Veronica Brown's Kidnapping - Four Years Later

As fall rolls in, this September also marks the four year anniversary of Veronica Brown's forced removal from her father and family.  Forced to live with strangers she had no memory of, slapped with a fake name and a fake birth certificate that states those strangers gave birth to her.  Forced to remain with them and encouraged to call them Mom and Dad even though they were complete strangers to her and possibly even seen as monsters to her then four year old mind.

As the years have passed, her case, her face and her name have been lost into obscurity.  As far as the general public is concerned, her case is over and time to move on.  For those within the adoption community, her name and face represent everything that is wrong with current infant adoption practices in the United States.  It showed the world that the laws were so twisted against fathers that complete strangers could kidnap a 4 yr old child from her family and the courts would back them up.  For those in support of the kidnappers, Matthew and Melanie Capobianco, they see no issue with how her case played out.  They see no issue with tearing a 4 yr old child from her family to be sent off with strangers.  They see nothing wrong with the adoption laws. 

Recently, it was finally revealed that the Capobiancos had indeed adopted another child.  This was the newborn they had pictured Ronnie with mere months after kidnapping her.  Rumors had been rumbling in those early months that they'd adopted another child, but many of their supporters claimed the newborn was actually a relative's child.  There'd also been a baby registry with Target under the Capobianco's name.  Again, it was dismissed.  

Well, the rumors were actually true.  The newborn Ronnie was pictured with was actually the other child they adopted.  Let that sink in.  They were in the process of adopting another child while they were actively trying to steal Veronica.  I cannot wrap my brain around any of that.  To me, it just proved without any shadow of a doubt that they were monsters.  They were about to get their little loyal adoptling and yet they were still hell bent on stealing away a 4 yr old child from all she knew and loved.

How does that not scream MONSTERS?

It makes me wonder how things will play out as both Veronica and the Capobianco's daughter grow up.  While I cannot vouch for the validity of what I have heard, rumors still float around that Veronica still calls Dusten "Dad" (kidnappers were pushing her to call him by name).  There have also been whispers that she still asks to go home.  Will Matt and Melanie's daughter push her into compliance?  Will she dismiss Veronica's longing to go back to her family?  Or will she question her own adoption when Veronica tells her how she was stolen from her parents and grandparents?  Will it be revealed that their daughter's adoption was nothing more than a replacement should they have lost their case to Veronica's Dad? Will the Capobiancos find themselves face to face with their wrath and questions and unable to bullshit their way out of it?  

I hope so.  I hope Veronica turns on them and turns their daughter against them.  It's only a matter of time before she does.  It's what they deserve after what they've done.  If you say that makes me a shitty person, so be it.  
  

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:

 

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.

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.   

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*

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.