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.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
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, April 3, 2014
The Strange and Confusing Case of Foster Family Hodgin vs Bio Family
This is a story about a foster family, a little girl and the battle that continues against the little girl's biological family.
It started when this little girl - who I will refer to as S - went with a family friend to TN from NE. Little girl S was just a wee babe when this took place. The caretaker claimed she was going to help with an ailing family member. The child's father - referred to as JM in this entry - had given the caretaker permission to take the child with her. What JM didn't realize until he tried to retrieve his child was that little girl S was caught in a tug of war between the caretaker's family and another family who the caretaker apparently worked for. There is some confusion here as to what exactly took place, but in the end, the family who was battling the caretaker - the Hodgins - managed to get CPS involved and had little girl S placed in their care, which unless I am mistaken is a huge conflict of interest. The reporting party generally cannot be considered as a placement option unless they have actual biological ties to the child.
Back in NE, the father JM was trying to get his daughter back. When he attempted to get law enforcement involved, an office (with alleged ties to the families trying to take S) told him he'd be arrested for abandonment. JM sent friends in an attempt to retrieve his daughter and they were rebuffed at the door.
So the Hodgins became S's foster parents. Again this is where things get a tad grey in regards to what happened. JM's mother was approved as a placement option and this was overlooked. Over the course of several years, the Hodgins would fight JM and even TN CPS itself in an effort to adopt S.
JM is not a saint. He is a hard working man who made some mistakes in his youth. Around the time the fight truly started, something happened and JM ended up in prison to serve a 15 yr sentence. My understanding is this was based off the 3 strikes laws. The crime did not really warrant the hefty sentence, but because he had two strikes against him as a young man, that was all that was needed. So because of this sentence, the Hodgins used this as their "abandonment" claim and managed to have JM and the child's mother TPR'd and adopted S. This was not a CPS approved adoption. The Hodgins worked this at the private adoption angle.
JM's sentence was reduced and he successfully had the adoption overturned. At this point, S should have been returned to NE into the care of JM or his mother, but the Hodgins held on. It would be another 4 or 5 yrs before the Hodgins were ordered to return S to JM's care. TN CPS set up transition plans, which were ignored by the Hodgins. They figured the longer they balked at returning S, the better their chances were some court would relent and allow them to keep her. The same formula we see with numerous other adoption cases of adopters vs fathers. "We're the only family she knows" has become their mantra.
TN CPS finally puts their foot down. Tells the Hodgins they have only a short amount of time to get her ready and to have her at their office pronto. There is no transition into her father's care but this is because the Hodgins ignored the transition plans and fought to keep her when they had no legal standing to do so.
Little girl S, who is now 9 yrs old, finally went back to the father she hadn't seen since she was just a baby.
It didn't stop there.
The Hodgins waged war. As far as they were concerned, S was their daughter and JM had no right to take her back. Never mind they were not the child's legal parents and at this point were nothing more than fosters. Why CPS didn't step in and remove the little girl when the adoption was overturned is a mystery. I suppose it's all moot at this point seeing that CPS finally stepped in and forced them to do what was right.
The Hodgins didn't stop. They set up Facebook pages, charity drives. Raising money in an attempt to challenge CPS's and the court's decision to place S back with her family. They paint JM as a "violent career criminal" who should have no rights to his daughter. They tout how great their home and family are and how they're so much better because of what S had while in their care.
Getting a feeling of de ja vu yet?
Initially, most of the Hodgin supporters were friends and family to the failed foster/adopters. But some new supporters started flooding in. Familiar faces to those of us who battled for the basic human rights of Little Miss Veronica Brown. Trio Solutions, Kendall Sykes, Bonnie Cleaveland, Jessica Munday and many others. The big hitters who helped manipulate the courts and public opinion on the Veronica Brown case and had her successfully stolen from her father and placed into a forced adoption with her kidnappers, Matt and Melanie Capobianco.
With their help, many were led to believe that JM was this violent ex con who had no business raising a child. And to throw back into our faces, citing that it was detrimental to tear a child of that age from the only people she knew and remembered to make her live with strangers. Yet they had no problem whatsoever supporting tearing Veronica from the only people she knew and remembered and placing her with strangers.
Of course, it should be no surprise that these people support another forced adoption. They refer to the Hodgins as her "adoptive parents" (which is untrue since the adoption was overturned several years ago) and try to pull public sympathy. I don't doubt that this whole mess was hard as hell for S. No doubt the Hodgins filled her head with lies about her family abandoning her or that her father was some dangerous criminal. They sure like to make it sound that way.
One has to wonder why the SC heavy hitters of the VB case are supporting this? What is the goal? Does this mean there was more to Veronica's case than her Native heritage? Was the focus on ICWA just a smoke screen? It makes me think that this is bigger than one case of a Cherokee child. Is there some darker motive of this group, a motive that makes parental rights more and more fragile. This group managed to twist a law and make it so a father who "never had custody" of his child (who was placed at birth, mind you) had no legal standing to assert his rights. They managed to twist the laws so the two years VB was in her father's care did not count.
So what will be the twist in the law for JM and his daughter S? You can't tell me there isn't more to this than just a case of failed foster parents against the biological family. Not with all the people involved helping the Hodgins. It seems peculiar that all those involved with tearing VB from her father's care are now involved with this. First it was adopters against the Cherokee Nation. Now it's a foster family against the biological family. Something stinks. Something stinks bad.
Yesterday, a court granted the Hodgins standing in the case and they are attempting to have the original ruling vacated and S returned to their care. Another hearing was scheduled in May, but the judge made it pretty clear that the original decision would stand unless something came up. JM is still under CPS's watch and will be for another couple of months. So far so good. And TN CPS was at the most recent hearing AGAINST the Hodgins. What does that tell you?
Part of me is confident that this will be over in May and the Hodgins will be sent back to their precious farm with their tail between their legs, but another part of me worries. We all had confidence that Dusten Brown would win against the Capobiancos and they managed to steal Veronica from him. With Trio, Munday, Sykes and so many others batting for the Hodgins, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Something is in the works. This group has a primary goal and Veronica Brown was just the beginning.
It started when this little girl - who I will refer to as S - went with a family friend to TN from NE. Little girl S was just a wee babe when this took place. The caretaker claimed she was going to help with an ailing family member. The child's father - referred to as JM in this entry - had given the caretaker permission to take the child with her. What JM didn't realize until he tried to retrieve his child was that little girl S was caught in a tug of war between the caretaker's family and another family who the caretaker apparently worked for. There is some confusion here as to what exactly took place, but in the end, the family who was battling the caretaker - the Hodgins - managed to get CPS involved and had little girl S placed in their care, which unless I am mistaken is a huge conflict of interest. The reporting party generally cannot be considered as a placement option unless they have actual biological ties to the child.
Back in NE, the father JM was trying to get his daughter back. When he attempted to get law enforcement involved, an office (with alleged ties to the families trying to take S) told him he'd be arrested for abandonment. JM sent friends in an attempt to retrieve his daughter and they were rebuffed at the door.
So the Hodgins became S's foster parents. Again this is where things get a tad grey in regards to what happened. JM's mother was approved as a placement option and this was overlooked. Over the course of several years, the Hodgins would fight JM and even TN CPS itself in an effort to adopt S.
JM is not a saint. He is a hard working man who made some mistakes in his youth. Around the time the fight truly started, something happened and JM ended up in prison to serve a 15 yr sentence. My understanding is this was based off the 3 strikes laws. The crime did not really warrant the hefty sentence, but because he had two strikes against him as a young man, that was all that was needed. So because of this sentence, the Hodgins used this as their "abandonment" claim and managed to have JM and the child's mother TPR'd and adopted S. This was not a CPS approved adoption. The Hodgins worked this at the private adoption angle.
JM's sentence was reduced and he successfully had the adoption overturned. At this point, S should have been returned to NE into the care of JM or his mother, but the Hodgins held on. It would be another 4 or 5 yrs before the Hodgins were ordered to return S to JM's care. TN CPS set up transition plans, which were ignored by the Hodgins. They figured the longer they balked at returning S, the better their chances were some court would relent and allow them to keep her. The same formula we see with numerous other adoption cases of adopters vs fathers. "We're the only family she knows" has become their mantra.
TN CPS finally puts their foot down. Tells the Hodgins they have only a short amount of time to get her ready and to have her at their office pronto. There is no transition into her father's care but this is because the Hodgins ignored the transition plans and fought to keep her when they had no legal standing to do so.
Little girl S, who is now 9 yrs old, finally went back to the father she hadn't seen since she was just a baby.
It didn't stop there.
The Hodgins waged war. As far as they were concerned, S was their daughter and JM had no right to take her back. Never mind they were not the child's legal parents and at this point were nothing more than fosters. Why CPS didn't step in and remove the little girl when the adoption was overturned is a mystery. I suppose it's all moot at this point seeing that CPS finally stepped in and forced them to do what was right.
The Hodgins didn't stop. They set up Facebook pages, charity drives. Raising money in an attempt to challenge CPS's and the court's decision to place S back with her family. They paint JM as a "violent career criminal" who should have no rights to his daughter. They tout how great their home and family are and how they're so much better because of what S had while in their care.
Getting a feeling of de ja vu yet?
Initially, most of the Hodgin supporters were friends and family to the failed foster/adopters. But some new supporters started flooding in. Familiar faces to those of us who battled for the basic human rights of Little Miss Veronica Brown. Trio Solutions, Kendall Sykes, Bonnie Cleaveland, Jessica Munday and many others. The big hitters who helped manipulate the courts and public opinion on the Veronica Brown case and had her successfully stolen from her father and placed into a forced adoption with her kidnappers, Matt and Melanie Capobianco.
With their help, many were led to believe that JM was this violent ex con who had no business raising a child. And to throw back into our faces, citing that it was detrimental to tear a child of that age from the only people she knew and remembered to make her live with strangers. Yet they had no problem whatsoever supporting tearing Veronica from the only people she knew and remembered and placing her with strangers.
Of course, it should be no surprise that these people support another forced adoption. They refer to the Hodgins as her "adoptive parents" (which is untrue since the adoption was overturned several years ago) and try to pull public sympathy. I don't doubt that this whole mess was hard as hell for S. No doubt the Hodgins filled her head with lies about her family abandoning her or that her father was some dangerous criminal. They sure like to make it sound that way.
One has to wonder why the SC heavy hitters of the VB case are supporting this? What is the goal? Does this mean there was more to Veronica's case than her Native heritage? Was the focus on ICWA just a smoke screen? It makes me think that this is bigger than one case of a Cherokee child. Is there some darker motive of this group, a motive that makes parental rights more and more fragile. This group managed to twist a law and make it so a father who "never had custody" of his child (who was placed at birth, mind you) had no legal standing to assert his rights. They managed to twist the laws so the two years VB was in her father's care did not count.
So what will be the twist in the law for JM and his daughter S? You can't tell me there isn't more to this than just a case of failed foster parents against the biological family. Not with all the people involved helping the Hodgins. It seems peculiar that all those involved with tearing VB from her father's care are now involved with this. First it was adopters against the Cherokee Nation. Now it's a foster family against the biological family. Something stinks. Something stinks bad.
Yesterday, a court granted the Hodgins standing in the case and they are attempting to have the original ruling vacated and S returned to their care. Another hearing was scheduled in May, but the judge made it pretty clear that the original decision would stand unless something came up. JM is still under CPS's watch and will be for another couple of months. So far so good. And TN CPS was at the most recent hearing AGAINST the Hodgins. What does that tell you?
Part of me is confident that this will be over in May and the Hodgins will be sent back to their precious farm with their tail between their legs, but another part of me worries. We all had confidence that Dusten Brown would win against the Capobiancos and they managed to steal Veronica from him. With Trio, Munday, Sykes and so many others batting for the Hodgins, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Something is in the works. This group has a primary goal and Veronica Brown was just the beginning.
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*
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Corrupt Courts Condone the Illegal Adoption and Kidnapping of Veronica Brown
On Monday, the 23rd of September, Dusten Brown packed two bags for his
four year old daughter, Veronica, as he prepared to have her escorted to
the non related couple who fought for four years to adopt his child
against his will. Though both he and Veronica are registered members of
the Cherokee Nation, the federal laws put in place to protect them were
declared non-applicable to him and opened the door for South Carolina to
terminate his rights and adopt his child out, all while she resided
with her father several states away in Oklahoma.
The custody battle, known publicly as the Baby Veronica case, is a case rife with mixed emotions, split sides, and questions over South Carolina's practice of adopting out children from other states, using their state laws to declare unmarried fathers not legal parents and therefore with no rights to contest the adoptions of their children.
Dusten Brown fought long and hard to get custody of his daughter, fighting her adoption since he was notified of the intent to adopt when little Veronica was 3 or 4 months old, gaining legal custody and then having to fight another two years to retain custody. This last summer, the biggest blow came to his case when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that portions of the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to him in his fight for his daughter. The ruling was a close one, two of the dissenting justices giving scathing statements regarding the interpretation of the law, claiming it was twisted to suit the interests of the couple seeking to adopt Veronica but pointed out that ICWA would still apply to Veronica and Brown's extended family. The main ruling was all the Capobiancos and their legal team needed, though. With the ruling in hand, the case was kicked back to the lower courts. Based on the ICWA ruling alone, South Carolina courts reversed the custody order and demanded that Brown return Veronica to the Capobiancos. Never mind the fact that the original ruling that granted him custody only had a small bit to do with ICWA. South Carolina reversed its ruling based on the SCOTUS's ruling of ICWA alone.
Brown continued to push his legal options and refused to turn Veronica over to the Capobiancos, which he was within his legal right to contest . In response to Brown's refusal to hand Veronica over, judge Martin finalized the adoption and then issued a felony warrant out for Brown's arrest, citing Custodial Interference. All of this within a matter of days of the court ruling that reversed the custody order. Veronica, who had been living with her father for almost two years, was not granted a best interest hearing. The courts deemed a best interest hearing unnecessary. In other words: Veronica's civil rights did not matter and the fact that she was 4 yrs old and living with her father for almost half her life were irrelevant.
Brown took his case to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, but they later determined that they could not take over jurisdiction of the case. Simply put: because the Capobiancos had an adoption order signed by a judge, they had to honor the state order. Full faith and credit to South Carolina. Oklahoma could not legally intervene, even though they pointed out that the finalized adoption order violated both states' adoption laws.
You heard me right: Judge Martin violated South Carolina adoption law in finalizing Veronica's adoption to Matt and Melanie Capobianco.
SECTION 63-9-750. Final hearing. [SC ST SEC 63-9-750]
(1) the adoptee has been in the actual custody of the petitioner for a period of ninety days unless the court finds as provided in subsection (A) that there is good cause for modifying the time within which the final hearing may be held;
Shown above is actual wording of South Carolina Adoption Laws in regards to the final hearing in which finalization takes place. By South Carolina law, Veronica should have been in their physical custody and residing within the state at the time of finalization. Veronica was living with her father in Oklahoma.
Another thing to take into consideration is the initial petition to adopt Veronica when she was a newborn. The law states that the child must be in the state at the time of the petition. In sworn court testimony from Melanie Capobianco, she admitted that the petition was filed when Veronica was 3 days old and she was still in Oklahoma. They wouldn't even leave Oklahoma until Veronica was a week old. So the petition alone was not legal. The petition is only good for six months to a year. Several years have passed. And even if they submitted a new petition, it was still in violation of the law because Veronica was not in the state nor in their custody.
SECTION 20-7-1660. Children who may be adopted.
Any child present within this State at the time the petition for adoption is filed, irrespective of place of birth or place of residence, may be adopted.
So Oklahoma courts point out the illegalities of the finalized adoption order, but cannot contest it since it is an order signed by a judge, a judge who was deemed incompetent in family law by numerous lawyers. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling also barred the Cherokee Nation from assuming jurisdiction, even though SCOTUS acknowledged that Veronica, her grandparents and stepmom would be covered under ICWA.
Dusten Brown had no other choice but to hand Veronica over to this couple hell bent on taking her from him. With the stay being lifted, the Capobiancos wasted no time in pursuing a federal order that demanded Veronica's immediate return to their custody. To add further insult to injury, the South Carolina courts and judge Martin filed a lawsuit against him for lawyer fees and court costs. He also still has that extradition hearing to look forward to. It seems that South Carolina is determined to destroy this man legally and financially for daring to stand up them and exposing the corrupt nature of their adoption racket.
Brown has been silent on this entire matter for the most part. In spite of the smear campaign waged against him by the Capobiancos, their public relations firm Trio Solutions (Jessica Munday being the mouthpiece for them) and even Christie Maldonado, he has not uttered one bad word against them publicly. Even after his daughter was literally kidnapped from him via a corrupt court system, he still has not said one bad thing against them. I imagine he is dealing with a lot of emotions right now. He's facing prison time and potential financial ruin. One can hope that if the extradition business is dealt with and dropped, he can go to South Carolina and challenge the adoption. If put to a full legal challenge, the adoption would have to be dissolved. South Carolina wouldn't be able to hide from scrutiny if the nation was made fully aware of the laws broken in their zeal to steal Veronica from Brown and efforts to brush this legal circus under the rug.
It's clear now that the finalization of the adoption, the lawsuit and the criminal charges are all retaliatory measures against Brown for daring to stand up to the incompetent judge Martin and the adoption industry. The goal? Make an example out of him and send out the message to all unmarried fathers: the courts have spoken and you are not considered parents in the eyes of the law, therefore lacking any rights to your children. You stand up to us and we will destroy you.
Author's edit(9/29/2013) - I would like to point out a correction. In the entry, I state the lawsuit comes from the judge. I am incorrect. It's been verified through several news sources now that the Capobiancos themselves are behind the $500,000 lawsuit for legal fees.
I also found out there was a competing adoption petition from Tommy and Alice Brown, Dusten's parents. Submitted before South Carolina courts finalized Veronica's adoption, another violation of their state laws as well as federal law. ICWA is clear that family and tribe come before placement with a non related, non native family.
The custody battle, known publicly as the Baby Veronica case, is a case rife with mixed emotions, split sides, and questions over South Carolina's practice of adopting out children from other states, using their state laws to declare unmarried fathers not legal parents and therefore with no rights to contest the adoptions of their children.
Dusten Brown fought long and hard to get custody of his daughter, fighting her adoption since he was notified of the intent to adopt when little Veronica was 3 or 4 months old, gaining legal custody and then having to fight another two years to retain custody. This last summer, the biggest blow came to his case when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that portions of the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to him in his fight for his daughter. The ruling was a close one, two of the dissenting justices giving scathing statements regarding the interpretation of the law, claiming it was twisted to suit the interests of the couple seeking to adopt Veronica but pointed out that ICWA would still apply to Veronica and Brown's extended family. The main ruling was all the Capobiancos and their legal team needed, though. With the ruling in hand, the case was kicked back to the lower courts. Based on the ICWA ruling alone, South Carolina courts reversed the custody order and demanded that Brown return Veronica to the Capobiancos. Never mind the fact that the original ruling that granted him custody only had a small bit to do with ICWA. South Carolina reversed its ruling based on the SCOTUS's ruling of ICWA alone.
Brown continued to push his legal options and refused to turn Veronica over to the Capobiancos, which he was within his legal right to contest . In response to Brown's refusal to hand Veronica over, judge Martin finalized the adoption and then issued a felony warrant out for Brown's arrest, citing Custodial Interference. All of this within a matter of days of the court ruling that reversed the custody order. Veronica, who had been living with her father for almost two years, was not granted a best interest hearing. The courts deemed a best interest hearing unnecessary. In other words: Veronica's civil rights did not matter and the fact that she was 4 yrs old and living with her father for almost half her life were irrelevant.
Brown took his case to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, but they later determined that they could not take over jurisdiction of the case. Simply put: because the Capobiancos had an adoption order signed by a judge, they had to honor the state order. Full faith and credit to South Carolina. Oklahoma could not legally intervene, even though they pointed out that the finalized adoption order violated both states' adoption laws.
You heard me right: Judge Martin violated South Carolina adoption law in finalizing Veronica's adoption to Matt and Melanie Capobianco.
SECTION 63-9-750. Final hearing. [SC ST SEC 63-9-750]
(1) the adoptee has been in the actual custody of the petitioner for a period of ninety days unless the court finds as provided in subsection (A) that there is good cause for modifying the time within which the final hearing may be held;
Shown above is actual wording of South Carolina Adoption Laws in regards to the final hearing in which finalization takes place. By South Carolina law, Veronica should have been in their physical custody and residing within the state at the time of finalization. Veronica was living with her father in Oklahoma.
Another thing to take into consideration is the initial petition to adopt Veronica when she was a newborn. The law states that the child must be in the state at the time of the petition. In sworn court testimony from Melanie Capobianco, she admitted that the petition was filed when Veronica was 3 days old and she was still in Oklahoma. They wouldn't even leave Oklahoma until Veronica was a week old. So the petition alone was not legal. The petition is only good for six months to a year. Several years have passed. And even if they submitted a new petition, it was still in violation of the law because Veronica was not in the state nor in their custody.
SECTION 20-7-1660. Children who may be adopted.
Any child present within this State at the time the petition for adoption is filed, irrespective of place of birth or place of residence, may be adopted.
So Oklahoma courts point out the illegalities of the finalized adoption order, but cannot contest it since it is an order signed by a judge, a judge who was deemed incompetent in family law by numerous lawyers. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling also barred the Cherokee Nation from assuming jurisdiction, even though SCOTUS acknowledged that Veronica, her grandparents and stepmom would be covered under ICWA.
Dusten Brown had no other choice but to hand Veronica over to this couple hell bent on taking her from him. With the stay being lifted, the Capobiancos wasted no time in pursuing a federal order that demanded Veronica's immediate return to their custody. To add further insult to injury, the South Carolina courts and judge Martin filed a lawsuit against him for lawyer fees and court costs. He also still has that extradition hearing to look forward to. It seems that South Carolina is determined to destroy this man legally and financially for daring to stand up them and exposing the corrupt nature of their adoption racket.
Brown has been silent on this entire matter for the most part. In spite of the smear campaign waged against him by the Capobiancos, their public relations firm Trio Solutions (Jessica Munday being the mouthpiece for them) and even Christie Maldonado, he has not uttered one bad word against them publicly. Even after his daughter was literally kidnapped from him via a corrupt court system, he still has not said one bad thing against them. I imagine he is dealing with a lot of emotions right now. He's facing prison time and potential financial ruin. One can hope that if the extradition business is dealt with and dropped, he can go to South Carolina and challenge the adoption. If put to a full legal challenge, the adoption would have to be dissolved. South Carolina wouldn't be able to hide from scrutiny if the nation was made fully aware of the laws broken in their zeal to steal Veronica from Brown and efforts to brush this legal circus under the rug.
It's clear now that the finalization of the adoption, the lawsuit and the criminal charges are all retaliatory measures against Brown for daring to stand up to the incompetent judge Martin and the adoption industry. The goal? Make an example out of him and send out the message to all unmarried fathers: the courts have spoken and you are not considered parents in the eyes of the law, therefore lacking any rights to your children. You stand up to us and we will destroy you.
Author's edit(9/29/2013) - I would like to point out a correction. In the entry, I state the lawsuit comes from the judge. I am incorrect. It's been verified through several news sources now that the Capobiancos themselves are behind the $500,000 lawsuit for legal fees.
I also found out there was a competing adoption petition from Tommy and Alice Brown, Dusten's parents. Submitted before South Carolina courts finalized Veronica's adoption, another violation of their state laws as well as federal law. ICWA is clear that family and tribe come before placement with a non related, non native family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)