Post Reply Supreme Court giving away your babies
12562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
[not] China
Offline
Posted 6/25/13 , edited 6/25/13
Title: Supreme Court rule for couple over baby girl's adoption

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a lower court order requiring a South Carolina couple to turn over a young girl they had raised since birth to her biological father simply because he was an American Indian.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled in favor of Matt and Melanie Capobianco, who had been caring for the girl they named Veronica until a family court ordered them to turn her over to her biological father Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation.

Brown had argued that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, intended to curb practices that caused many Native American children to be separated from their families, entitled him to custody of the girl, who was 3/256th Cherokee.

He took custody at the end of 2011 when the girl was just over 2 years old, and South Carolina's highest court later upheld his custody.

But conservative Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Supreme Court majority, concluded that the law did not bar the termination of Brown's parental rights.

"Under the State Supreme Court's reading," Alito wrote, "a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother ... and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother's decision and the child's best interests," Alito wrote. "If this were possible, many prospective adoptive parents would surely pause before adopting any child who might possibly qualify as an Indian under the ICWA."

The Supreme Court did not grant the couple an adoption, but threw out the South Carolina court decisions awarding custody to the father.

The court returned the case to the South Carolina state courts for further proceedings.

The case is Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-399.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rule-couple-over-baby-girls-adoption-145338690.html
12485 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / SoCal
Online
Posted 6/25/13
This is so messed up. If you are to give your child away to someone else then that should abolish all parental rights you had over that child. The couple who adopts the child should gain ALL parental rights that the biological parents would have originally had. I don't care what your originality is, if someone else has legal custody over a child it should be in no ones power to take that child away.
43068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Babylon
Offline
Posted 6/25/13 , edited 6/25/13
Sounds like a bunch of BS.

By BS i mean its BS that this could happen to some loving parents to lose there child over nothing but a petty man with some Indian blood.
42131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 6/25/13
Even if there were no "Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978", I would still advocate for adopted children to be returned to their biological parents if the biological parents changed their mind.

I don't have any reasons either, it's just what I feel.
589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / London, UK
Offline
Posted 6/25/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:

Even if there were no "Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978", I would still advocate for adopted children to be returned to their biological parents if the biological parents changed their mind.

I don't have any reasons either, it's just what I feel.


Really? I think that's incredibly cruel to the adoptive parents, to let them come to love a child, and then take that child from them. Essentially, you've got one (set of) parent(s) who seem indecisive about whether they want/can handle kids or not, and one (set of) parent(s) who have clearly put a lot of thought and effort into adopting a child- it usually requires a ton of paperwork, social services checks, etc.. With that in mind, I have the hardest time thinking that biological parents should be given first priority based purely on that, especially given that blood relation is not, in any way, a guarantee of good parenting.
26337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Toledo
Offline
Posted 6/25/13

sillyriri wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

Even if there were no "Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978", I would still advocate for adopted children to be returned to their biological parents if the biological parents changed their mind.

I don't have any reasons either, it's just what I feel.


Really? I think that's incredibly cruel to the adoptive parents, to let them come to love a child, and then take that child from them. Essentially, you've got one (set of) parent(s) who seem indecisive about whether they want/can handle kids or not, and one (set of) parent(s) who have clearly put a lot of thought and effort into adopting a child- it usually requires a ton of paperwork, social services checks, etc.. With that in mind, I have the hardest time thinking that biological parents should be given first priority based purely on that, especially given that blood relation is not, in any way, a guarantee of good parenting.


Couldn't agree more. I would never consider adoption if it was made to where the biological parent(s) could, at any time they wished, come in and just take away the child. There are better ways to handle situations where the biological parent(s) decides they do in fact want to be part of their childs life.
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 6/25/13 , edited 6/25/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:

Even if there were no "Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978", I would still advocate for adopted children to be returned to their biological parents if the biological parents changed their mind.

I don't have any reasons either, it's just what I feel.


A child gets abondoned by their biological parents and then years later after being raised by a family has to go back to person that abandoned him/her because they're biologically related?

Bullshit. Doesn't matter what you think, when a parent gives up their kid to be adopted, they should relinquish any right to them. As they proved they're not even worthy of being a parent.

Plus if they can just give and take back then they can just send their kid away at times of hardship and come back for them later? Either be fucking man and stick with the child the whole way, not go for whatever is convenient for you.
14190 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / San Diego
Offline
Posted 6/25/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:


A child gets abondoned by their biological parents and then years later after being raised by a family has to go back to person that abandoned him/her because they're biologically related?

Bullshit. Doesn't matter what you think, when a parent gives up their kid to be adopted, they should relinquish any right to them. As they proved they're not even worthy of being a parent.

Plus if they can just give and take back then they can just send their kid away at times of hardship and come back for them later? Either be fucking man and stick with the child the whole way, not go for whatever is convenient for you.


@ Veni
wow couldn't put it better me self.
If I was adopted and later found out that my biological parents were alive and gave me up for adoption, I would have zero interest in meeting them. A parent is someone that raises you and takes care of you, not someone that has a good 5 minutes and then 9 months later pops you out and leaves pfff.
2395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Rochester, NY
Offline
Posted 6/26/13
I need more info on this before deciding.

1) Did the father KNOW the mother gave up the child? Did the father KNOW, and still wasn't afforded the right to care for his child because the mother refused to list his name on the birth certificate? These are reasons to side with the father.

This is because men have no rights, except to be extorted through the courts for child support and alimony. Men and women are supposed to be equal, yet once you enter a court, you have far less rights if you have a penis.

2) If the father DID consent to the adoption, then he is an ass who should have NO rights in terms of custody.
You must be logged in to post.