I've been off the radar for a while. There's been a bit of a lull with the Lexi case and only little blips here and there of a few others I've been following. I admit, I feel bad because this case was one I'd been wanting to write about for several months.
Back in March, Allen County Children's Services moved a 21 month old foster child from her foster home and to the home of a relative that already had custody of an older sibling. The child had been removed from her mother at birth and placed with the foster family as purely a fostering situation. Reunification efforts had been made, but due to the mother's inability to cooperate, ACCS moved to the next step and that was relative placement.
This is where it all gets a little weird.
It had come to the attention of those involved that the mother had been working with the foster family in an effort to allow the foster family to adopt the toddler shortly before the child had been moved. They'd been working on a private adoption in Mercer county. The adoption was granted two weeks after the child had been removed from the foster home. Apparently the foster couple, Brian and Kelly Anderson, had misrepresented themselves in order to obtain the adoption. They claimed that the child had been placed in their home as an adoptive placement and even claimed she was in their custody. So adoption granted and the judge demanded the child's immediate return. Allen County dug in their heels and challenged Mercer County's orders based on lack of jurisdiction.
In June of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Mercer County had overstepped and did not have jurisdiction. I cannot find the OSC document, but here is the article talking about the case:
Court Rules In Favor of Allen County
Brian and Kelly Anderson cried foul on their respective social media accounts (as well as a Bring Maddy Home page). It had even come to public attention that they were in the process of having their foster license revoked due to breaking confidentiality rules and trying to wrangle a shady adoption out from under ACCS's nose.
I assumed this case was done and it was cut and dried. Allen County had legal custody and at that time, had been the only ones with the authority to decide where the child would reside. The mother didn't have custody and had no legal authority to decide where the child went. And yet, she was able to arrange a private adoption with the foster family? Last time I checked on things, you couldn't adopt out a kid you didn't have custody of.
It seemed that the Andersons and mother's war cry were based on the mom "having the right to decide her child's best interest", or something to that effect. Okay, so they think mom should have the right to adopt her kid out while the child is in CPS custody? The Andersons are freakin' foster parents, so they know damned well how the laws work. It's a dependency case. You can't circumvent Children's Services and try to adopt the kid out from behind everyone's back, especially a kid you don't even have legal or physical custody of! It's not rocket science.
Now I know many who are probably thinking "But hey, Dorkzilla, the Andersons had the child until she was 21 months old, that family was all she knew". I get that they'd had the child for a length of time, but as foster parents, this meant that they would never have her permanently. Just like the Pages out of California, they were nothing more than temporary caregivers until permanency could take place. And in the case of this toddler, ACCS had decided that if the child couldn't go back to her mother than the mother's sister would take her, seeing that she already had custody of one of the mother's other children. The mother really had no say over placement preference in this instance. She could certainly make suggestions, but the final say was with Allen County.
Well, it appears that the Andersons had challenged the June ruling and the Ohio Supreme Court issued a new one. A complete 180 from their original June ruling. Now they claim Mercer County did have authority and that since mom had not been TPR'd, she had a right to decide placement for private adoption.
State ex rel. Allen County Children's Services
The aunt was forced immediately to turn the child over to ACCS so they could take her back to the child hoarding Anderson clan.
This ruling turns dependency law on its damned head.
When a child is deemed abused/neglected and made a ward of the state, the county which took the child generally has the jurisdiction. They have the final say in all aspects of that's child's life until the child is then returned to the legal custody of a parent or guardian. The general rule of dependency law is that if reunification with the parent does not work out, family placement is considered the next step. Allowing unrelated foster parents to adopt the child is supposed to be a last resort. The Andersons took the child in as a foster child and were there to help in reunification efforts. Those efforts fell through. So, as planned, the child was sent to live with an aunt who had been approved as placement and already had custody of an older sibling. Nowhere in depedency law can a parent adopt their kid out from foster care without the green light from the county/agency that holds legal custody of the child.
It's sad that so many support the Andersons, even with the lies they told to get the first fraudulent adoption and the smear campaign they ran against the county and judges involved. The mother has all but rubbed this ill gotten victory in her sister's face, clearly showing that she cared nothing for the child her sister already had or the child who was now being forced to live with strangers. Strangers who will slam the door in everyone's face first chance they have. They got their prize. They have no use for any of them now.
The courts need to realize the error in their ruling and send Maddy back home to her aunt and brother. This is where she belongs. Don't allow her drug addicted manipulative mother to run the show and don't let the Andersons bully you into rolling over with this. What does that tell your public? That you cower to drug addicts and entitled adopters who hoard children like various nick knacks? Dependency law has always been clear - family first, especially if said family is already raising siblings. Even the mother's two oldest children have cried foul of this ruling. The whole family is reeling. They want Maddy back home so she can grow up with her siblings and family, not become another accessory to a man and a woman who collect more children than they know what to do with.
Showing posts with label kidnapping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kidnapping. Show all posts
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
The Fight For Baby Kaylee
Colby Nielson is a young 20 yr old Utah father to a three week old baby girl named
Kaylee. Through out the pregnancy, Colby and his then girlfriend
Amily, were pushed to relinquish for adoption by Amily’s own parents.
Discussions were had and even a meeting with a potential couple (who are
friends of the mother’s parents). Colby and Amily decided adoption was
not an option and when Kaylee was born, they brought her home to
Colby’s parents’ home. Colby doted upon his new daughter. Amily seemed
unsure. At some point, Amily simply left, leaving Colby alone to care
for his newborn daughter.
Colby got the shock of his life when he received word that Amily, under the pressure of her strict uber religious parents, had signed relinquishment papers and the couple seeking to adopt Kaylee had obtained a court order demanding the infant’s turnover from Colby’s care. They sent police to his home to snatch his baby girl.
Colby was on Kaylee’s birth certificate. Kaylee even had his last name. Paternity was verified. And yet, Utah law allows unwed mothers to relinquish their children for adoption without the permission or knowledge of the child’s father. Colby isn’t alone in this. There are numerous men still fighting against the kidnapping of their children. Some have been fighting for years and years.
Colby’s heartbreaking story came across as a simple Facebook post asking for shares. The public was outraged that the courts could demand a father hand over his child to strangers without any notice when he’d done nothing wrong. Soon media began picking up the story and a sobbing Colby pleads with the baby snatching adopters to give him back his daughter.
The names of the baby snatchers were revealed publicly and they received a great deal of angry hate mail from an outraged public. It was the same couple they’d talked with prior to Kaylee’s birth, the friends of Amily’s parents. Out of the blue, with no notice to Colby or his lawyer, Kaylee was simply given back to her mother and Colby has yet to see his baby girl. The baby snatchers made a public statement claiming they did not know that Colby wanted to parent. This claim was refuted quickly when Colby’s lawyer revealed text messages between Colby and the baby snatcher woman, begging them to not take his daughter and to give her back. The baby snatcher woman responded with “This is god’s will” and “it will be an open adoption” and “you’ll be part of the family”.
So….what was that about not knowing he wanted her again? And their insistence that he’d met with them prior to Kaylee’s birth and they thought he was totally on board with the adoption? Well, let’s see….meeting with a potential couple does not equal consent to an adoption and I would think taking his daughter home with him from the hospital was also a sign he clearly had no plans on relinquishing.
Amily still has baby Kaylee and is refusing Colby contact. His lawyer is working hard to right this wrong. Many speculate the mother may try to pass baby Kaylee off to a new couple. Given how ridiculously biased Utah law is, no doubt she is keeping Kaylee from him not only as punishment for refusing to go through with the adoption, but to also claim lack of interest/abandonment so she can simply give Kaylee up again.
A small few are trying to claim the fight is over, but this fight is far from it. It won't be over until Kaylee is back with her Daddy.
Colby got the shock of his life when he received word that Amily, under the pressure of her strict uber religious parents, had signed relinquishment papers and the couple seeking to adopt Kaylee had obtained a court order demanding the infant’s turnover from Colby’s care. They sent police to his home to snatch his baby girl.
Colby was on Kaylee’s birth certificate. Kaylee even had his last name. Paternity was verified. And yet, Utah law allows unwed mothers to relinquish their children for adoption without the permission or knowledge of the child’s father. Colby isn’t alone in this. There are numerous men still fighting against the kidnapping of their children. Some have been fighting for years and years.
Colby’s heartbreaking story came across as a simple Facebook post asking for shares. The public was outraged that the courts could demand a father hand over his child to strangers without any notice when he’d done nothing wrong. Soon media began picking up the story and a sobbing Colby pleads with the baby snatching adopters to give him back his daughter.
The names of the baby snatchers were revealed publicly and they received a great deal of angry hate mail from an outraged public. It was the same couple they’d talked with prior to Kaylee’s birth, the friends of Amily’s parents. Out of the blue, with no notice to Colby or his lawyer, Kaylee was simply given back to her mother and Colby has yet to see his baby girl. The baby snatchers made a public statement claiming they did not know that Colby wanted to parent. This claim was refuted quickly when Colby’s lawyer revealed text messages between Colby and the baby snatcher woman, begging them to not take his daughter and to give her back. The baby snatcher woman responded with “This is god’s will” and “it will be an open adoption” and “you’ll be part of the family”.
So….what was that about not knowing he wanted her again? And their insistence that he’d met with them prior to Kaylee’s birth and they thought he was totally on board with the adoption? Well, let’s see….meeting with a potential couple does not equal consent to an adoption and I would think taking his daughter home with him from the hospital was also a sign he clearly had no plans on relinquishing.
Amily still has baby Kaylee and is refusing Colby contact. His lawyer is working hard to right this wrong. Many speculate the mother may try to pass baby Kaylee off to a new couple. Given how ridiculously biased Utah law is, no doubt she is keeping Kaylee from him not only as punishment for refusing to go through with the adoption, but to also claim lack of interest/abandonment so she can simply give Kaylee up again.
A small few are trying to claim the fight is over, but this fight is far from it. It won't be over until Kaylee is back with her Daddy.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Corruption Out of Benton County
I actually had another post planned, but this one is immensely urgent. There is another illegal adoption going down and the father is up against an entire court filled with monsters.
Trent Reicks did everything the law required of him to assert his rights over his daughter. He wasn't supposed to know about the mother's plan to give their baby up behind his back, but when he was informed of the mother's plan, he wanted to make sure the law was on his side.
What Trent didn't know was that the couple seeking to claim his daughter as their own were lawyers. Paul Morris worked out of a local firm Wright, Lindsey and Jennings LLP and the wife, Stephanie McLemore (Morris) was the deputy prosecuting attorney. Already, one can tell that this was not going to be an easy fight for Trent.
Trent met with the couple in the hopes that they would realize that his daughter had a family that wanted her and would turn her over. They had no intention of giving Trent his baby. As a matter of fact, they informed him if he attempted to fight, they'd make sure he never received a scrap of info on the infant.
Trent took a chance and started legal proceedings to protect his right to parent his daughter. The judge, Xollie Duncan, granted the Morris' petition to TPR Trent on the grounds of unreasonably with-holding consent. I shit you not. They terminated his rights on what amounts to a bullshit reason. As far as I know, such grounds do not even exist, but this disgusting bitch judge did just that. It should also be noted that Duncan is actually Paul and Stephanie's friend. Is this not a massive conflict of interest? How can the judge overseeing an adoption case keep bias out of their decision when the couple seeking to kidnap (i mean, "adopt") are her own best buds?
Then, to add insult to injury, this skanky judge put a gag on the case to ensure Trent couldn't speak out against the corruption or go to the media regarding the kidnapping of his daughter.
As far as I know, Duncan finalized the adoption and the two kidnapping lawyers were good to their word about keeping Trent out of the loop regarding his daughter. They want him to vanish. No doubt Trent is working on an appeal. I don't know for sure since the kidnappers and their judge friend slapped a gag order down, but here's to hope. He did everything by the book and has a solid case. The connections and conflict of interest in the adoption case is enough for him to fight and take it to higher courts.
The world needs to know that Benton County Arkansas is run by kidnappers and friends of kidnappers. Paul Morris, Stephanie McLemore and Xollie Duncan conspired and kidnapped a baby at birth and then TPR'd the father on non existent grounds.
Let the world see them all. Kidnappers. Thieves. Monsters. Your lie will not live forever.
The lawyers, Paul and Stephanie:
And here is their judge friend, Xollie Dunan:
Trent Reicks did everything the law required of him to assert his rights over his daughter. He wasn't supposed to know about the mother's plan to give their baby up behind his back, but when he was informed of the mother's plan, he wanted to make sure the law was on his side.
What Trent didn't know was that the couple seeking to claim his daughter as their own were lawyers. Paul Morris worked out of a local firm Wright, Lindsey and Jennings LLP and the wife, Stephanie McLemore (Morris) was the deputy prosecuting attorney. Already, one can tell that this was not going to be an easy fight for Trent.
Trent met with the couple in the hopes that they would realize that his daughter had a family that wanted her and would turn her over. They had no intention of giving Trent his baby. As a matter of fact, they informed him if he attempted to fight, they'd make sure he never received a scrap of info on the infant.
Trent took a chance and started legal proceedings to protect his right to parent his daughter. The judge, Xollie Duncan, granted the Morris' petition to TPR Trent on the grounds of unreasonably with-holding consent. I shit you not. They terminated his rights on what amounts to a bullshit reason. As far as I know, such grounds do not even exist, but this disgusting bitch judge did just that. It should also be noted that Duncan is actually Paul and Stephanie's friend. Is this not a massive conflict of interest? How can the judge overseeing an adoption case keep bias out of their decision when the couple seeking to kidnap (i mean, "adopt") are her own best buds?
Then, to add insult to injury, this skanky judge put a gag on the case to ensure Trent couldn't speak out against the corruption or go to the media regarding the kidnapping of his daughter.
As far as I know, Duncan finalized the adoption and the two kidnapping lawyers were good to their word about keeping Trent out of the loop regarding his daughter. They want him to vanish. No doubt Trent is working on an appeal. I don't know for sure since the kidnappers and their judge friend slapped a gag order down, but here's to hope. He did everything by the book and has a solid case. The connections and conflict of interest in the adoption case is enough for him to fight and take it to higher courts.
The world needs to know that Benton County Arkansas is run by kidnappers and friends of kidnappers. Paul Morris, Stephanie McLemore and Xollie Duncan conspired and kidnapped a baby at birth and then TPR'd the father on non existent grounds.
Let the world see them all. Kidnappers. Thieves. Monsters. Your lie will not live forever.
The lawyers, Paul and Stephanie:
And here is their judge friend, Xollie Dunan:
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Veronica Brown - One Year Later
Today marks the one year anniversary of the kidnapping of Veronica Brown by Matt and Melanie Capobianco. They are still insisting on privacy and keep her hidden from public view. Rumors are circulating that the child is indeed being isolated from others, only paraded around a select handful of people, not allowed access to any other children and being drugged heavily to keep her compliant. Recent photos found of Veronica show a child who has lost her spark and who has gained a significant amount of weight, which most know is usually a sign a child is being drugged with something.
I would like to think the weight gain is due to unhealthy eating habits, and it's possible this may be the case. After all, the kidnappers planned to use cookie therapy. Whenever she cried for her Daddy, give her a cookie to shut her up so they wouldn't have to be face to face with the hurt and confusion they caused. It's just as likely they're feeding her pain with food and now causing a potential eating disorder. Whatever is happening, they're to blame for it, plain and simple.
Both Tulsa World and The Post and Courier ran brief articles about the one year mark. Both the Browns and the kidnappers have refused any interviews. Dusten Brown is still being manipulated and strong armed to remain silent about what he thinks of them snatching his child away. He's not allowed to say how outraged he is. He's supposed to act like they're some big happy fucking family when these monsters used the courts to kidnap HIS daughter, put charges against him for refusing to give them HIS daughter and now has to watch his daughter be abused through food manipulation, possibly drugs and complete social isolation by a couple of monsters who paid everyone off around him to take his baby from him.
Yes, she is being abused. What happened to her is child abuse. These monsters took her from her family, forced a fake identity onto her, isolate her from everyone and are either shoving food or drugs down her throat to keep her compliant. The kidnappers might not be physically harming her, but what they've done and continue to do to this child is abuse all the same.
One has to wonder just why the kidnappers are not flaunting their prize on the one year mark. If she is as happy and adjusted as their circle of supporters and friends are claiming, why not post her face on national TV proclaiming her love and adoration for her new mommy and daddy? *please excuse me while I vomit* After all, they flaunted her face and name in every media outlet that gave them face-time, they made sure the public knew who Veronica Brown was. And other than a few photos taken mere days after she was snatched, no public photos of the child have been released. The Capobiancos have proven themselves to be utter media whores and no doubt would have jumped at the chance to flaunt their little puppet trophy onto live television if she was as happy and content as they all are trying to claim.
Their refusal to do media interviews and refusal to show the world Veronica Brown on the one year mark of her kidnapping reveal a lot more than anyone is willing to admit. That Veronica Brown is not happy and adjusted. That she still asks for her Daddy and when she can go home. Their illusion of this happy family would be smashed to dust once the world got a glimpse of how Veronica was really doing. And if they are drugging her or using food to feed her pain, all the more reason to keep her hidden away. The world cannot know that Veronica is unhappy, angry, possibly overweight and still wanting to go back home to her Daddy in Oklahoma.
Sadly, the world considers Veronica Brown old news now. We're all supposed to just be glad she was snatched by a "loving" family and should just leave her alone and let her have peace. The Capobiancos are the ones responsible for turning her into a public figure and no, we will not leave it alone. She didn't deserve to be kidnapped through the courts and forced to live with strangers. She didn't deserve to have her complete identity stripped from her. She didn't deserve to have her name (AKA Baby Girl) listed along with her father and the Cherokee Nation in a lawsuit filed by the kidnappers. The Capobiancos are the ones responsible for the public knowing who Veronica Brown is. And now they're keeping her hidden to keep their abuses from becoming known. Keeping her hidden because the world can't see what they've turned her into. Screw peace. Make those monsters fear stepping out their doors. They will never have a moment's peace until Veronica escapes from them.
Just remember, Matt and Melanie, your crime will not be brushed under the rug forever. You and your friends from Trio Solutions can't silence everyone.
I would like to think the weight gain is due to unhealthy eating habits, and it's possible this may be the case. After all, the kidnappers planned to use cookie therapy. Whenever she cried for her Daddy, give her a cookie to shut her up so they wouldn't have to be face to face with the hurt and confusion they caused. It's just as likely they're feeding her pain with food and now causing a potential eating disorder. Whatever is happening, they're to blame for it, plain and simple.
Both Tulsa World and The Post and Courier ran brief articles about the one year mark. Both the Browns and the kidnappers have refused any interviews. Dusten Brown is still being manipulated and strong armed to remain silent about what he thinks of them snatching his child away. He's not allowed to say how outraged he is. He's supposed to act like they're some big happy fucking family when these monsters used the courts to kidnap HIS daughter, put charges against him for refusing to give them HIS daughter and now has to watch his daughter be abused through food manipulation, possibly drugs and complete social isolation by a couple of monsters who paid everyone off around him to take his baby from him.
Yes, she is being abused. What happened to her is child abuse. These monsters took her from her family, forced a fake identity onto her, isolate her from everyone and are either shoving food or drugs down her throat to keep her compliant. The kidnappers might not be physically harming her, but what they've done and continue to do to this child is abuse all the same.
One has to wonder just why the kidnappers are not flaunting their prize on the one year mark. If she is as happy and adjusted as their circle of supporters and friends are claiming, why not post her face on national TV proclaiming her love and adoration for her new mommy and daddy? *please excuse me while I vomit* After all, they flaunted her face and name in every media outlet that gave them face-time, they made sure the public knew who Veronica Brown was. And other than a few photos taken mere days after she was snatched, no public photos of the child have been released. The Capobiancos have proven themselves to be utter media whores and no doubt would have jumped at the chance to flaunt their little puppet trophy onto live television if she was as happy and content as they all are trying to claim.
Their refusal to do media interviews and refusal to show the world Veronica Brown on the one year mark of her kidnapping reveal a lot more than anyone is willing to admit. That Veronica Brown is not happy and adjusted. That she still asks for her Daddy and when she can go home. Their illusion of this happy family would be smashed to dust once the world got a glimpse of how Veronica was really doing. And if they are drugging her or using food to feed her pain, all the more reason to keep her hidden away. The world cannot know that Veronica is unhappy, angry, possibly overweight and still wanting to go back home to her Daddy in Oklahoma.
Sadly, the world considers Veronica Brown old news now. We're all supposed to just be glad she was snatched by a "loving" family and should just leave her alone and let her have peace. The Capobiancos are the ones responsible for turning her into a public figure and no, we will not leave it alone. She didn't deserve to be kidnapped through the courts and forced to live with strangers. She didn't deserve to have her complete identity stripped from her. She didn't deserve to have her name (AKA Baby Girl) listed along with her father and the Cherokee Nation in a lawsuit filed by the kidnappers. The Capobiancos are the ones responsible for the public knowing who Veronica Brown is. And now they're keeping her hidden to keep their abuses from becoming known. Keeping her hidden because the world can't see what they've turned her into. Screw peace. Make those monsters fear stepping out their doors. They will never have a moment's peace until Veronica escapes from them.
Just remember, Matt and Melanie, your crime will not be brushed under the rug forever. You and your friends from Trio Solutions can't silence everyone.
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.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
The Free Veronica Brown Campaign (National Day of Action)
It's happening again, folks. It's the National Day of Action. Free Veronica Brown.
For those on the fence about the case, let me point out a few things:
- Dusten Brown fought for four years to raise his daughter. He didn't just come in 2 yrs later and take her. He'd been fighting since she was a few months old and it took until she was 2 for the courts to order the Capobiancos to turn her over to him.
- Custody was ordered to Dusten in September 2011, but the C's would defy that order and hold onto her an additional 3 months. (yet we notice no charges were ever put against them for their defiance)
- The Capobiancos created a huge crowd and media frenzy the night of the transfer, giving no thought whatsoever how it would effect Veronica.
- The Capobiancos had to hire a marketing firm to sway public opinion.
- This marketing firm, Trio, was the main culprit behind most of the media reports of this case, making sure the reports were sympathetic to the kidnappers and constantly twisting things to make Dusten look like a deadbeat.
- The lawyer who represented Veronica's mother (paid for by the Capobiancos) called Veronica and her older sister, Kelsey, "illegitimate spawn".
- This same lawyer, who technically was part of the Capobianco's legal team, has personal ties to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.
- Justice Roberts is also an adoptive parent to two children under shady circumstances.
- Trio waged a smear campaign against Veronica's father, Dusten. They had employees swamp news articles about the case, citing exaggerated information about Dusten. They even tried to claim he was a felon and had numerous drug charges, when in fact this was another man named Dustin Brown. They brought up past arrears in child support that Dusten had for his older child, failing to also mention that Dusten and his ex had sorted that out. They also tried to claim he abandoned his older child when in fact he had a very strong and positive relationship with his older daughter.
- When the fraudulent adoption was finalized and Dusten was ordered to hand Veronica over to her kidnappers, he refused. He utilized his legal options and appealed. The judge who finalized the adoption had also just been served with a lawsuit naming him with several others for human and civil right violations. In retaliation of the lawsuit, the judge filed contempt of court charges against Dusten and custodial interference (funny how the Capobiancos did the same thing Dusten did and no lawsuits were ever filed against them).
- After obtaining their trophy child, the Capobiancos filed a massive lawsuit against Dusten, the Cherokee Nation and Veronica herself in the tune of a million dollars. They named the very child they claimed they "wanted more" in a lawsuit. If they win, they will own her completely. She will never own the rights to herself or her story. Their goal is to make sure she will never be able to go against them. It's like they now will hold copyright to her body, name and soul.
Everyone involved in the kidnapping of Veronica Brown worked together to rip this child from her father's home and also make sure Veronica herself will never have a voice. Trio and its minions have systematically scrubbed the internet of her story save for the media articles and a few blogs. Those who support her father and her civil rights have been reported time and time again for posting her pictures. Even pictures taken from when she was with her Daddy, pictures the kidnappers have no right to dictate. Their goal is complete whitewash of her story and eradicate any trace of her former life from the internet.
It's a day of action, my friends. We will not back down until Veronica Brown is home with her daddy. The people who currently have ownership will harm her in ways we will never fully comprehend. They will lie, manipulate and most likely drug her to keep her compliant. They will work hard to destroy her spirit and make her as empty as they are. Demons with human faces. They cannot win.
Save Veronica Brown.
For those on the fence about the case, let me point out a few things:
- Dusten Brown fought for four years to raise his daughter. He didn't just come in 2 yrs later and take her. He'd been fighting since she was a few months old and it took until she was 2 for the courts to order the Capobiancos to turn her over to him.
- Custody was ordered to Dusten in September 2011, but the C's would defy that order and hold onto her an additional 3 months. (yet we notice no charges were ever put against them for their defiance)
- The Capobiancos created a huge crowd and media frenzy the night of the transfer, giving no thought whatsoever how it would effect Veronica.
- The Capobiancos had to hire a marketing firm to sway public opinion.
- This marketing firm, Trio, was the main culprit behind most of the media reports of this case, making sure the reports were sympathetic to the kidnappers and constantly twisting things to make Dusten look like a deadbeat.
- The lawyer who represented Veronica's mother (paid for by the Capobiancos) called Veronica and her older sister, Kelsey, "illegitimate spawn".
- This same lawyer, who technically was part of the Capobianco's legal team, has personal ties to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.
- Justice Roberts is also an adoptive parent to two children under shady circumstances.
- Trio waged a smear campaign against Veronica's father, Dusten. They had employees swamp news articles about the case, citing exaggerated information about Dusten. They even tried to claim he was a felon and had numerous drug charges, when in fact this was another man named Dustin Brown. They brought up past arrears in child support that Dusten had for his older child, failing to also mention that Dusten and his ex had sorted that out. They also tried to claim he abandoned his older child when in fact he had a very strong and positive relationship with his older daughter.
- When the fraudulent adoption was finalized and Dusten was ordered to hand Veronica over to her kidnappers, he refused. He utilized his legal options and appealed. The judge who finalized the adoption had also just been served with a lawsuit naming him with several others for human and civil right violations. In retaliation of the lawsuit, the judge filed contempt of court charges against Dusten and custodial interference (funny how the Capobiancos did the same thing Dusten did and no lawsuits were ever filed against them).
- After obtaining their trophy child, the Capobiancos filed a massive lawsuit against Dusten, the Cherokee Nation and Veronica herself in the tune of a million dollars. They named the very child they claimed they "wanted more" in a lawsuit. If they win, they will own her completely. She will never own the rights to herself or her story. Their goal is to make sure she will never be able to go against them. It's like they now will hold copyright to her body, name and soul.
Everyone involved in the kidnapping of Veronica Brown worked together to rip this child from her father's home and also make sure Veronica herself will never have a voice. Trio and its minions have systematically scrubbed the internet of her story save for the media articles and a few blogs. Those who support her father and her civil rights have been reported time and time again for posting her pictures. Even pictures taken from when she was with her Daddy, pictures the kidnappers have no right to dictate. Their goal is complete whitewash of her story and eradicate any trace of her former life from the internet.
It's a day of action, my friends. We will not back down until Veronica Brown is home with her daddy. The people who currently have ownership will harm her in ways we will never fully comprehend. They will lie, manipulate and most likely drug her to keep her compliant. They will work hard to destroy her spirit and make her as empty as they are. Demons with human faces. They cannot win.
Save Veronica Brown.
Monday, April 21, 2014
NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION!!!!
Tomorrow, April 22 2014, I would like for everyone who is reading this and who supports Veronica Brown's return to her rightful family to follow the instructions listed in the picture below. Urge the Department of Justice to investigate the unethical and fraudulent adoption of Veronica Brown to the kidnappers, Matt and Melanie Capobianco. Urge a full investigation into every person who involved themselves into tearing her from her father's home!
-Matt Capobianco
-Melanie Duncan (Capobianco)
-Trio Solutions
-Jessica Munday
-Christina Maldonado
-Troy Dunn
-Lori McGill
-Ray Godwin
-Mary Fallin
-Nikki Haley
-Judge Daniel Martin
-Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Push as hard as we can. Little Star needs to be home where she belongs!
-Matt Capobianco
-Melanie Duncan (Capobianco)
-Trio Solutions
-Jessica Munday
-Christina Maldonado
-Troy Dunn
-Lori McGill
-Ray Godwin
-Mary Fallin
-Nikki Haley
-Judge Daniel Martin
-Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Push as hard as we can. Little Star needs to be home where she belongs!
Thursday, October 3, 2013
The Kidnapping of Baby Desirai
For the small few who are following this blog, I assure you at some point I will post some fluff and maybe even introduce myself. But for now, you must tolerate the things that matter to me.
Desirai Simmons was born May of this year to a Native American mother and non-native father. Little Desirai hails from the Absentee Shawnee tribe. Shortly before her birth - two months before to be exact- her parents split up and her mother decided to cut contact with her father, Jeremy Simmons. Her mother, Crystal Tarbox, went on to marry another man shortly after. Must have been a hell of a quickie wedding since she split with Simmons when she was seven months pregnant and was married to another man by the time she gave birth a few months later. Either way, she split up with the father of her 3rd child and was married to another man by the time Desirai was born.
This case mirrors the "Baby Veronica" case in many ways. We have a young, unmarried couple who split up and an expectant mother who vanishes without a trace and refuses all contact from the father. After her quickie marriage, the couple sought help through a church and were directed to Nightlight and Ray Godwin. Yup, you heard correctly. They contacted the now infamous child trafficking "adoption" lawyer and agency in order to place little Desirai for adoption without notifying Simmons of her plans.
The couple who planned to adopt Desirai are from South Carolina. Hmmm....are we seeing a pattern here? After all, South Carolina was called the adoption mecca, if memory serves me correctly. The go-to state for quick and easy adoptions with no "birth" parent hassle. Fathers' rights are non existent. The same state that completely dismissed Veronica Brown's right to a best interest hearing. The same state that that felt her current situation at the time of her forced illegal adoption was irrelevant.
But this case gets a bit strange. The couple who were seeking to adopt little Desirai are in their 60's. They have adult children who had all moved out of the home. The move to adopt an infant almost seems like some weird, crazed empty-nester type nonsense. Not to be discriminatory with age, but I have not heard of a couple that old adopting a newborn. And last I checked, most agencies and lawyers won't consider a couple that advanced in years. But Bobby and Diane Bixler were the lucky couple chosen to take Desirai and raise her as their own.
This would have worked. I'm sure if a few things were done differently, we would probably be hearing about another epic custody battle that would span for years and years and cover two states holding a jurisdictional pissing match. What went wrong, might you ask? Well, it's well documented that the only paperwork filed was the petition for adoption in South Carolina. But Desirai was born in Oklahoma (you catching on here?). The senior citizen Bixlers left Oklahoma and took Desirai home, no longer wanting to wait it out while two lawyers bickered about who was in charge of what. Bobby Bixler had to get back to work. So they just took the baby and left.
And no Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) had been filed. All the legal eagles involved in trafficking Desirai out of Oklahoma couldn't seem to agree on who would file what. So Bobby and Diane Bixler, tired of waiting for all the proper forms to be finalized, just packed Desirai up and left for South Carolina.
For those unfamiliar with the ICPC, it is a very important piece of paper. It is legally mandated that this form is filled out and filed with the child's state of residence before a child can be transferred across state lines for foster care and adoptive placements. To not have one filed and still remove the child out of state is a crime. The Bixlers committed a crime. They may not have realized just how serious of a crime they had committed or possibly be aware that they committed a crime at all, but it is still a crime nonetheless.
K-I-D-N-A-P-P-I-N-G
Nightlight and Ray Godwin got themselves into some hot water. They might have been able to pull off Veronica Brown's sale to the Capobiancos, but this little mis-hap wasn't going to go unnoticed. When a South Carolina judge noticed there was no ICPC form in the initial adoption paperwork, he put a complete stop to the adoption. A lawyer in Oklahoma and the one involved in handling all the ICPC paperwork have demanded Desirai's return. Jeremy Simmons and Crystal's mother, Janet Snake, have demanded Desirai's return. Desirai, as I have said, is a member of the Absentee Shawnee tribe, so her removal out of state for adoption also violated the Indian Child Welfare Act
So, let's figure this out....nobody filed the ICPC and Desirai is a member of a federally recognized tribe, granting her certain protections under federal law. And, I might be wrong, but I do believe not having an ICPC is a violation of federal law as well. If I am wrong, please correct me. I assume it is since we're talking about transporting a child across state lines.
The judge who caught on that something was amiss demanded to know where the infant was and got numerous vague answers from the lawyers for the adoption agency. Rumors even circulated that little Desirai had been moved through at least two other families since the Bixlers. But no doubt that was done in an effort to conceal Desirai's where-abouts or to take heat off the Bixlers all together. But it was nothing more than a smoke-screen. The child's tribe had come forward, demanding custody and citing ICWA violations and were granted custody of Desirai through an Oklahoma court.
The Bixlers have yet to produce the child, hoping to hold onto her. I'm sure after seeing how the Veronica Brown case went, they are holding onto hope that if they hold on long enough, the courts will just finalize the adoption. Another set of entitled adopters who think since they paid top dollar for Desirai, they should be allowed to keep her.
The last update I have heard on this case is that the Absentee Shawnee are going to South Carolina to get their Oklahoma court order domesticated. I keep wondering what Oklahoma governor, Mary Fallin, plans to do to the Bixlers for kidnapping the little Oklahoma citizen. South Carolina courts put out charges against Dusten Brown for refusing to hand over his daughter to the Capobiancos in the fraudulent adoption. Governor Haley signed an extradition warrant for him. So what is Fallin going to do to the Bixlers? What are Oklahoma courts going to do? Where are the charges? Where is the extradition warrant?
Here's to hope that baby Desirai gets to go back home. With her family, where she belongs.
*for those wondering: the tribe got involved because of the ICWA violations. and as an unmarried father, Simmons would have been up against impossible odds if he tried challenging the South Carolina adoption alone. the lack of ICPC was a godsend in this case, no doubt about it, but I tend to think that OK and SC would have simply got one set up and brushed this under the rug had the tribe not come forward*
Desirai Simmons was born May of this year to a Native American mother and non-native father. Little Desirai hails from the Absentee Shawnee tribe. Shortly before her birth - two months before to be exact- her parents split up and her mother decided to cut contact with her father, Jeremy Simmons. Her mother, Crystal Tarbox, went on to marry another man shortly after. Must have been a hell of a quickie wedding since she split with Simmons when she was seven months pregnant and was married to another man by the time she gave birth a few months later. Either way, she split up with the father of her 3rd child and was married to another man by the time Desirai was born.
This case mirrors the "Baby Veronica" case in many ways. We have a young, unmarried couple who split up and an expectant mother who vanishes without a trace and refuses all contact from the father. After her quickie marriage, the couple sought help through a church and were directed to Nightlight and Ray Godwin. Yup, you heard correctly. They contacted the now infamous child trafficking "adoption" lawyer and agency in order to place little Desirai for adoption without notifying Simmons of her plans.
The couple who planned to adopt Desirai are from South Carolina. Hmmm....are we seeing a pattern here? After all, South Carolina was called the adoption mecca, if memory serves me correctly. The go-to state for quick and easy adoptions with no "birth" parent hassle. Fathers' rights are non existent. The same state that completely dismissed Veronica Brown's right to a best interest hearing. The same state that that felt her current situation at the time of her forced illegal adoption was irrelevant.
But this case gets a bit strange. The couple who were seeking to adopt little Desirai are in their 60's. They have adult children who had all moved out of the home. The move to adopt an infant almost seems like some weird, crazed empty-nester type nonsense. Not to be discriminatory with age, but I have not heard of a couple that old adopting a newborn. And last I checked, most agencies and lawyers won't consider a couple that advanced in years. But Bobby and Diane Bixler were the lucky couple chosen to take Desirai and raise her as their own.
This would have worked. I'm sure if a few things were done differently, we would probably be hearing about another epic custody battle that would span for years and years and cover two states holding a jurisdictional pissing match. What went wrong, might you ask? Well, it's well documented that the only paperwork filed was the petition for adoption in South Carolina. But Desirai was born in Oklahoma (you catching on here?). The senior citizen Bixlers left Oklahoma and took Desirai home, no longer wanting to wait it out while two lawyers bickered about who was in charge of what. Bobby Bixler had to get back to work. So they just took the baby and left.
And no Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) had been filed. All the legal eagles involved in trafficking Desirai out of Oklahoma couldn't seem to agree on who would file what. So Bobby and Diane Bixler, tired of waiting for all the proper forms to be finalized, just packed Desirai up and left for South Carolina.
For those unfamiliar with the ICPC, it is a very important piece of paper. It is legally mandated that this form is filled out and filed with the child's state of residence before a child can be transferred across state lines for foster care and adoptive placements. To not have one filed and still remove the child out of state is a crime. The Bixlers committed a crime. They may not have realized just how serious of a crime they had committed or possibly be aware that they committed a crime at all, but it is still a crime nonetheless.
K-I-D-N-A-P-P-I-N-G
Nightlight and Ray Godwin got themselves into some hot water. They might have been able to pull off Veronica Brown's sale to the Capobiancos, but this little mis-hap wasn't going to go unnoticed. When a South Carolina judge noticed there was no ICPC form in the initial adoption paperwork, he put a complete stop to the adoption. A lawyer in Oklahoma and the one involved in handling all the ICPC paperwork have demanded Desirai's return. Jeremy Simmons and Crystal's mother, Janet Snake, have demanded Desirai's return. Desirai, as I have said, is a member of the Absentee Shawnee tribe, so her removal out of state for adoption also violated the Indian Child Welfare Act
So, let's figure this out....nobody filed the ICPC and Desirai is a member of a federally recognized tribe, granting her certain protections under federal law. And, I might be wrong, but I do believe not having an ICPC is a violation of federal law as well. If I am wrong, please correct me. I assume it is since we're talking about transporting a child across state lines.
The judge who caught on that something was amiss demanded to know where the infant was and got numerous vague answers from the lawyers for the adoption agency. Rumors even circulated that little Desirai had been moved through at least two other families since the Bixlers. But no doubt that was done in an effort to conceal Desirai's where-abouts or to take heat off the Bixlers all together. But it was nothing more than a smoke-screen. The child's tribe had come forward, demanding custody and citing ICWA violations and were granted custody of Desirai through an Oklahoma court.
The Bixlers have yet to produce the child, hoping to hold onto her. I'm sure after seeing how the Veronica Brown case went, they are holding onto hope that if they hold on long enough, the courts will just finalize the adoption. Another set of entitled adopters who think since they paid top dollar for Desirai, they should be allowed to keep her.
The last update I have heard on this case is that the Absentee Shawnee are going to South Carolina to get their Oklahoma court order domesticated. I keep wondering what Oklahoma governor, Mary Fallin, plans to do to the Bixlers for kidnapping the little Oklahoma citizen. South Carolina courts put out charges against Dusten Brown for refusing to hand over his daughter to the Capobiancos in the fraudulent adoption. Governor Haley signed an extradition warrant for him. So what is Fallin going to do to the Bixlers? What are Oklahoma courts going to do? Where are the charges? Where is the extradition warrant?
Here's to hope that baby Desirai gets to go back home. With her family, where she belongs.
*for those wondering: the tribe got involved because of the ICWA violations. and as an unmarried father, Simmons would have been up against impossible odds if he tried challenging the South Carolina adoption alone. the lack of ICPC was a godsend in this case, no doubt about it, but I tend to think that OK and SC would have simply got one set up and brushed this under the rug had the tribe not come forward*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)