It's been a while, fellow humans. I'll admit, I did take a bit of a break to work on other projects. I needed a break from the more serious stuff going on in the adoption world and wanted to continue working on a novel I'd been working on since late 2013. It's difficult enough working on one or the other when working full time, so attempting to maintain the blog as well as continue work on the novel in between a 40+ hour work week had become more of a chore than I was willing to take on. Something had to be sacrificed, if only briefly.
I come to you all with good news from CA. For those who are familiar with the case of Foster Family Page and the little foster child, Lexi, you know that the former foster family had been fighting an uphill battle to reclaim little Lexi after managing to legally hold her hostage for 3 yrs in an effort to fight reunification and placement efforts with family. When the day came for Lexi to be removed from their home, they'd arranged a massive media circus complete with screaming and wailing people. The idea was to pull at public sympathy, watching as the foster woman and her children screamed in the driveway. Watching as friends of the foster family and neighbors all screamed and carried on as the child was carried to the waiting car. For some, it triggered outrage at social services for snatching that little girl from the "only home she knew" and for others, the outrage was aimed at the family and their supporters. Outrage at how callous they could be in exposing the little girl to such a spectacle.
On their public Facebook page, they make constant claims of how she didn't want to go, didn't know the extended family she was being taken to, was traumatized by her removal from her "true family". The interesting thing is the fact that the court documents they'd provided painted a very different picture. It contradicted their claims. In my first mention of this case, I provided a link to one of the original court opinions. You can find the opinion here: Appellate Opinion 2014.
Lexi was removed from the dysfunctional foster family in March 2016. Moved to the family she knew and knew she would be going to for a long time. Remember, the Pages were well aware that if reunification fell through with her father, she would go to extended family that already had custody of some of her siblings. The family she should have gone to nearly 3 yrs ago had the foster family not dug their talons in and tried to hold her hostage. They'd purposely held onto her as long as they could in the hopes the courts would rule a forced best interest, a common ploy used by wanna be adoptive homes. In this case, because Lexi was a ward of the state, there were state and federal laws in play that have placement preferences in place. Reunification with parents is a first and if that falls through, extended family is the next option. This is common in just about any foster care situation. If children cannot be returned to parents, next of kin is given preference over strangers, even if those strangers were fostering the child for a period of time.
The Pages attempted to appeal the decision and were shot down a few times. They were even rejected by the CA Supreme Court. There was a recent appellate court hearing and the opinion just became available. It's a lengthy read, but worth it. It paints a very very different picture of the foster family.
Appellate Opinion 2016
There were some troubling observations highlighted in section B of the published opinion. Of course, the admin who runs the Save Lexi Facebook page (supporters of the foster parents) and many of their die hard supporters completely ignore the information released regarding how the Pages handled being foster parents.
*refused to allow a second day of visitation with extended family because the social worker was late returning her to their home.
*interfered with her one on one therapy and insisted it happen at their home to allow them to be involved and to monitor her.
*balked at week long visits with extended family, claiming that their own children were not allowed overnight visits at that age.
*frequently claimed child was anxious and difficult after visitations with extended fam and claimed child did not want contact to continue, contrary to what the therapist, social workers and GAL observed
*were hesitant at assisting child in exploring her native roots, refusing to participate in a smudging ceremony, discouraging child from participating and objects made by child found their way to the trash
*their idea of exploring child's native roots was painting a wall Navajo blue.
So there it is. The Page family deemed themselves superior and made every effort they could to interfere with the child being transitioned to her extended family in Utah. They interfered with visitations, attempted to make claims that the extended family caused her anxiety, interfered with her therapy sessions and refused to assist the child in exploring her culture. This is just what is documented in the opinion. And even the professionals involved made it clear that the Pages had failed to perform their duty as foster parents by these actions. Clear efforts were made by Rusty and Summer to isolate Lexi and push themselves onto her as her "only family".
I've heard through sources that the media coverage and opinion documents only chronicle a fraction of the Pages dysfunction in how they handled Lexi. Granted, this is third hand info, so there is no way to validate its accuracy. I've heard through trusted sources that she was actually happy to be taken from their home and tore that tight braid from her hair the moment she stepped foot in Utah. It has been hinted that the Page home had been an unhealthy environment for her. In the comment thread of a recent WND article, there is a commenter stating that cameras were all over the home and the child was videotaped frequently to monitor her. This allegation somewhat mirrors the issue the therapist had with gaining one on one access to Lexi. The Pages balked at individual therapy outside of their home because they wanted to be involved to monitor her and interfered frequently during group sessions. Other allegation by this same commenter are that Lexi was not allowed to play with certain neighborhood children because those children were "going to hell" and that the Pages tried desperately to minimize Lexi's relationship with her siblings in Utah.
The appellate opinion alone highlights the Pages failure to be adequate foster parents once they realized the child would be removed from their home and this information, along with what I've heard through other sources and the commenter in the WND article, paint a very dark and disturbing picture of this family who touted themselves as saviors to this little foster child. I wonder what that child is telling those around her now.
Of course, the Pages and their supporters are wailing and praying and pushing to take this case to the United States Supreme Court. Some are even pointing out that the big win in 2013 (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl) should be the shoe in they need to get Lexi back into their clutches, even though Adoptive Couple was addressed in early hearings and the courts determined it did not apply to this case. Some have suggested private investigators be hired to stalk and monitor how the child is faring in Utah. A few have outright suggested they just go to Utah and snatch her back.
What took me and others by surprise was the fact that some of their supporters actually took the time to read the documents and started pointing out the misleading misinformation the Pages presented. With the truth published in the most recent appellate opinion, those who took the time to read felt the Pages had lied to them and the child should be left alone. It was good to see some of them waking up and seeing the bullshit for what it was. As for the rest of them still blindly towing the party line....well, you can't fix stupid.
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The Save Lexi Campaign ***UPDATED***
Hello again, kiddie winkles. I know it's been a while and I do apologize. I've been rather busy with a writing project, some vacation planning, an upcoming Comicon and well, adulting in general.
Today I bring to you a case that once again oozes of pure entitlement. Rusty and Summer Page took in a little girl as a foster placement several years ago. She'd become a dependent of the state as a toddler and had been shuffled between a few homes before landing in the Page's home. They originally took her in as respite care, but that eventually turned into full fostering of the girl.
But there was a catch.
Lexi is recognized as Choctaw. And from the moment the Pages took her in, they were well aware that ICWA was dictating the child's case. The tribe permitted the Pages to continue fostering her so it would keep her closer to her father during the reunification planning. But one thing was certain, placement preference would prevail if and when adoption was put on the table. The Pages knew this and had originally agreed to this.
When reunification efforts failed, it was made clear the child would be transitioned to out of state family. That is when the Pages dug their heels in and tried to fight her removal. Sound familiar, no? Time and time again, we hear about entitled fosters and PAPs who cling to the children they take in and try to cry "only home they know". Of course, that is what the Pages are doing. A couple of years, few court hears and an appeals decison later, the child is being removed within the next 24 to 48 hours and they've managed to wrangle a circle of supporters crying foul over what they all say is an unjust law.
For those curious about the background, here is the appeals decision:
Court of Appeals
Of course, if you go to their Facebook page (they all have FB pages, don't they?), they make it sound like the child's native status is a shock, how she's only X% and shouldn't be considered native enough for ICWA to apply and boo hoo, her removal is oh so sudden.
Last time blood quantum came into question, it was when those bastard Justices in the US Supreme Court questioned Veronica Brown's native eligibility. Same shit, different case. Supporters of Veronica's kidnappers held onto her low blood quantum with an iron grip. Nearly every supporter and every media outlet who regurgitated the BS the public relations firm spoon fed them focused on how little native blood Veronica had. And now supporters of the Pages are doing the same.
Funny how a bunch of ignorant non native people clamor on about who should and shouldn't be considered native. Especially when it's a child they want to snatch for their own. They seem to forget that if the tribe considers the child eligible, then that's just how it is, regardless of how much or how little native blood runs through that child's veins. WE don't get to determine that decision. The US Supreme court doesn't get to determine that decision (they haggled over it, but ruled primarily on the Existing Indian Family doctrine). The decision to determine eligibility exists with the tribe alone.
The one thing I caught on to with the Save Lexi campaign were the familiar faces of some of their supporters. A great deal of their supporters supported the kidnapping of Veronica Brown and supported the Hodgins in stealing back Sonya McCaul. Even the Facebook page holds a striking resemblance to the Save Veronica campaign and Keep Sonya Home campaign. And the infamous Lori Alvino-McGill - who is well know for calling Veronica and her sister "illegitimate spawn" and who represented Veronica's seller in a lawsuit to dismantle ICWA - is on board with this case, spewing her usual lies. Kid you not. She posted an update on the family's Facebook support page, claiming that the family Lexi will be going to doesn't even know the child.
Everyone supporting the Page family keeps rattling on about how it's the only home she's ever known, it will be traumatic, it's not in her best interest. They said the same about the Hodgins and Sonya (the Hodgins literally stole the child and tied it up in court for 8 yrs). Funny how 2 1/2 yrs ago they were saying tearing Veronica Brown away from her dad to live a life as a hostage wouldn't hurt her at all. Tearing a 4 yr old little girl away from the only family she knew and being forced to live with people she didn't remember and only met once during a brief supervised visit. It's perfectly fine when wanna be adopters do it, but if it's the other way around, then it's the end of the world for the child and so horrible.
They just need to admit that they're thinking about their own best interest. Not the child's. The child isn't being torn away to live with strangers. She's had frequent contact with the family she is going to and had it for quite some time. Everyone involved knew the child would go to out of state family if reunification efforts with her father failed. It's not a surprise. This isn't some sudden change in placement that hit them broadside. The Pages have known for years that the child would not be theirs to adopt. They're the ones to blame for dragging this out longer than necessary. They're the ones who tied it up in court for nearly three years in the hopes they'd get a best interest ruling. They're the ones who have now turned what should be a simple and quiet transfer of placement into a big goddamned circus. People are actually suggesting they help bar social workers from removing the girl by force. They support making this child's transition as traumatic as humanly possible. How is that in the child's best interest?
3/22/2016 ***UPDATE***
On 3/21/2016, around 3:00PM PST, LA County Children's Services arrived to pick Lexi up from the Page home. Surrounded by screaming protesters, news crews and the infamous Troy Dunn, who is best known for stalking Veronica Brown at her school, Lexi was moved through a sea of cameras and screams. People rushed the car with cameras and phones, yelling at her through the glass. Summer Page and the Page children stood in the driveway in hysterics over handing the child over.
It was a horrific thing to watch. And this is what the Page family and their supporters wanted the world to see. They could have arranged a secluded and private transfer somewhere away from the circus, but no, it couldn't happen any other way.
Today I bring to you a case that once again oozes of pure entitlement. Rusty and Summer Page took in a little girl as a foster placement several years ago. She'd become a dependent of the state as a toddler and had been shuffled between a few homes before landing in the Page's home. They originally took her in as respite care, but that eventually turned into full fostering of the girl.
But there was a catch.
Lexi is recognized as Choctaw. And from the moment the Pages took her in, they were well aware that ICWA was dictating the child's case. The tribe permitted the Pages to continue fostering her so it would keep her closer to her father during the reunification planning. But one thing was certain, placement preference would prevail if and when adoption was put on the table. The Pages knew this and had originally agreed to this.
When reunification efforts failed, it was made clear the child would be transitioned to out of state family. That is when the Pages dug their heels in and tried to fight her removal. Sound familiar, no? Time and time again, we hear about entitled fosters and PAPs who cling to the children they take in and try to cry "only home they know". Of course, that is what the Pages are doing. A couple of years, few court hears and an appeals decison later, the child is being removed within the next 24 to 48 hours and they've managed to wrangle a circle of supporters crying foul over what they all say is an unjust law.
For those curious about the background, here is the appeals decision:
Court of Appeals
Of course, if you go to their Facebook page (they all have FB pages, don't they?), they make it sound like the child's native status is a shock, how she's only X% and shouldn't be considered native enough for ICWA to apply and boo hoo, her removal is oh so sudden.
Last time blood quantum came into question, it was when those bastard Justices in the US Supreme Court questioned Veronica Brown's native eligibility. Same shit, different case. Supporters of Veronica's kidnappers held onto her low blood quantum with an iron grip. Nearly every supporter and every media outlet who regurgitated the BS the public relations firm spoon fed them focused on how little native blood Veronica had. And now supporters of the Pages are doing the same.
Funny how a bunch of ignorant non native people clamor on about who should and shouldn't be considered native. Especially when it's a child they want to snatch for their own. They seem to forget that if the tribe considers the child eligible, then that's just how it is, regardless of how much or how little native blood runs through that child's veins. WE don't get to determine that decision. The US Supreme court doesn't get to determine that decision (they haggled over it, but ruled primarily on the Existing Indian Family doctrine). The decision to determine eligibility exists with the tribe alone.
The one thing I caught on to with the Save Lexi campaign were the familiar faces of some of their supporters. A great deal of their supporters supported the kidnapping of Veronica Brown and supported the Hodgins in stealing back Sonya McCaul. Even the Facebook page holds a striking resemblance to the Save Veronica campaign and Keep Sonya Home campaign. And the infamous Lori Alvino-McGill - who is well know for calling Veronica and her sister "illegitimate spawn" and who represented Veronica's seller in a lawsuit to dismantle ICWA - is on board with this case, spewing her usual lies. Kid you not. She posted an update on the family's Facebook support page, claiming that the family Lexi will be going to doesn't even know the child.
Everyone supporting the Page family keeps rattling on about how it's the only home she's ever known, it will be traumatic, it's not in her best interest. They said the same about the Hodgins and Sonya (the Hodgins literally stole the child and tied it up in court for 8 yrs). Funny how 2 1/2 yrs ago they were saying tearing Veronica Brown away from her dad to live a life as a hostage wouldn't hurt her at all. Tearing a 4 yr old little girl away from the only family she knew and being forced to live with people she didn't remember and only met once during a brief supervised visit. It's perfectly fine when wanna be adopters do it, but if it's the other way around, then it's the end of the world for the child and so horrible.
They just need to admit that they're thinking about their own best interest. Not the child's. The child isn't being torn away to live with strangers. She's had frequent contact with the family she is going to and had it for quite some time. Everyone involved knew the child would go to out of state family if reunification efforts with her father failed. It's not a surprise. This isn't some sudden change in placement that hit them broadside. The Pages have known for years that the child would not be theirs to adopt. They're the ones to blame for dragging this out longer than necessary. They're the ones who tied it up in court for nearly three years in the hopes they'd get a best interest ruling. They're the ones who have now turned what should be a simple and quiet transfer of placement into a big goddamned circus. People are actually suggesting they help bar social workers from removing the girl by force. They support making this child's transition as traumatic as humanly possible. How is that in the child's best interest?
3/22/2016 ***UPDATE***
On 3/21/2016, around 3:00PM PST, LA County Children's Services arrived to pick Lexi up from the Page home. Surrounded by screaming protesters, news crews and the infamous Troy Dunn, who is best known for stalking Veronica Brown at her school, Lexi was moved through a sea of cameras and screams. People rushed the car with cameras and phones, yelling at her through the glass. Summer Page and the Page children stood in the driveway in hysterics over handing the child over.
It was a horrific thing to watch. And this is what the Page family and their supporters wanted the world to see. They could have arranged a secluded and private transfer somewhere away from the circus, but no, it couldn't happen any other way.
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.
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)