You heard that right. Trio and the minions have inched their slimy claws into my state. They are working with a local foster family in another great effort to destroy native sovereignty and demolish reunification laws. The case involves a little girl who was placed in foster care as a toddler. She was placed with Pete and Laura Lupo. Little girl Elle remained with the Lupos for approximately two years before the Department of Children and Family Services transitioned her to the care of an Aunt and Uncle.
The Lupos were mad that Elle was placed back with family. They wanted to adopt her. No doubt some miscommunications took place or the Lupos merely had selective hearing, but they were under the belief they'd get to adopt her. Well, as much as it sucks, they were merely foster parents and when the aunt and uncle did all that DCFS required of them to gain placement of Elle, per state law, Elle was transferred to their care.
The Indian Child Welfare Act was invoked in this case. While I don't doubt it played a part in what is happening, state law is quite clear when it comes to permanency plans for state dependents. Family has preference over non-related caregivers so Elle would have gone to the aunt and uncle regardless.
The Lupos got the backing of the infamous Trio Minions and they have a support page. They've plastered their faces on a local news station. Per the Trio playbook, blame ICWA for breaking apart a family, stretch the truth or just outright lie. Same shit, different child basically. They claim the aunt and uncle just appeared out of nowhere to take her and didn't want her until she was recognized as a native child. Funnily enough, the aunt and uncle had been working with DCFS for at least SIX MONTHS or more to meet the requirements to become a relative foster placement. And the Lupos even tried to claim Elle was suddenly just torn from their home. Well, it was discovered that the Lupos themselves couldn't handle the two week transition period that was going to take place to transfer Elle to the aunt and uncle and they called DCFS and demanded she be removed now because it was too hard on them.
Trio and the minions are hard at work, claiming in every forum they can that the uncle only stepped forward when it benefited him and that they are using the little girl for tribal money and whatever other bullshit these idiots love to spew. They are flaunting Veronica's kidnapping as proof the Lupos will be able to fight, claiming the little girl simply isn't native enough. Hell, Pete Lupo even said on the news segment that Elle is only "one percent" and not entitled to native protections. Here's the thing, you wanna be hipster, YOU and the courts do not get to determine whether or not that little girl is native enough. The tribe itself gets to do that and they have determined that she qualifies.
Her native ties aside, the point here simply is that the Lupos were well aware that Elle would not be an adoptable child and would be transferred to the care of extended family. They decided they were more entitled to her and want to fight it. The law is the law. Family placement will always take precedence over non-related foster parents. Especially when it comes to permanency and the parents themselves are no longer a valid option. Elle's uncle and aunt were determined to be a suitable placement and had done all DCFS required of them.
If Munday and Trio dare show their faces in my state, you better believe I'll make sure I'm there to call them out on their lies and bullshit. I'll call them out for the lies they spread about Dusten, the lies spread about John and the lies being spread about Elle's uncle. Christ, one would think Munday and her minions would think twice about the shit coming out of their mouths. They're being sued for defamation, remember? And they're finding out that Elle's extended family isn't going to just stand by while they flame Elle's uncle all over the internet. They've come out in force, giving the assholes some pretty good virtual bitch slaps.
I do sort of feel bad for the Lupos. For one, they are most likely unaware of the monsters who have extended their helping hand. Secondly, I don't doubt that they do love little Elle. But she was not their child. She never was. If they were made to believe she'd be their child, they either misunderstood or were grossly misinformed. Part of me suspects they heard only what they wanted to hear. Maybe they were told there was a high probability she'd become adoptable. That still doesn't make her legally free to adopt. Maybe a caseworker did get their hopes up. But the pendulum could still swing in the other direction. Either way, being told there's a chance she could become adoptable does not mean she IS adoptable.
So listen up, Trio, Jessica, Dev, Bonnie, Aria, and the rest of you pathetic muppets: Your days of trying to make it open market on other people's kids will be over. Welcome to the evergreen state, assholes. You will not succeed in manipulating our laws like you did in South Carolina and Oklahoma. Will will not succeed in trampling our dependency and reunification laws. You're on our turf now, fuckers.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Saturday, June 7, 2014
They Call Us Anti-Adoption
Titles can be annoying. For some, it's easier to slap a title onto a group in an effort to deflect and sway the opinion of outsiders. It's a handy weapon in the heat of battle, especially when there are those involved in the debate/battle who are not completely familiar with the situation at hand or the two opposing groups.
Trio and the minions love to refer to many of us as an anti-adoption group. It was used during the last legal battle and is again being used in the more current legal battle. It's a knee jerk terminology. Something that strikes a nerve with the populace who is often only familiar with the feel good stories that appear in the local papers. After all, who in their right mind is against an institution that helps find homes and families for children in dire need of one? How often do you hear from those who talk about the need to find homes for the orphans in third world countries or those poor abused foster children who would have died if left in the care of their biological families? When people hear the word adoption, this is what they see and believe. Children who need a home. Children who will die in their country of origin or languish in foster care if some wonderful family doesn't open their home.
They call us anti-adoption because we do not support all adoptions. They believe that once the child is placed in that home, no matter what laws were skirted or outright broken, the child should remain there. Refusing to support entitled couples who believe they have more right to a child than their own biological family means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support forced adoption means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support manipulation of the courts to keep a child a couple is not entitled to means you're anti-adoption.
SM and VB are just two cases in which the supporters for the abductors (i.e. potential adoptive family) have called us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the discriminative laws in place that rob fathers of their right to their children means we are against adoption as a whole. Never mind that these laws were put in place by the adoption industry itself in an effort to keep their commodity flowing. Can't make their money if those pesky fathers have equal rights to their children, right?
Those who support the Hodgins and the kidnappers of VB support the dark side of adoption. They are against families having the right to raise their children. They support laws being skirted and in some cases, outright broken. They support unethical means to obtain a child. They support the current laws in place to keep fathers away. They support ripping children from their homes and forcing them to live a life of slavery in another home with another couple and support forcing that child to call their abductors mom and dad. They support foster couples side-stepping Children's Services and dependency laws in an effort to claim a foster child as their own, even with the child's family fighting to get the child back.
They support holding onto a child that is not theirs to hold onto in an effort to sway the courts and the public. After all, how often do you hear "well, if the parents really loved their child, they'd give up and not take the child from the only home they know". This is their ammo. Obtain and restrain. The longer they can hold onto the child, the better their chances. Never mind if the child's family had been fighting since the beginning, once the legal battle has spanned a few years, the biological family is then seen as the monster trying to rip the child from their home. And if you are unwilling to side with the wanna be adoptive parents, you are labeled anti-adoption.
I don't doubt there are those who are truly anti-adoption. I have heard from quite a few adoptees themselves who believe adoption should be eradicated completely and only guardianship be available. Adoption in its current form erases the child's history, that is a fact. Seals their birth records and any information of their family of origin forever under the misguided ideal of "birth parent privacy". Those who are truly against adoption are not against a child having a permanent home, but believe a permanent home with strangers should be a last resort and the child should still be able to keep their heritage, name and access to their records. Guardianship gives a person almost all the same rights as a parent, but doesn't change the child's record of birth and history. The only issue with this is that those who seek to raise a child as their own often want the records of the child's birth altered and changed to reflect them as the child's family. They want the fraudulent birth certificate that erases the child's parents' names and puts the strangers' names in their place. They prefer the "as if born to" ideal that has haunted the adoption world since the days of Georgia Tann.
I'm not anti-adoption. I support adoption when all is done legally and ethically (both parents consenting, no coercion, or the father being served properly and given time to contest should he wish to do so). I support adoption when it is about finding a home for a child that truly needs one. It's clear in the SM case and the VB case that efforts were made to side-step the father. Clear that it has nothing to do with finding a home for a child. Both cases clearly are about finding a child for a couple at all costs. Refusing to support the entitlement of strangers does not make us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the current adoption practices and laws does not make anyone anti-adoption. We are against illegal adoptions, unethical adoptions and the dehumanization of the child's family. We are against those who seek to make it open season on our children. Foster families should have no right to circumvent Children's Services or family in an effort to claim a child as their own. Wanna be adoptive couples should have no right to battle a mother and/or father in court for the right to raise a child. These cases highlight the proof that it is never about the child, but about the people hell-bent on taking that child.
Those who seek to take children from fit families know they are wrong and know it is only about them and not the child. The Capobiancos and the Hodgins are poster children for entitlement. It was and is always about what they want and to hell with everyone else, including the children they claim to love. And Trio encourages this entitlement. Of course, the public cannot know it's all about the non-related adults who want the child as their own. Easier to spin the tale of the deadbeat father who abandoned his pregnant ex-fiance or the jailbird father who spent most of the child's life in prison. Hit the unsuspecting public in their heart. Paint the entitled couples as saviors to these poor children who can provide so much more than the child's family.
And if you refuse to believe their bullshit and dare to investigate the case further, you are automatically labeled as anti-adoption.
Trio and the minions love to refer to many of us as an anti-adoption group. It was used during the last legal battle and is again being used in the more current legal battle. It's a knee jerk terminology. Something that strikes a nerve with the populace who is often only familiar with the feel good stories that appear in the local papers. After all, who in their right mind is against an institution that helps find homes and families for children in dire need of one? How often do you hear from those who talk about the need to find homes for the orphans in third world countries or those poor abused foster children who would have died if left in the care of their biological families? When people hear the word adoption, this is what they see and believe. Children who need a home. Children who will die in their country of origin or languish in foster care if some wonderful family doesn't open their home.
They call us anti-adoption because we do not support all adoptions. They believe that once the child is placed in that home, no matter what laws were skirted or outright broken, the child should remain there. Refusing to support entitled couples who believe they have more right to a child than their own biological family means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support forced adoption means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support manipulation of the courts to keep a child a couple is not entitled to means you're anti-adoption.
SM and VB are just two cases in which the supporters for the abductors (i.e. potential adoptive family) have called us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the discriminative laws in place that rob fathers of their right to their children means we are against adoption as a whole. Never mind that these laws were put in place by the adoption industry itself in an effort to keep their commodity flowing. Can't make their money if those pesky fathers have equal rights to their children, right?
Those who support the Hodgins and the kidnappers of VB support the dark side of adoption. They are against families having the right to raise their children. They support laws being skirted and in some cases, outright broken. They support unethical means to obtain a child. They support the current laws in place to keep fathers away. They support ripping children from their homes and forcing them to live a life of slavery in another home with another couple and support forcing that child to call their abductors mom and dad. They support foster couples side-stepping Children's Services and dependency laws in an effort to claim a foster child as their own, even with the child's family fighting to get the child back.
They support holding onto a child that is not theirs to hold onto in an effort to sway the courts and the public. After all, how often do you hear "well, if the parents really loved their child, they'd give up and not take the child from the only home they know". This is their ammo. Obtain and restrain. The longer they can hold onto the child, the better their chances. Never mind if the child's family had been fighting since the beginning, once the legal battle has spanned a few years, the biological family is then seen as the monster trying to rip the child from their home. And if you are unwilling to side with the wanna be adoptive parents, you are labeled anti-adoption.
I don't doubt there are those who are truly anti-adoption. I have heard from quite a few adoptees themselves who believe adoption should be eradicated completely and only guardianship be available. Adoption in its current form erases the child's history, that is a fact. Seals their birth records and any information of their family of origin forever under the misguided ideal of "birth parent privacy". Those who are truly against adoption are not against a child having a permanent home, but believe a permanent home with strangers should be a last resort and the child should still be able to keep their heritage, name and access to their records. Guardianship gives a person almost all the same rights as a parent, but doesn't change the child's record of birth and history. The only issue with this is that those who seek to raise a child as their own often want the records of the child's birth altered and changed to reflect them as the child's family. They want the fraudulent birth certificate that erases the child's parents' names and puts the strangers' names in their place. They prefer the "as if born to" ideal that has haunted the adoption world since the days of Georgia Tann.
I'm not anti-adoption. I support adoption when all is done legally and ethically (both parents consenting, no coercion, or the father being served properly and given time to contest should he wish to do so). I support adoption when it is about finding a home for a child that truly needs one. It's clear in the SM case and the VB case that efforts were made to side-step the father. Clear that it has nothing to do with finding a home for a child. Both cases clearly are about finding a child for a couple at all costs. Refusing to support the entitlement of strangers does not make us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the current adoption practices and laws does not make anyone anti-adoption. We are against illegal adoptions, unethical adoptions and the dehumanization of the child's family. We are against those who seek to make it open season on our children. Foster families should have no right to circumvent Children's Services or family in an effort to claim a child as their own. Wanna be adoptive couples should have no right to battle a mother and/or father in court for the right to raise a child. These cases highlight the proof that it is never about the child, but about the people hell-bent on taking that child.
Those who seek to take children from fit families know they are wrong and know it is only about them and not the child. The Capobiancos and the Hodgins are poster children for entitlement. It was and is always about what they want and to hell with everyone else, including the children they claim to love. And Trio encourages this entitlement. Of course, the public cannot know it's all about the non-related adults who want the child as their own. Easier to spin the tale of the deadbeat father who abandoned his pregnant ex-fiance or the jailbird father who spent most of the child's life in prison. Hit the unsuspecting public in their heart. Paint the entitled couples as saviors to these poor children who can provide so much more than the child's family.
And if you refuse to believe their bullshit and dare to investigate the case further, you are automatically labeled as anti-adoption.
Monday, June 2, 2014
The Bigger They Are, The Harder They Fall
It appears that Trio, the Hodgins and their supporters have underestimated JM and his lawyer. No doubt these goons got over-confident in their crusade, especially after successfully dragging Dusten Brown through the mud and trying him in the court of public opinion. No doubt they got over-confident after successfully tearing Veronica away from her family.
Getting over-confident makes one cocky. Makes one think they're immune to the consequences of their actions. Hey, they were able to trash on Brown for four years without fear, so it was too easy to unleash their venom again against JM. After all, they got away with it once and they won! Easy enough to believe the Hodgin case would be in the bag.
During some of the last court dates, guess what folks got served with? The above photo lists well over a dozen different people involved in the continuous trash talk against JM and family. Take a moment to read over those names. Aside from the Hodgins themselves, we have Bonnie Cleaveland, Kendall Sykes and Trio Solution. Many of the other names are various internet trolls who are connected to Trio, some are relatives of the kidnapping Capobiancos and others are just assholes who have chips on their shoulders from their own shitty lives. All of the people listed in this defamation suit have flamed JM across the internet and also were part of the smear campaign against Dusten Brown.
In the wake of the suit, some have fallen quiet and others have most likely created new accounts under new names to continue their crusade of tearing children from their families for profit. While I haven't watched the news much, I think it's safe to say that maybe Trio realized they bit off a bit more than they could chew in this debacle. Some folks who were in support of the Hodgins are starting to distance themselves in the wake of some other revelations. A few media outlets were a bit surprised to learn that SM's "adoptive parents" were actually just her foster parents and the adoption had been vacated years ago. Lies are being exposed in the way of a restraining order the Hodgins filed against DCS to keep them from removing SM and placing her in a different home to prepare her for reunification - proof they knew she was not available for adoption and reunification had been the goal from square one.
Honestly, I am overjoyed that JM and his legal team are fighting back. Maybe this suit will bring to light all the wrongs done to him and his daughter as well as Dusten and Veronica.
I find it amusing because Trio, Sykes and the others thought they were untouchable. Nobody is truly untouchable. And it appears that they are all going down in flames.
Getting over-confident makes one cocky. Makes one think they're immune to the consequences of their actions. Hey, they were able to trash on Brown for four years without fear, so it was too easy to unleash their venom again against JM. After all, they got away with it once and they won! Easy enough to believe the Hodgin case would be in the bag.
In the wake of the suit, some have fallen quiet and others have most likely created new accounts under new names to continue their crusade of tearing children from their families for profit. While I haven't watched the news much, I think it's safe to say that maybe Trio realized they bit off a bit more than they could chew in this debacle. Some folks who were in support of the Hodgins are starting to distance themselves in the wake of some other revelations. A few media outlets were a bit surprised to learn that SM's "adoptive parents" were actually just her foster parents and the adoption had been vacated years ago. Lies are being exposed in the way of a restraining order the Hodgins filed against DCS to keep them from removing SM and placing her in a different home to prepare her for reunification - proof they knew she was not available for adoption and reunification had been the goal from square one.
Honestly, I am overjoyed that JM and his legal team are fighting back. Maybe this suit will bring to light all the wrongs done to him and his daughter as well as Dusten and Veronica.
I find it amusing because Trio, Sykes and the others thought they were untouchable. Nobody is truly untouchable. And it appears that they are all going down in flames.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)