Sad but Inevitable End to this Story...

I've been following this case for a few years and I hate to say it but the former adoptive parents of this little girl should just step back now and let the child remain with it's father.  Or should I say the father's wife or his parents (whichever one he's dumped her off with to return to his military career).  


Unfortunately this is the inevitable result of allowing unmarried men to have the same legal rights as a child's mother.  Men contribute little or nothing to bringing children into this world and this particular recreational sperm donor contributed nothing long after the fact, Yet he was allowed to overrule the mother's action in placing this little girl up for adoption and into a stable family home two years after she had been legally adopted.

Now everyone wants to play "let's fix this after the fact" but it's too little too late to do that.  This child has now been living in whatever family arrangement her father has left her in since 2011, this is now 2013. 

She should not have her life disrupted for the second time.  


The father has been arrested for custodial interference and posted a $10,000 bond but the real person who should be under investigation and posting a bond is the original judge in South Caroline who overturned established legal precedent in order to give a recreational sperm donor rights to a child who was already legally adopted into a stable family unit.  


This is another example of how mens' rights advocates and gender neutralized feminists have invaded our legal system and made courts a dangerous place now for mothers and children and also goes to show how one person can totally ignore the law as well as the best interest of a child and get away with it.  Time is on the side of the person who knows how to work the legal system...sad really.


Anyway, we are going to see fewer mothers placing their children into adoption and more abortions as they begin to realize that these recreational sperm donors can pop up years after the fact and overrule any decisions they have made in the best interest of their children.


The original adoption should not have been overturned but since it was and the child has now been another two years with a different family her life should not be disrupted a second time.


Very sorry for everyone involved in this case.

Court rules for adoptive parents in Baby Veronica case

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY12:55 a.m. EDT June 26, 2013

Little 'Baby Veronica' was adopted for more than two years, but an obscure law preventing the breakup of Native American families had forced her return to her father.

WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court sided with a 3-year-old girl's adoptive parents over the legal claim of her father Tuesday in a case that revolved around the child's 1% Cherokee blood.In doing so, the justices expressed skepticism about a 1978 federal law that's intended to prevent the breakup of Native American families -- but in this case may have created one between father and daughter that barely existed originally.

While four justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum found no way to deny the father his rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, five others -- including Chief Justice John Roberts, an adoptive father himself -- said the adoptive parents were the consistently reliable adults in "Baby Veronica's" life. They ordered the case returned to South Carolina courts "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

That the nation's highest court was playing King Solomon in a child custody dispute was unusual to begin with. It had jurisdiction because Veronica is 3/256ths Cherokee, and the law passed by Congress 35 years ago was intended to prevent the involuntary breakup of Native American families and tribes.

In this case, however, the first family to get broken up was the adoptive one in South Carolina, led by Melanie and Matt Capobianco. They had raised Veronica for 27 months after her mother put her up for adoption. The father, Dusten Brown of Oklahoma, bjected to the adoption only after the fact.

Brown won custody 18 months ago after county and state courts in South Carolina said the unique federal law protecting Native American families was paramount. The Capobiancos' attorney, Lisa Blatt, had argued in court that the law was racially discriminatory -- in effect banning adoptions of American Indian children by anyone who's not American Indian.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito ruled for the majority that the law's ban on breaking up Native American families cannot apply if the family didn't exist in the first place. He said the father had not supported the mother during pregnancy, agreed to give up parental rights in a text message, and changed his mind much later.

"In that situation, no Indian family is broken up," Alito said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented along with liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and conservative Antonin Scalia, said Veronica now could have her life unnecessarily interrupted for a second time.

"The anguish this case has caused will only be compounded by today's decision," she said.

Only once before has the law been tested at the nation's highest court. Nearly a quarter-century ago, the court took Native American twins from their adoptive family and handed them back to a tribal council in a case that Scalia recently said was the toughest in his 26 years on the bench.

Only Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy were on the court for that 1989 case, in which the court ruled 6-3 for an Indian tribe's custody rights. Scalia sided with the majority, while Kennedy joined the dissent. They were in similar positions this time as the court ruled against the law's intent -- Scalia again on the father's side, Kennedy with the adoptive couple.