mandapanda

Manassas, VA

#24 Jan 29, 2014
Matt and Melanie are delusional, selfish, and entitled. They took a four year old child away from her happy home, so they could satisfy their need to be parents. Why put a child through that? They knew Dusten Brown wanted his daughter. He fought so long and hard for Veronica, from the time she was less than four months old, until the sad evening towards the end of September, when Veronica was handed over to a couple she did not love or remember. Shame on them. Shame on them forever. They could have at least given this poor man visitation, but no his presence in Veronica's life ruins their delusional fantasy that they are Veronica's "real" parents.
Jenna Lauretta

North Charleston, SC

#25 Jan 29, 2014
My heart breaks for little Ronnie. Her life is forever severely complicated and more difficult because of the two adults (Melanie and Matt) that decided their needs are more important than the child's, whom they are suppose to love. Ronnie could have went on to have a normal life, uncomplicated by adoption. The C's literally stole her childhood from her. They destroyed her life and family so they could create the life THEY wanted.
CDa

Highland Falls, NY

#26 Jan 30, 2014
If the couple hadn't lied in collusion with their attorney, they never would have been able to leave the state with Veronica to begin with. Their arguments in court "oh, well the ICPC form is just to assure safe passage of the child across state lines, not to protect the "biofather" is intellectually dishonest and should have been challenged vigorously before jurisdiction was ceded to SC which has instituted the concept that the first person to assert custody of the child is the most deserving parent.
Recapping: the couple lied about the child's ethnicity on the ICPC form and lied on the ICWA form about the father's name, birthdate and birth year. given that the biomom knew him for over a decade since high school, it stretches credulity to assume these were innocent mistakes.
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl turned into a case about whether ICWA could be used for infants as well kids in foster care. This case should have been about fraud- the couple prevented proper notification of the father by lying on forms.
If the couple, their attorney and the biomother REALLY believed the father, formerly fiancé of the biomother did not want to raise his own child, why would they have needed to lie on forms? The answer is that they knew the only way they could get a clear shot at this child was to break a law that they figured (correctly) there would be no penalties for breaking to wrest the kid away from the father into another state with laws that make it almost impossible for biological fathers to assert parenthood.
That should have been enough to discredit their legal claim to this child; that along with their stalking the child with a reality tv host at her pre-school when she was almost 4 and had lived with her Dad and rest of her biofamily for almost 2 years disqualified them ethically and morally to have any contact with this child to whom they were strangers.
The Constitutional rights of this child were violated. She is now forced to live with ethically compromised strangers who have between them DUI charges, speeding tickets, and a history of drug use.
The couple, like any true narcissists, did not think through the implications for their actions. What will their "daughter" think when they see that they filed lawsuits against her family and herself (she is named) to recoup money for snatching her away from them? What will she think when she sees her adoptive "father" get on tv claiming her biological father had "kidnapped" her.
What will she think when she sees her bug-eyed adoptive "mother" say that oh, they just had a disagreement over the law?(Like any good narcissist, the adoptive "mother" plays technicalities to justify obtaining a child, even though a) she knew before birth child was wanted by her father b) she had ample indication when the child was only 4 months old, when he asserted his parental rights and c) after they lost multiple rounds of court in SC, child was already back with her biological family and thriving for 2 years with no memory of them). What will she (the child) think when she finds out her adoptive "parents" supported the state in maintaining a custodial interference charge that prevents her real father from entering the state of South Carolina to even visit her?
The list goes on. The laws of SC or selective application thereof embolden the mentally ill adoptive couple, who should be in jail, NOT rewarded by the state with getting to pretend they are parents of another man's child.
Jo Anna Hoffmann

Kenmore, WA

#27 Jan 30, 2014
CDa wrote:
If the couple hadn't lied in collusion with their attorney, they never would have been able to leave the state with Veronica to begin with. Their arguments in court "oh, well the ICPC form is just to assure safe passage of the child across state lines, not to protect the "biofather" is intellectually dishonest and should have been challenged vigorously before jurisdiction was ceded to SC which has instituted the concept that the first person to assert custody of the child is the most deserving parent.
Recapping: the couple lied about the child's ethnicity on the ICPC form and lied on the ICWA form about the father's name, birthdate and birth year. given that the biomom knew him for over a decade since high school, it stretches credulity to assume these were innocent mistakes.
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl turned into a case about whether ICWA could be used for infants as well kids in foster care. This case should have been about fraud- the couple prevented proper notification of the father by lying on forms.
If the couple, their attorney and the biomother REALLY believed the father, formerly fiancé of the biomother did not want to raise his own child, why would they have needed to lie on forms? The answer is that they knew the only way they could get a clear shot at this child was to break a law that they figured (correctly) there would be no penalties for breaking to wrest the kid away from the father into another state with laws that make it almost impossible for biological fathers to assert parenthood.
That should have been enough to discredit their legal claim to this child; that along with their stalking the child with a reality tv host at her pre-school when she was almost 4 and had lived with her Dad and rest of her biofamily for almost 2 years disqualified them ethically and morally to have any contact with this child to whom they were strangers.
The Constitutional rights of this child were violated. She is now forced to live with ethically compromised strangers who have between them DUI charges, speeding tickets, and a history of drug use.
The couple, like any true narcissists, did not think through the implications for their actions. What will their "daughter" think when they see that they filed lawsuits against her family and herself (she is named) to recoup money for snatching her away from them? What will she think when she sees her adoptive "father" get on tv claiming her biological father had "kidnapped" her.
What will she think when she sees her bug-eyed adoptive "mother" say that oh, they just had a disagreement over the law?(Like any good narcissist, the adoptive "mother" plays technicalities to justify obtaining a child, even though a) she knew before birth child was wanted by her father b) she had ample indication when the child was only 4 months old, when he asserted his parental rights and c) after they lost multiple rounds of court in SC, child was already back with her biological family and thriving for 2 years with no memory of them). What will she (the child) think when she finds out her adoptive "parents" supported the state in maintaining a custodial interference charge that prevents her real father from entering the state of South Carolina to even visit her?
The list goes on. The laws of SC or selective application thereof embolden the mentally ill adoptive couple, who should be in jail, NOT rewarded by the state with getting to pretend they are parents of another man's child.


CDa YOU are a rock star! As usual you clearly stated the FACTS!

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#28 Feb 2, 2014
Now the Capobianco's are forcing supporters of Dusten and Veronica Brown to change the name of their Facebook page and have told Dusten that he cannot be a supporter of the Facebook page ....if he does they have threatened that they will cut off the minimal contact he has with his daughter now. Controlling, manipulative, blackmail, harrassment..what is next..abuse to get your way?

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#29 Feb 2, 2014
twinklethis wrote:
Now the Capobianco's are forcing supporters of Dusten and Veronica Brown to change the name of their Facebook page and have told Dusten that he cannot be a supporter of the Facebook page ....if he does they have threatened that they will cut off the minimal contact he has with his daughter now. Controlling, manipulative, blackmail, harrassment..what is next..abuse to get your way?
Facebook pages:
Standing Our Ground
Standing Our Ground for Veronica Brown
Disgusted

Charleston, SC

#30 Feb 2, 2014
As many have stated previously, just wait for when Ronnie comes of age and learns the sad truth behind her circumstances. When she sees what true douchebags certain people are, it will be a sad day for all.
Diane

Carmel, IN

#31 Feb 4, 2014
twinklethis wrote:
The adoptive couple were well aware before the child was born that the father would probably contest the adoption. They were also aware of him being a citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma tribe as stated in 2011 SC court documents. The birth mother told her attorney and everyone involved that the information that was submitted to the CNO contained false information about the birth father and that is why his citizenship with the tribe could not be verified. Was this misinformation corrected before the ICPC was approved for them to take the baby out of OK (well actually the ICPC was retrodated because the paperwork had not been approved when the baby was taken out of OK by the adoptive parents)? No the information was not corrected. When the birth father was notified of the adoption when the baby was 4 months old, he immediately obtained a lawyer and began the fight for the right to raise his daughter. Did the Capobianco's do the morally and ethically right thing by allowing father and daughter to stay together? No, they fought him in court even knowing that he would have contested the adoption from the first had he known about their plans before the baby was born. Why did they fight him? Because as Melanie stated in court 'we wanted her more'. Seriously?! When things didn't go their way when a SC court gave the birth father custody of his daughter when she was 2 years old, they couldn't accept that they no longer had possession of their prize. Did they let this father and his child bond after being wrongfully separated for 2 years? No. They got a PR firm involved to influence public opinion..didn't matter that what was told in the media was truth or not, they had a baby to steal back and they were going to get it one way or the other. As we all know, the child at 4 years of age that will ALWAYS remember her father, stepmother, sister, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins,..was ripped away from all of them and forced to live with Melanie and Matthew Capobianco. Actually all you can do for this couple is pity them.
I do pity them. They have purchased a little girl who will always remember who her real family is and she will be one very pissed off young lady in the near future. And I feel sorry for Veronica. What it must be like to go to bed every night and dream if your daddy and your family and wake up to the reality that you can't go home- no matter how much you beg. And you can bet she is begging.
CherokeeWarrior

Greer, SC

#32 Feb 4, 2014
As that little girl grows older and learns the truth, she will become a force to be reckoned with, and it will not go well for the couple who purchased her. They may have won the battle against the Cherokee Nation, but the war is far from over. Not as long as Ronnie has the heart of a Cherokee female. And she does.
Just The Facts Please

Everett, WA

#33 Feb 4, 2014
No adoption would have taken place had Dusten Brown supported his biological daughter, attempted a relationship with his biological daughter, or had refused to relinquish his parental rights to his biological daughter prior to her reaching 4 months of age. He does not have his biological daughter due to his lack of support or interest those first crucial four months coupled with his agreement to relinquish his parental rights during the birthmother's pregnancy. He got precisely what his deliberate actions demanded. By his own admission he wanted to relinquish his rights. He got what he asked for.

SCOTUS ruling, let's just look at the second PARAGRAPH of the Writ of cert. "While Birth Mother was pregnant with Biological Father's child, their relationship ended and Biological Father (a member of the Cherokee Nation) agreed to relinquish his parental rights. Birth Mother put Baby Girl up for adoption through a private adoption agency and selected Adoptive Couple, non-Indians living in South Carolina. For the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl's birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl. About four months after Baby Girl's birth, Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the pending adoption. In the adoption proceedings, Biological Father sought custody and stated that he did not consent to the adoption. Following a trial, which took place [*2555] when Baby Girl was two years old, the South Carolina Family Court denied Adoptive Couple's adoption petition and awarded custody to Biological Father. At the age of 27 months, Baby Girl was handed over to Biological Father, whom she had never met. The State Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the ICWA applied because the child custody proceeding related to an Indian child; that Biological Father was a "parent" under the ICWA; that §§ 1912(d) and (f) barred the termination of his parental rights; and that had his rights been terminated,§ 1915(a)'s adoption-placement preferences would have applied... he did file UNTIL Four months after he was served with papers and they were not ordered relinquish until she was 27 months! BUT Justice Alito says it all in the court's opinion : here are the REAL facts" JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is about a little girl (Baby Girl) who is classified as an Indian because she is 1.2%(3/256) Cherokee. Because Baby Girl is classified in this way, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 required her to be taken, at the age of 27 months, from the only parents she had ever known and handed over to her biological father, who had attempted to relinquish his [**736] parental rights and who had no prior contact with the child. The provisions of the federal statute [*2557] at issue here do not demand this result.

Contrary to the State Supreme Court's ruling, we hold that 25 U. S. C.§ 1912(f)-which bars involuntary termination of a parent's rights in the absence of a heightened showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent's "continued custody" of the child-does not apply when, as here, the relevant parent never had custody of the child. We further hold that § 1912(d)-which conditions involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child on a showing that remedial efforts have been made to prevent the "breakup of the Indian family" — is inapplicable when, as here, the parent abandoned the Indian child before birth and never had custody of the child. Finally, we clarify that § 1915(a), which provides placement preferences for the adoption of Indian children, does not bar a non-Indian family like Adoptive Couple from adopting an Indian child when no other eligible candidates have sought to adopt the child. We accordingly reverse the South Carolina Supreme Court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#34 Feb 4, 2014
Should be interesting to see what the Department of Justice investigation reveals...
Rhi

Victoria, Canada

#35 Feb 4, 2014
Just the Facts Please --

SCOTUS did not look at all the facts. In fact, out of all the courts and Judges that they went through only one Judge actually looked at the transcripts, interviewed people and made a decision, Judge Malphrus of the South Carolina Family Court. And she ruled in Dusten's favour and found him to be a thwarted father and found the mother and prospective adopters to be unreliable and have made a concerted effort to hide the adoption and mislead pretty much everyone on every level. Every other court basically did brief reviews but did not go back through evidence or speak to anyone (except the two parties) before they made their judgements.

SCOTUS also has a long history of poor judgements and understanding of basically anything Native that comes before them and pretty much without exception rules for the non-Native parties.

The 1% comment is just more proof that you, nor Justice Alito understands Native issues. It is not about blood quantum (percentage), it is about citizenship. Regardless of what you or he thinks, the Cherokee Nation has it's own membership qualifications. A FEDERAL law gave them that right, to self-determine membership. As such they determine membership by who is (or is not) on the Dawes Roll. Dusten has family on there, thus he and any children are citizens, PERIOD. All this hubub and insistence on bringing up blood quantum, acting like you (and others) as non-Natives know better how the Cherokee should operate their membership is racist. The Capobianco's never argued whether Veronica was a Cherokee child or not, simply whether ICWA did and should apply. Perhaps that should tell you something before you spout off about how un-native she is.

The entire ruling was based on the "continued family" idea which is flawed, especially when given that most private adoptions begin right in the delivery room. How was Dusten ever supposed to have custody of a child when:

- Christy refused contact.
- Christy refused to notify him she was in labor.
- Christy put herself on "no reporting" which meant the hospital was legally obligated to deny she was a patient even if he called and asked, thus he had zero way to ever know she was in labor or his child had been born.
- He was barred from the hospital so that the Capobianco's could be there instead.
- The Capobianco's took Veronica straight from the hospital to their hotel.

When was he (or any father in this situation) supposed to have custody in order to protect themselves from the "continued family" section?
TheygotaHoeHoe

Salina, KS

#36 Feb 4, 2014
It helps when you have a attorney who is in bed with SCOTUS Roberts. A hoe is a hoe, and she too has a problem with alcohol

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#37 Feb 7, 2014
I think its awesome that this unethical adoption has caused epic awareness and so many have been outraged at the political and media influence in aiding an infertile couple of ripping a child from the father. This has resulted in legislation being drafted to ensure this never happens to another child and also has created so much national attention to the case that the Department of Justice is looking into this ' adoption'.
Jo Anna Hoffmann

Kenmore, WA

#38 Feb 7, 2014
Just the Facts - why hasn't anyone explained why for 21 months - Christy lived just down the road from Veronica how come she never once called Dusten to ask him to see her but only when a camera is around to take pictures she is there - that seems very off to me - and if you think those 4 months are going to matter to Veronica you are wrong - there are thousands of American children who are not put up for adoption who stl call their dad Dad and who have been separated due to actions by adults. Christy was just around the corner and didn't come by to see V.
a question arises

Charleston, SC

#39 Feb 9, 2014
There is a delicate issue which needs to be examined in this case.
Baby Ronnie looks nothing like her biological parents. She does not resemble Mr. Brown. She seems more Afrrican American than Native American.
I wonder if a DNA test was done to determine if indeed Mr. Brown is her biological father.
Wouldn't it be the icing on the cake to find that he was not?
It would be interesting to see if this was the case, given the multitude of bizarre circumstances that have been the hallmark of this tragic scenario.
Jo Anna Hoffmann

Clarkston, WA

#40 Feb 9, 2014
She looks EXACTLY like Dusten! Checkout Facebook Real Discussion if the Legal Kidnapping of Ronnie You are a DA of course there was DNA test! And just for the record she looks like Dusten's mother with her 'curly' black hair! You clearly are not a supporter of either side because you would have known that was the first thing done! Idiot!
HHHH

Charleston, SC

#41 Feb 11, 2014
Jo Anna Hoffmann wrote:
She looks EXACTLY like Dusten! Checkout Facebook Real Discussion if the Legal Kidnapping of Ronnie You are a DA of course there was DNA test! And just for the record she looks like Dusten's mother with her 'curly' black hair! You clearly are not a supporter of either side because you would have known that was the first thing done! Idiot!
I would be very careful as to whom I called an idiot, you beotch

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#42 Feb 17, 2014
I hear the Department of Justice Investigation Train coming :)

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#43 Apr 13, 2014
Now after saying Dusten could have skype calls with his daughter, the Capobianco's have cut contact completely off. No surprise there but the DOJ investigation is going to be pushed through that much harder...smh...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charleston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why should we celebrate Memorial day? 13 hr Anon 3
Why is there so much racism in Baltimore? 14 hr Megaocivison 1
News Why Do We Celebrate Memorial Day? Sun Will Dockery 1
is the city of Charleston becoming more raciall... Sun neo the powerful 2
why are racist cops getting away with murder in... Sun hlanyn tutah 1
100s Of New Illegal Aliens Building Dorchester ... May 22 Auto Repair 2
Judge Deadra Jefferson Goes Light On Brutal Rapist (Dec '11) May 22 This Is Not 15 Ye... 16
More from around the web

Charleston People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]