this is real, and I just really did that" moment when his daughter (who he had never seen) was four months old to indicate his intent to parent, please share it. I've looked at pretty much everything out there, and once he and his ex broke it off when she was (as near as I can determine) in her second trimester, it seems like he did nothing to guarantee he was going to be an active part of his child's life for most of the next year.

I think it was because he was busy with a new honey, but I am a cynical sort. Not every new girlfriend wants to deal with your ex's child. Who knows?

[kcr]

159. I'm sorry

But I can't get onto the men who have been adjudicated by public opinion to be scumbags deserve to have their children taken from them bandwagon. And you can point to the law all you want. It isn't evidence that is what happened in this case. She didn't let him know her intentions were to put that child up for adoption. I don't care how scummy he is. That's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Every time. Wrong. If you can't do it above board, there's probably a reason for that, and that reason is he didn't want her put up for adoption. And that is his right, no matter what your or anyone else's opinion of of him is.

[IdaBriggs]

161. The only person saying that is HIM, and he isn't exactly "Mr. Credible."

You don't get to sign off on your parental rights unless someone else is there to take care of them. It is *clearly* the first step in the adoption process, as I pointed out with two seconds of googling.

His, "duh, I was stupid" defense is a joke.

His child wasn't taken from him because HE NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH HER. And this is the part you seem to be missing:

That was ON PURPOSE because otherwise he would have had to pay Child Support.

Just what magical fairy was going to take care of his child if it wasn't going to be him?

As I said, two seconds of google:

"what happens if I surrender my parental rights in South Carolina" (which he did when she was born so the adoption process could begin)

http://www.ehow.com/info_8679332_child-stop-terminate-parental-rights.html

Whether Or Not You Can Do It

(snip) the other side asks for termination, and you either sign a consent (snip) you will not be allowed to unilaterally give up your rights. Since ending parental rights also ends parental responsibility, courts won't approve an uncontested TPR without some kind of justification and the assurance that taking you completely out of the children's lives is in their best interests. Even parents who haven't seen their children in years can be obligated to pay child support.

Finality And Adoption

When a TPR is granted, it becomes as if you died; the children no longer have you as a parent. Since you have no rights, the other parent is free to deny you contact with the children even if he or she promised to still let you have visitation if you didn't resist the proceeding. Another effect of a TPR is that once it's done, your consent to an adoption is no longer required. Your ex's new husband or wife, or a pair of complete strangers, can now adopt your child.

Not secret. Easy to find. Not a trick. Intentional abandonment and consent. And he signed the initial consent right after she was born so the adoption could start, then signed a second set of papers nearly four months later with "ADOPTION" in big bold letters right on the top.

[kcr]

162. That would be the point of doing everything above board, as I said.

Let's say you want your baby daddy to agree to the adoption. Do you, A, sneak him the papers real quick like right before he deploys, with a lawyer you claim is representing you? Or, b, do you carefully make sure everything is open and transparent and bring the prospective adoptive parents along to meet him too and all sign together? Which choice do you make if you know he isn't going to agree to it?

[IdaBriggs]

164. A) He relinquished FIRST when she was BORN so the process could start.

This stopped him from getting dinged for child support and is why he didn't put register her as a military dependent or a tribal member.

B) His "right before deployment" was when she was FOUR MONTHS OLD for the FINAL papers.

It was as open and transparent as it needed to be. He had access to legal counsel.

What you seem to be missing is that he DID agree to it. Then he changed his mind AFTER the 90 days had elapsed and he had signed off on the "final" papers.

He changed his mind after the fact. There is even a quote from him about it and I know you read it because you responded. He wanted to "visit" which is NOT the same thing as parenting.

[kcr]

165. No, I'm not missing anything

It was as open and transparent as it needed to be. That's the problem right there. See, I just read your comment about the rage that induced in you about his wanting to be in her life after they split. I'm so, soooo not with you on that one. So, no, I don't agree with you that this was as open and transparent as it needed to be in the first place. So, I think that people who try to sneak children away from the parents that want them in their lives are the lowest scum of the low. I put them much further than parents who don't want to pay child support.

[IdaBriggs]

167. SNEAK is a misrepresentation. Being an absentee father (while in the country)

and signing off on the paperwork so the adoption could take place (twice), never being a part of her life, etc.

He's a douche bag.

If you want to keep your rights, don't sign off on them. If you want to be a parent, tell her you want custody and will take responsibility for the child. If you want to be a dad, list her as a dependent.

You think he was tricked. I think you are mistaken.

[kcr]

168. Well, gee.

If it had been more open and forthright, we'd know for sure, wouldn't we? See, I tend to form my opinions based on what's more likely than not. And figure out things based on motive, and why people do the things they do. Now, she goes through this whole adoption thing openly with these people, meets with them, the whole shebang. But doesn't afford him the same thing. Not one time. Just, here's a paper, sign. Why would that be? There's no communication between them about the adoptive parents. No, here's there name and address so you can get to know them! from her. What are the likely motivations of that? I know of one that is most likely. And given that he claims he thought it was just for custody for her, the two mesh together neatly. It makes the most sense. At any rate, anyone in the industry worth their salt would know not to do it this way. A third clue to the piece that makes it all fit and spells out sneaking thievery.

[erpowers]

117. In What World

In what world is a guy saying he wanted to be in the picture and that he wanted to visit his child the same as saying he did not want to take responsibility for his child, or that he abandoned his child. If he said he wanted to be in the child's life and wanted to visit the child that seems to mean he did not abandon the child. That seems to show he had every intention to take care of the child.

[IdaBriggs]

119. The texts saying he didn't want to pay child support and was relinquishing

parental rights so he didn't have to do so.

The only way to RELINQUISH parental rights is if someone else is going to assume them. If there was no one to assume them, you don't get to get out of paying child support. He knew about the adoption plan (otherwise he would have been reporting her as a dependent, and the child support deductions would have begun).

After he signed those papers, even if she wasn't adopted, she wouldn't have been eligible for survivor benefits if he had passed. It was a shitty thing to do, if indeed he wanted to be her parent.

[erpowers]

129. Not True

The child's mother admits that she did not inform Brown that she intended give the baby up for adoption. The mother also admits that she kept Brown's Native American status low key in order to keep his status from preventing the adoption. If neither he nor his family wanted the baby why did she need to keep the father's status low key.

I would not expect any regular guy/person to know that in order to relinquish parental rights someone else has to be willing to take them. In addition, even if someone knew that I would expect that person to assume that if they are relinquishing their parental rights the other parent is the person who takes up those rights.

[IdaBriggs]

131. Do you know anyone who gets out of child support?

He told her he was relinquishing his parental rights and didn't want to pay child support. I have quoted the source several times, so let us move on to the other fact -

Four months after the birth of the baby girl — as Dusten was about to deploy to Iraq, and as the adoption was about to become final — he was served with papers notifying him of the adoption. Dusten signed off on them, inadvertently, he says. But within days he filed a formal objection, invoking the Indian Child Welfare Act. He says that in agreeing to give up his parental rights, he thought he was relinquishing his parental rights to Christy.

To recap: signed paperwork relinquishing parental rights about the time his daughter was born (which began the adoption process), didn't visit in hospital, or see her for the first four months of her life WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES, paid no child support/had nothing to do with her, his family had nothing to do with her, signed adoption paperwork - then changed his mind.

He didn't register her as a military dependent, a tribal member, pay for her medical bills, pay child support, or even begin a relationship with her by MEETING HER --

Seriously, what more did the man have to do to show his complete lack of interest in parenting his daughter?

That isn't "tricked" - that is scum.

[RobinA]

153. Actually, In This World

Many, many accidental fathers want to be "in the picture" and "visit" the child. What this frequently boils down to is the guy drops by from time to time. For awhile. Then the visits get further and further apart. Meanwhile, Mom and/or her family raise the child. A guy who really wants to take care of his child, responsibility and all, is there, not just "in the picture."

I'm not saying the man in this case was thinking this way, I'm answering the question in the post.

[politicat]

72. Deployed.

He had ridiculous legal advice, but he was also on the other side of the planet, in combat. A little hard to get to the hearings.

A lot of servicemembers end up having to choose to sign away custody or take a demotion or even a general discharge. Single military parents don't have a lot of options, and often don't have counsel advocating for their parental rights.

[IdaBriggs]

116. The deployment happened AFTER she was born.

After the first set of papers were signed. And people who are deployed can still arrange for child support and fill out paperwork for dependents. He did none of those things because his intent was not to be legally responsible.

Those documents would have had "Guardianship" on them instead of "Adoption."

[politicat]

135. Have you ever deployed?

Because the 90 days before deployment might as well be out of country. Minimal leave granted, long days, heavy training, and often 50 mile orders because a unit readying to deploy can be deployed much faster in an emergency.

Not to mention the significant deception and couple drama. Which is relevant.

The point remains that our military does not well support single parents, no matter how they became single parents. I had a classmate who became an officer, whose partner left her 7 months into her (superior officer approved) pregnancy. After her child was born, my classmate was given the choice of a general discharge (so no chance of VA benefits if she ever needed them, including a requiment to repay her ROTC scholarship) or giving up custody of her child. One of my siblings married another member of her service; when they had my nephew, their senior officers pressured them to choose one to take a discharge or to relinquish custody of him. A third friend has a long-term posting in the US; she lost her husband in Iraq. Despite the fact that her child in no way interferes with her duties (she brought in her cousin as a full-time co-parent), she was pressured to send her child to her elderly parents on the opposite coast.

This is not unusual, not if it's happening that often. (That I have 3 anecdotes from the last few years is significant. I'm from a military family, so probably have more military connections that the average, but I haven't gone to three military funerals in the same number of years, nor had significant injuries in my circle. I've heard a lot of similar stories in the community gossip, but those three I can verify. Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.)

[IdaBriggs]

140. He knew she was pregnant for nine months. He was not deployed.

Four months after she was born (that is 120 days) is the "shortly before he was deployed" date.

I was unaware that every single member of our military is unable to become parents - probably because it isn't true.

Military relationships have specific challenges, and I will not presume to say it is "easy". In his case, he created his own relationship drama, and then bailed on the situation during the pregnancy, and after she was born.

The clue? His options were "pay child support" and honor his commitment to his daughter with the help of family. He didn't want to do that, and signed legal documents to that effect TWICE. He didn't meet her, financially protect her, or anything that responsible military parents have to do to take care of their families. (The word was "Guardianship" not ""adoption" - and his playing dumb about this when he is trusted with military hardware scares the crap out of me!)

She wasn't a surprise; she was inconvenient. Fortunately, she found a good home. Some decisions you don't get to change your mind about, and trading your parental rights and responsibilities for eighteen years of "child support freedom" is the mark of a fool. She is better off.

[Politicalboi]

53. So moving to South Carolina

Is different how? Besides, she was better off with being with her father.

[cosmicone]

59. California would have been better

but it was a facetious comment ... not serious.

[erpowers]

8. Just Horrible

Dustin Brown should have been given custody of his daugther. As far as I know he wanted the girl from the beginning.

[LisaL]

19. How did he want the girl from the beginning?

He signed documents relinquishing his parental rights.

[StevieM]

42. Dusten didn't know what he was sigining.

The lawyer didn't tell Dusten what he was signing until after he signed it. As soon as the lawyer told him what he signed, he tried to snatch it back, and the lawyer told him he'd have him arrested if he did. Yes it was irresponsible of him, but that doesn't justify tricking someone into signing adoption papers that they FULLY understood he did not want to sign. Adoptions should be REQUIRED to take place in front of a judge.

Besides, the argument made by the Capobiancos was that as an unmarried biological father Dusten Brown had no rights.

[IdaBriggs]

81. I didn't know they let people in the services who can't read.

I mean, did he see the part where he was going to be paying child support?

Oh, wait-a-minute! When you sign away your rights, you don't have to do that! He must not have noticed that part! I mean, after all, if he was actually TAKING CARE OF HIS CHILD, the military would have been taking a chunk of his pay for child support.

And if he wanted to be in his daughter's life, he would have been making arrangements for "extended family" to see her regularly, and "skype him" with her so he could watch her grow up.

Except that didn't happen either.

But the revisionist history (instead of the realistic common sense that he didn't want to give his ex money / wouldn't be available to parent the child, and somebody had to do it, so who was that magical invisible person going to be while he was on deployment?) where he is an innocent victim --

Malarky.

[Blue_Tires]

100. Well, for someone who didn't want her

for some reason he did spend considerable time, effort and money in trying to get her back....

[IdaBriggs]

102. He bailed while the mom was pregnant and the baby wasn't "real" to him.

His main concern at that point appears to be anger at the idea of giving his ex "free money" for eighteen years (which is not an uncommon reaction for many men).

He made no effort to see her for several months. He signed papers on two occasions (one set clearly labeled "ADOPTION&quot with access to (I believe) free legal counsel so "I didn't know what I was signing" is ridiculous. Plus he never attempted to see her, get visitation, or provide financial support EVER until AFTER he changed his mind.

I would like to think enough time had passed that the acrimony from the ending of the relationship was better, and he finally realized just what it was he had done to everyone by bailing on them all when he was needed the most. Many women would have kept the child and allowed him to be "visitor daddy." Personally, I think given the financial circumstances of not being able to take care of two other children that the mother made a loving and courageous decision since she had been repeatedly told to expect nothing from him.

There are some things in life you don't get to "do over" - and this type of assholery can be one of them. There are people who forgive it, but I am of the mind that it should never be forgotten.

I am not sure if he is a "controller" or genuinely regretted abandoning his daughter. I would like to believe the latter. The adoption was an open one. It is too bad he didn't try to work with the adoptive parents - and I am still not sure who he thought was going to step up while he was deployed.

[erpowers]

51. Thought He Was Giving Temporary Custody To Child's Mother

He said he thought he was signing custody over to the child's mother while he was in Iraq.

[LisaL]

69. Why would he think he needed to sign the custody over to the mother, considering

he didn't have child in his custody to begin with?

[me b zola]

74. How can you defend the taking of a child from its parent to give it to strangers?

Just how entitled do you feel?

[IdaBriggs]

79. Are you serious? The self entitled jerk is the guy

who WALKED AWAY WITHOUT MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR HIS CHILD.

To the rest of the world he looks like a deadbeat dad - no money for diapers, no visitation with his family, no skyping so he can see her --

But the mom was supposed to just ASSUME that the guy she had already learned she couldn't trust because he wasn't there for her in any manner shape or form was going to MAGICALLY change (assuming bad things didn't happen while he was deployed) and suddenly "be there" for the child he wasn't even helping to pay for diapers for?

But having her adopted by a loving couple who desperatedly WANTED HER - who WEREN'T strangers because they were taking care of her as an infant, THAT is the part you focus on?

Reading this thread is making me crazy. The level of "oh, that poor man!" Seriously, if he WANTED the child, he would have made sure her mom could afford diapers.

[Nine]

89. I hadn't been following this case.

You inspired me to do a little reading about it. Thanks for providing some information others are leaving out.

[IdaBriggs]

90. In the NPR story, there is a line from him that just fills me with RAGE:

"I just figured the best interest would be ... for [Christy] to have the full custody of her, but for me to still be in the picture — be able to come visit and stuff," he says.

Talk about the ultimate deadbeat dad. He won't pay a dime to help raise her, he doesn't actually plan to "parent" but he wants to "come visit and stuff" ---



And then the "hero" guy TEXTS his refusal to parent his child - he's a gem all right!

Whatever happened in the first few months of the pregnancy, Dusten eventually texted Christy that he was giving up his parental rights and would not support the child (my bold).

"It punched me in the gut, knowing that the father of my child did not want her at all," Christy says. "That's when I pretty much decided I had to do something because I could barely even put food on the table for the kids at that time."

Thank heavens the adoptive parents stepped up; they were the ones who supported the mother through her pregnancy, and through the birth. He *never* made arrangements to see her or anything (let alone take care of her financially). It was apparently all about the money.

Until he changed his mind. And then it was all about him - never about taking the child he had *never* met - not one ultrasound appointment, NOTHING - and what he wanted.

[kcr]

163. That fills you with rage? Really?

You know what? I've known plenty of people who've had relationships with their fathers like that. After my parent's divorce, that was pretty much the way it was with mine. Not sure why that's all that rage inducing, actually. Parents split up, and that often has to mean that one parent is on the sidelines more. Particularly when that one parent is in the military. So guess what? That doesn't mean that adoptive parents have the right to swoop in and take them, with the blessing of the birth mom, conspiring behind the dad's back.

[IdaBriggs]

166. Yes, there are many dead beats out there, and many men who seek to avoid child support.

This was not a conspiracy. This was someone ducking his responsibilities.

I hope your dad paid child support. Statistically, he probably screwed with the money, had multiple periods of arrears, and complained regularly about your mother.

Your mileage may vary.

Please quit saying that his STATESIDE deployment prevented him from helping with the pregnancy or being an involved parent. The claim is insulting to the military folk who bend over backwards to be a part of their children's lives.

South Carolina is not that big of a state. This guy = douche bag.

[kcr]

169. A deadbeat dad, in the sense that they don't want to pay child support

doesn't mean they should be out of a child's life. For cripes sake. This is exactly why they don't tie custody arrangements along with it, or tell parents to withhold visitation when they don't pay! And you know what? If my dad didn't pay, or they squabbled over the payments, or what have you. Whatever. That was between them. He was still in my life and that was what mattered to me at the time. I advocate strongly for financial parental support. But I draw the line at parental alienation to enforce it. That's counterproductive, for one thing, not to mention draconian.

[IdaBriggs]

170. Ah. Much explained. "Whatever."

It was your mother's job to make sure you had a roof over your head and food in your stomach, and if your father was such a loser that he couldn't help, well, it fell on her to figure it out on her own. Him "being there in your life" was what mattered to you because you were too young to understand how utterly disrespectful to you and her his behavior was.

We will never agree about this. You have been raised to find such actions tolerable and acceptable. I have been raised to find them the actions of contemptable people who are not worthy of respect.

The odds of you emulating your father are high (since you were raised with it as a normal). (I hope that doesn't happen.) And since you believe the father in question TWICE signing off on both his rights and responsibilities and not participating in parenting her is acceptable, you believe he is "entitled" to continue a relationship with her regardless because of his sperm donation.

Fortunately, her REAL parents are taking care of her now. He can keep his money, since it was what mattered to him the most.

Good day and good luck.

[kcr]

171. It's not how I was raised. It's the law.

Since you seem so fond of pointing it out I would have thought you'd have respected that in all cases. But apparently not. Much explained, indeed.

[IdaBriggs]

172. It is also how you were raised to find inappropriate behavior acceptable.

And "alienation" doesn't kick in once you have signed away your rights and responsibilities.

That's the law. Ta!

[kcr]

173. More explained. Your jumping to conclusions and thinking you know everything about people

Completely explains your opinion on this. Toodle doo!

[StevieM]

104. Exactly. They we DESPERATE for her. Dusten just plain loves his daughter. And he tried to work

things out with the mother, he even tried to marry her. He backed off to give her the space she was demanding, but he always intended to be part of his daughter's life. The mother knew that and that's why she conspired to deny him his paternal right by falsifying information.

[IdaBriggs]

114. They were engaged before the pregnancy. The relationship ended.

He knew she was pregnant.

Space can still come with a check to help cover the bills associated with the joy of pregnancy. It came with a series of nasty texts instead.

[me b zola]

196. From my point of view it is not "oh the poor man"...

...but rather, "OMG, that poor child".

Signed,

an adult adoptee

[erpowers]

76. His Plan

It seems that his plan was to give custody of the child to the mother until he returned from Iraq. According to Dusten Brown and his family, he and his family were trying to get custody of the girl. So, he may have thought the paper he signed was just a settlement of the issue.

[IdaBriggs]

78. Except he made no child support arrangements or anything else

that would signify he *wanted* the child in his life. He made no plans for *his* family to visit / begin building bonds, or for skyping or anything else that normal parents on deployment do.

Did he think his daughter was going to live on the love he was sending through the airwaves?

He walked away. Then he changed his mind.

[IdaBriggs]

77. Disagree. He gave up custody.

Apparently he thought it was temporary. If he had wanted the child, he would have made arrangements for child support while he was deployed. He would have made arrangements for his family to see the child while he was deployed (so everyone could begin building a relationship). He would have made arrangements for him to "skype" or get pictures or ANYTHING so he could be a part of her life.

It is what the *other* soldiers who are deployed and have children do.

He did none of those things. He walked away. The mom made the best arrangements she could for the child - a loving, supportive, two parent home, as opposed to being raised by a single mom with a dad who may or may not be involved, depending on his mood and the other things going on in his life.

Later he changed his mind. It happens. By that point, he had been just the sperm donor, because she was already part of a family.

[erpowers]

85. Thought He Was Giving Custody To Child's Mother

According to Dusten Brown, he and his family wanted the child, but could not get in touch with the mother. He did sign papers, but when he realized the papers were to agree to adoption he immediately tried to get the papers back. He was told by the process server that if he touched the papers he would be sent to jail. As a result, he consulted a JAG officer (military lawyer) about what he could do to contest the adoption. At the latest Brown began contesting the adoption two or three months after the baby's birth. The copabiancos were allowed to keep the child while the case was contested. That is why the child was two years old before Brown was awarded custody.

[IdaBriggs]

86. He was told "pay child support or give up custody."

He gave up "custody and all parental rights" of a child he *never* met. (This was how the adoptive parents were able to take the child home from the hospital, while he was still in the country.) FOUR MONTHS LATER he signed adoption paperwork which CLEARLY said "ADOPTION" in big letters.

Then he changed his mind shortly thereafter.

He didn't want to pay child support. And even if he *thought* he was just giving the mother custody (which is kind of weird), on what planet does a non-custodial parent NOT pay child support?

Oh, on the planet of "dead beat dads who don't want to be involved" with an added bonus of "who sign away their parental rights and then later regret it."

[erpowers]

123. Other Posts

Your other posts prove he wanted to play a role in his child's life. Brown was never a "dead beat dad who didn't want to be involved". As you have pointed out in other posts Brown said he wanted to be in the child's life and that he wanted to visit the child. Any man that wants to be a part of his child's life is not a dead beat dad.

[LisaL]

127. Look up what "deadbeat" dad means.

Deadbeat dad means a man who willingly doesn't pay child support.
He wanted to show up and visit, meanwhile a single woman was supposed to have been raising 2 older kids and his kid without child support. Isn't it nice?

[IdaBriggs]

128. "Dead Beat Dad" traditionally means someone who does not pay child support.

Most times it is because they don't want to give money to their ex, or take away from their "new families."

It is extremely common for these people (because women do it, too) to come around "visiting" with periodic gifts of diapers or formula, and expect accolades for their contributions. They like to ignore the fact children require shelter, electricity, running water, clothing, medical care, etc. This sounds like his plan; it would have put him in charge of his investment, and if the mother irritated him, he could make himself scarce (which he had already demonstrated he was willing to do).

Real parents don't "visit" when it is convenient. In addition to providing financial support, they also provide emotional stability with regular contact, and in the case of a non-intact home, shared legal custody and specific visitation.

As near as I can determine (and I have now read A LOT about this case), he gave up his parental rights because otherwise he would have had to pay child support and he didn't want to do that. As I have said before, parental rights can be taken away by the state for abuse/neglect, but a parent CANNOT relinquish their responsibilities to a child unless there is someone else to take over because "willingness to pay child support" is traditionally minimal. The process takes several months to complete, which is why he had to sign paperwork twice over a multiple month span. I believe "not meeting her" made that easier.

If he had not signed those documents (twice), the baby would have stayed with the mom, and he would have been forced to pay support.

It is very common for "new spouses" to adopt. In Michigan it used to be that a new spouse could not do this until people had been married for at least a year but my information is not current and the rules may have changed.

It is possible he thought her "new man" was going to take over his responsibilities, and he could still stop by and "drop in and out" of his child's life. (This is so common as to be cliche.)

This type of "visiting when convenient" does not provide emotional stability and is pretty rotten. If he is really to be believed that he didn't understand that he wasn't just getting out if child support (which I find unlikely), then there can be no respect for a man who wasn't there when his child was born, didn't visit her at the hospital (since he wasn't deployed when she was born), and made no arrangements for her financial well being - and "giving the mother space" is simply not a credible line when he didn't provide one piece of financial support before, during or after the pregnancy.

One can reasonably assume he has extended family. It would not be outside the realm of reasonable for a female relative - sister or mother or cousin - to reach out and begin building a relationship with the mother of their newest family member. No one (as far as I can tell) sent so much as a "congratulations card" let alone a baby shower which would have benefited the baby.

Trust me when I say there is always at least one "pushy relative" who steps in and makes sure the newest grand baby gets properly welcomed into the family. If the female relatives didn't step up, odds are good everyone knew he was surrendering the child for adoption.

He had already moved on. Later he changed his mind. If he had registered her...but he didn't. If he had displayed intent...but he didn't. If he had refused to sign paperwork...but he didn't. If he had helped to financially provide for her...but he didn't. If he had even sent a relative to reach a hand out to show his commitment to his child being in his life...but he didn't.

He wanted to visit. She needed a family. He didn't make one for her (and as a single dad, it would have been tough going, which is why he was happy letting someone else deal with it). She has one now.

Family is attitude. His sucked.

[Nine]

134. Well said. (nt)

[me b zola]

9. Tragic

What a sick world that people feel entitled to other people's children.

[LibertyLover]

11. I hope you don't mean all adoptive parents

As someone who became a mother via adoption, I didn't feel "entitled" to another person's child, but I'm damned glad that the authorities in her country thought enough of my husband and I to permit us to adopt a child who was abandoned on a door step in her home province. People tell us sometimes that she is fortunate to be here in the US - no, on the contrary, her father and I are fortunate that she has completed our family.

[me b zola]

12. What if you were to find out that the child was not abandoned...

...and had family that loved and wanted that child? Would you return the child to her family?

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Interesting.

We normally disagree, but in this case, while the father did release interest, apparently without fully understanding what he did by signing it, the law abrogates that if he contests it before the adoption is final, which he did.

The mother clearly tried to conceal the father's legal status from the adoptive parents.

Both the biological father, and the adoptive parents are victims here, secondary to the little girl. She should have remained with the biological father. It seems the family court has made an arbitrary and emotional decision here.

[me b zola]

15. This is why I keep doors open and don't use ignore

I'm glad that we can agree on something!

[AtheistCrusader]

17. The facts of the case appear very much in your favor.

I feel bad sometimes, reducing these issues to win/lose arguments, after all, that little girl's future is on the line.



http://www.nicwa.org/BabyVeronica/documents/SCOTUS%20fact%20check_Apr4.pdf

[me b zola]

195. Agreed that this is not about you or I (adoptive parent v adoptee) winning or losing

Ultimately I would like for us to all be on the same side. Adoption is said to be about the best welfare of the child, and that is my goal in all of my protestations.

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I had to step away from the thread for a few days.

[AtheistCrusader]

199. No worries.

[StevieM]

37. It is a sickness in our society, made all the worse by the fact that most people don't realize

it is happening. They continue to insist that all adopted children are coming from mothers (and fathers) who didn't want to parent, and if not for the adoption the child would have gone into foster care until 18.

[me b zola]

10. Here's an open letter from a blogger that cuts to the core:

An Open Letter to Matt and Melanie Capobianco




Dear Matt and Melanie,




As I write this rumors are circulating that you have received physical custody of Baby Veronica. I say rumors because in all honesty, I am afraid to look to confirm it since even the thought that this is true makes me want to throw up.




I get that in a way you too are a victim- the victim of an unscrupulous agent who might have never given you a clue that Baby Veronica's father was going to contest the adoption.

(and although while I personally believe that you had to know there was something hinky going on- for the purposes of this, I will pretend you knew nothing of the drama and game playing that were going on between Baby V's birth parents)




But truthfully it doesn't matter one itty bitty bit whether or not you knew there was an issue before her birth. Within 4 months the adoption had been contested. 4 months- 120 days- 120 days that I am sure you fell in love with her, but clearly you didn't fall in love with her enough. You didn't fall in love with her enough to give her back to her father.




I don't know if you were required to take any per-adoptive classes but if you had, you would see that the loss of the birth family through adoption deeply wounds most, if not all, adoptees. Now how those wounds play out is different in form and depth and severity for each adoptee, but the wounds are there. And no matter if the birth family was the dregs of the earth and the adoptive family the salt of the earth, the loss of that first family is significant. Talk to adult adoptees and hear their voices about their birth families.

And then think about what you are doing to the child you claim to love.




Adoption should be about finding families for children who need them. It should never be about taking children from families who want them. It is about one set of parents loving the child enough to do what is in their best interest, and unfortunately, that is not you. It is in Baby V's best interest to remain with her father and it has always been in her best interest since he contested the adoption at 4 months old. And there are thousands of legitimately available children in this world who need a family and don't already have one able to care for them.




Someday Baby V will begin to question her adoption. The need for it, what happened to both her parents (and it may be far sooner than you think- I have one who has talked about her birth family pretty much since she could talk) She will have memories of living with her father and extended family. She is going find out (as soon as she is old enough to Google) that you fought a battle to take her from her father and that he fought a battle to keep her. Who do think is going to play the villain in this script?




Many adoptive parents (especially in international adoption) come to learn after years of searching that their children were wanted desperately by their first families and only through the actions of unscrupulous agencies taking advantage of those families during a time of crisis or distress were they "available" for adoption. They can tell you how hard it is to share those truths with their children and see their pain. How hard it is to know that they played a role in that separation, even though they had no way of knowing at that time.

But how much harder to explain that not only were you complicit in the severing of their first family but that you fought for years to make that happen.

I don't know what word you use to explain that you orchestrated their loss.




It seems to most adult adoptees and a great many adoptive parents that you are so concerned with winning that you have lost all sight of what this is going to do to Baby V.

Not now of course, for now, children are resilient, even in the face of such loss.

But eventually, Baby V will be Child V, then Teenager V and finally Adult V.




You may have won her for now, but I suspect in doing so, you have actually lost her forever.




Signed,

An adoptive parent

http://pullthisblogover.blogspot.com/2013/09/an-open-letter-to-matt-and-melanie.html

[Sunlei]

13. Our adoption laws need to change to recognize the rights of both biological parents.

This precious child will "always be a Cherokee citizen.". I am glad the police officer reported the child seemed unstressed, and happy to see her adoptive parents.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It does, which is surprising in this case.

The father did everything legally valid to contest the adoption. The adoption was not final.

As an adoptive parent, even taking into account vagaries between two different state's adoption laws, it seems the father, and the child were done wrong here. The judge seems, in my opinion, to have selected the parents he best 'feels' will raise the child.

I can appreciate the adoptive parent's frustration, they were lied to as well. But that adoption was not final. It was contested. Whether the father paid support to the birth mother or not, is actually irrelevant.

This seems an injustice.

[Sunlei]

18. Injustice.

There is such a tangled web with Federal laws for Native Americans. So much injustice.

[LisaL]

20. Native Americans? The child only has 1.2 % of Native American blood, while the father has 2.4%.

"Four years ago, an unwed Oklahoma woman, Christina Maldonado, was engaged to marry a U.S. soldier, Dusten Brown, who was stationed at Fort Sill. For what it's worth – and this case hinged on these kinds of details – Maldonado is Latina while Brown is a mixture of American ethnicities. According to papers on file with the Cherokee Nation, Brown has a small amount of Indian blood, 2.4 percent."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/case-514946-brown-indian.html

[LisaL]

22. You tell me.

[LisaL]

24. 1 % isn't anywhere near a "100 pure."

[StevieM]

34. Here is what DU poster ex-cop law student said in a previous thread:

"This is not a "race-based" law, it is a citizenship based law. Each tribe has the right to determine its own standards for citizenship, and the Cherokee Nation bases it on direct descent from a member on the Dawes Roll. Other tribes have a "blood quantum" requirement, from 1/2 (Mississippi Choctaw, White Mountain Apache), to 1/4 (Kiowa, Blackfeet, Hopi), to 1/8 (Comanche, Ft Sill Apache), to 1/16 (Caddo, NC Cherokee), to lineal descent (Cherokee Nation, Osage, Seminole, Shawnee). This is no different than if a child with American citizenship but only 3/256 American blood was being adopted against her American parent's will in a foreign country. You see, U.S. citizenship is also based on descent if born outside of the U.S."

[me b zola]

43. What is it to you the amount of Native American Blood that the girl has?

She has a biological parent whom wants and loves her. End of story....or so it should be. Unless we consider that some people consider themselves entitled to other people's children.

[LisaL]

25. Biological parent doesn't have forever to change his/her mind after relinquishing parental rights.

I believe there is a 90 days limit. This guy signed away his parental rights. He now says he didn't understand what he was doing. But he was an adult.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. He contested it immediately.

That is why the adoption was never final.

The form he signed does NOT relinquish parental rights anyway.

[LisaL]

27. Got a link for that?

He even signed the adoption papers.

"It sounded like a happy ending. But it wasn't. The Capobiancos went back to South Carolina and began raising their daughter, whom they named Veronica. Four months later, Brown signed adoption papers. But he had second thoughts almost immediately."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/case-514946-brown-indian.html

[StevieM]

32. The media is mis-reporting what happened. Dusten was deliberately tricked into signing something

they knew he was unwilling to sign.

[penultimate]

66. Is there any proof of this?

If so, I don't understand how any court could not rule his favor, because that's beyond fucked up. If provable, people need to be fired and lose their rights to practice law.

[IdaBriggs]

82. Is this misrepresented?

"Christina and Dusten's relationship did not last, and by the time she gave birth, the father had been given the choice of paying child support or renouncing his parental rights."

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. He also made NO ARRANGEMENTS to pay child support, which would indicate he wanted to be a part of her life.

Oddly enough, as a person with a modicum of common sense, I had figured it out pretty easily. Kids cost money. Giving child support to your ex-girlfriend -- well, yucky!

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Finding of facts.

http://www.nicwa.org/BabyVeronica/documents/SCOTUS%20fact%20check_Apr4.pdf

[StevieM]

29. He never wanted the adoption--and the prospective adoptive parents knew it (eom)

[LisaL]

31. I understand that he expected that after he relinquishes his parental right, child's mother

will raise the child. But that's what happens when one gives up his rights-he had no rights to decide how to raise the child. Child's mother didn't want to raise her.

[StevieM]

33. He didn't intend to leave his daughter's life. He was trying to back off and not make the

mother feel overwhelmed. It was always his intention to be a father to his daughter--and the birth mother and prospective adopters knew it. They tailored their actions around that fact.

I also think it's dangerous to suggest that it is even possible for a man to simply "relinquish" his parental rights. Using that logic, any man who wants to avoid child support can simply declare that he has terminated his parental rights.

[Sheldon Cooper]

38. Parental rights cannot be relinquished unless there are other parents

in the wings, waiting to adopt. Otherwise, men everywhere (and some women) would avoid child support payments by 'relinquishing' their parental rights.

[RobinA]

47. This is Incorrect

parental rights are often relinquished without parents in the wings. Actually, rights SHOULD be reinquished before there are potential parents, thus avoiding situations like this.

[Sheldon Cooper]

54. To the extent that you've been declared an unfit parent, then yes, your rights can be relinquished

without adoptive parents at the ready. However, you cannot simply declare that you are relinquishing your rights in order to avoid paying child support. If that were permitted, millions of people would be doing it.

[me b zola]

44. And what about the needs of the child?

Children have the right to their own biology/history/culture. Not to mention how the fuck to outsiders believe that they have a right to someone else's child?

[RobinA]

48. The Needs of the Child

do not control in these situations. It is the rights of the parents vs rights of would-be parents.

[me b zola]

50. As an adult adoptee I will tell you

...That it is a perversion of a system that is supposed to protect and help the child that is now a function for people who crave a child.

[me b zola]

52. Let me continue by saying how offensive your post was

Infertility or some other angst that makes you believe that your needs are somehow greater than the child that you are adopting. Just sick...and criminal in my mind

[Nine]

57. I find *your* tone offensive actually

Did you not have a good relationship with your parents? You sound really hostile to adoptive parents.

[me b zola]

61. Again..offensive

Everyone sticks their finger in their ears when adoptees speak their truths, but when we are addressed it is with abusive posts/words like yours. I had wonderful adoptive parents.

But do go on with your hatred of adoptees...I mean, adoption exists to please adoptive parents, right?

[Dorian Gray]

67. I'm adopted too

and I don't find anything that person wrote hateful.

[me b zola]

68. How sad for you

The poster that I was replying to insulted my adoptive parents in an attempt to silence me....and you felt compelled to reply to me and tell me how inoffensive they are. Bless your heart.

[Dorian Gray]

71. The first post

he or she said that the courts were determining the rights of the parents or the would be parents. Not of the child. That seemed to be what you took offense to initially. I thought it was a pretty objective (and perhaps sad statement) about the reality of the situation.

Where ever your argument with him or her devolved into isn't my problem. Bless your heart.

[Nine]

70. Why do you continually talk about adoptive parents and adoptees in adversarial terms?

Why do you sound so contemptuous of adoptive parents, how they have "angst" from their infertility and "crave" a child? You also sound cynical about the entire adoption system. When you talk this way and then make a point of saying that you yourself were adopted, it's not a leap to wonder if you have issues with your parents or wonder if you think your own adoptive process was not in your best interest.

I believe you that your own adoptive parents are wonderful. But then why do you come across as bitter toward other adoptive parents? Your comments seem directed much more generally than this specific case.

[StevieM]

73. In order for the wonderful adoptive family to be formed, first another family has to be broken up.

Our society doesn't even recognize the pain and grief of birth parents.

[Nine]

75. Is that how you think it works?

Adoptive families cause birth families to break up?

[me b zola]

92. Yes, supply and demand

Unfortunately adoptive parents tend to side with the procurers of children/adoption agencies, and first parents (birth parents) have come to understand that adoptee rights and theirs are intrinsically intertwined. Think of it like labor relations. Adoptees and first parents are preyed upon and taken advantage of because of their lack of resources to fight back. The "
market" marches on to make larger profits.

[Nine]

94. In what way are adoptees and first parents preyed upon and taken advantage of?

And in what way are adoptive parents like profit-seeking entities with bottomless resources?

[Dorian Gray]

95. I was never preyed upon

My biological mother chose to give me up. My adoptive parents gave me a family.

You can speak for yourself, but this type of rhetoric is offensive to many of those who have adopted children, who have given up children for adoption, and for those of us who were adopted.

Not every adopted child and natural parent is a victim. Relegating them to that status is offensive.

[Hardlyaround]

96. Myself and my siblings weren't preyed upon by our adoptive parents,

our alcoholic mom and abusive dad gave us up, I was the oldest at 4yo, a few years later she went to court wanting us back, when the judge asked us who we would rather live with, all 4 of us told him we wanted no part of her or our "dad".

I thank the lucky stars each day that a very fine and loving couple came along and adopted us into their family of 6, they already had 4 kids of their own

Your description of people wanting to adopt unwanted children is offensive at best and totally without merit.

[StevieM]

106. It is remarkable that we have actually turned children into commodoties (eom)

[StevieM]

107. Yes, quite often that is how it works (eom)

[Nine]

108. Wow. You are being so insensitive to every adoptive parent on here. (nt)

[StevieM]

110. This entire country is insensitive to the pain of birth parents

and what it means to loose a child to adoption.

[Dorian Gray]

148. Not only insensitive to adopted parents

but to children who were adopted and parents who chose to give their children up for adoption. Relegating them to victim status is denigrating and offensive. And I reject it.

When it comes to this news story, I think that there is no black or white answer.

[RobinA]

156. Wrong

Adoption exists because there are people who cannot or will not care for the chidren they give birth to. The ideal system is one in which every child is planned and wanted and every parent who wants a child can have a child and can provide a stable, healthy atmosphere in which to raise the child. Unfortunately, our system is far from that.

[me b zola]

198. If that is true then why a gazillion FB pages devoted to convincing women to give up their children?

Why are children in so many impoverished nations still being outright stolen and put up for adoption?

If the system was about the welfare of the child then we would be listening to adoptees and first parents instead of shaming us into silence.

[RobinA]

151. I'm Afraid

you are making assumptions about me not based on fact. Infertility, adoption, angst, and my needs (none of which apply here, by the way) have nothing to do with my post. I worked in the child welfare system and I was stating a fact. Read the law.

[me b zola]

197. The emphasis should always be on keeping families intact

Sometimes a biological parent cannot 'parent' for one reason or another, but they have family. A child is best served when at all possible* to remain with family.

*please don't drag out the exceptional cases when they shouldn't, as I go out of my way to NOT post about the multitudes of cases of adoptees that were forced to live under horrific conditions.

[StevieM]

28. Actually, they did plenty of lying themselves. They deliberately misspelled Dusten's name,

they gave a false birth date, and they waited until he was about to deploy to Iraq to notify him. They had an attorney approach him in a parking lot and deceive him about what was being signed. They fully understood that Mr. Brown would not consent to the adoption--they didn't care.

[bravenak]

35. This is sad.

She may blame her adoptive family later for taking her back from her biological family, especially since she was wanted by her father. I know I would not be happy if my father wanted me but my adoptive family fought for custody of me. To not know your cousins, siblings, grandparents is a messed up feeling. She will probably rebel and show hatred towards her adoptive family.

[me b zola]

45. +100 million gazillion

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. so true. i know i would. a biological tie is a very very strong bond

[question everything]

40. Poor Veronica. To be shuttled back and forth

She has been with her biological father since 2011. I hope that the adoptive fathers will have a lot of love and patience and, perhaps, some counseling for little Veronica to gain trust.

[Tien1985]

55. It's a travesty of justice.

The system is really screwed up.

[IdaBriggs]

83. It really isn't.

First, "Christina and Dusten's relationship did not last, and by the time she gave birth, the father had been given the choice of paying child support or renouncing his parental rights."

He renounced his parental rights. He *never* paid child support, which would indicate he wanted to be in the child's life. Four months later he signed the adoption papers - they CLEARLY state "adoption" all over them.

Then he changed his mind.

[Tien1985]

87. According to their side

According to his side, they misrepresented what he was signing.

He also contested the adoption within the legal time limit, according to BOTH sides.

The child belongs with her father, and her adoptive "parents" are acting like anything but.

[IdaBriggs]

88. Which time? The first time or the second?

The first time, when he relinqued his rights so he wouldn't have to pay child support, or the second time, when he signed paperwork with the word "ADOPTION" in big letters across the top?

He provided no financial assistance to the mother during the pregnancy. (The adoptive parents took care of that.) He was not present when she was born. (The adoptive dad cut the child's birth chord.) He didn't have his side of the family throw a baby shower, or even provide a car seat to his ex-girlfriend. He provided no child support to his ex-girlfriend at *ANY* point (knowing the child was with someone else, there would have been no reason), and in fact, signed papers giving up his parental rights rather than pay child support. He made no arrangements to see the child before he was deployed, made no arrangements to introduce the child to his family, made no arrangements to "skype" with the child (who was surrendered to the adoptive parents at the hospital), and was also on deployment, where they don't let you keep kids in your backpack, so he wasn't going to be available to "parent" the child in any case (and hadn't made any arrangements other than "I don't want to pay child support.&quot .

He contested the adoption after he signed the paperwork that clearly says "ADOPTION" on the first page. Soldiers can read, and he knew what he was signing. He wasn't in the country (so he wasn't pressured to sign the second set), and had access to JAG folks *before* he signed it.

She belongs where she is at.

[StevieM]

103. He did NOT know what he was signing. Yes, he was naive, but he never agreed to his daughter being

adopted. According to your version of events, Mr. Brown agreed to the adoption and then changed his mind a minute later, since even the adopters admit that when he demanded the paper back, the attorney (or his employee) threatened to have him arrested.

Dusten Brown wanted to MARRY the mother and support her during the pregnancy. She wasn't abandoned by him--quite to the contrary, she deliberately misspelled his name and gave a false birthday, and then didn't mention that he was Indian, because she knew that he wouldn't agree to the adoption and didn't want the ICWA to come into effect.

The Capobiancos are evil people. They knew this child had a father who wanted her--they just didn't care. And so they have started a campaign of misinformation, and will no doubt lie to their "daughter" as she grow up. They absolutely DO NOT love her--they merely covet her. Ronnie's REAL father loves her with his whole heart--and I pray that one day she will return to him and the Cherokee nation.

In the meantime, the adoption industry has claimed another victim.

[IdaBriggs]

112. He wanted to support her until the relationship ended.

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2013, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Then he didn't want to pay child support, and DOCUMENTED IT both via text, legal agreement surrendering his rights, then a second set of papers agreeing to her adoption. He had access to free legal aid, and didn't use it.

This DIRECT QUOTE FROM HIM is damning:

"I just figured the best interest would be ... for to have the full custody of her, but for me to still be in the picture — be able to come visit and stuff," he says.

That isn't responsible parenting.

He didn't pay child support. He didn't initiate paperwork to begin paying it or notify the military he had another dependent. (That right there says a lot about who he was expecting to care for the child.) He didn't initiate court documents for visitation and NEVER SAW HER for several years. The adoption was "open" and there is no evidence the adoptive parents wouldn't have honored that with him.

He changed his mind. That happens. That doesn't make the people who stepped up while he wasn't taking care of business evil. It makes him at best a fool (if he was really tricked which I doubt), realistically a dead beat dad, and frankly the worst kind of man out there - the one who wouldn't put his child's needs for diapers, formula and a loving home above his need to keep his money, visit when it was convenient/bail when it wasn't, and not deal with his ex in a supportive manner.

[lynne]

84. The father gave up custody. Twice. -

- IMO, this is the best thing for the child. We know she's going to a family that wanted her from the beginning and lovingly raised her the first two years of her life instead of being with someone who has turned his back on her two different times.

For the entire story:
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/16/177327391/adoption-case-brings-rare-family-law-dispute-to-high-court

[Dreamer Tatum]

91. But he's a Native American, so all dice must come up in his favor.

That's pretty much the subtext.

[lynne]

98. If reports are right, he's approximately 2% Native American -

- and that makes the daughter 1%. With that little Native American blood, some tribes wouldn't even consider him for membership.

2% of anything should never trump the well-being of a child.

[arikara]

93. Ideally they should all agree to get along

and have an open adoption where the father can come and spend time with the little girl. I know adoptions like this that have worked wonderfully well.

[Nine]

99. How is it that Veronica had been living with her adoptive parents for four months...

and bio-dad was "tricked" into believing that he was relinquishing custody only to bio-mom? Who did he think these people were when he signed those papers? If he was really this clueless as to what was going on with his offspring, doesn't that say something about his lack of commitment and involvement?

[LisaL]

122. Exactly.

He then changed his mind, but there is only so much time a bio parent gets to change his or her mind.

[IdaBriggs]

132. He wasn't involved and he wasn't deployed.

Four months after the birth of the baby girl — as Dusten was about to deploy to Iraq, and as the adoption was about to become final —

He had nothing to do with her emotionally or financially while he was still in the country. I think he is scum.