[MizT]

Hi guys!

I usually post in this forum, so I am re-posting info that you may all find interesting and heartbreaking. The original thread is here, but not seeing much response: Bring Veronica home

Have you seen the story about Veronica Capobianco?? On December 31, 2011, the Capobianco family was forced to hand their 2-yr-old adopted daughter over to her biological father - a man that was absent during the birth mother's pregnancy, informed her that he wanted to sign over his rights and signed a legal document stating he would not contest the adoption. Four months after the baby was born, he changed his mind and used ICWA to take her. This time, The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is working against the best interests of the child. As I understand it, the baby has a very small amount of Cherokee in her.

As a STBAD of a 14 month old, I am horrified. My previously favorable view of the Cherokee Nation has made a huge shift to the negative. I had previously thought of them as quite honorable.

[RavenSong]

Originally Posted by MizT

As a STBAD of a 14 month old, I am horrified. My previously favorable view of the Cherokee Nation has made a huge shift to the negative. I had previously thought of them as quite honorable.

Just because you are against the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) does NOT mean that the Cherokee Nation is unhonorable in any way. The Native American tribes just believe that children with Indian blood in them should not be stripped of their culture, except in very rare cases. Their position is very similar to the policy statement of the National Association of Black Social Workers with regard to white families adopting and raising black children. It doesn't mean that the NABSW or the Cherokee Nation is anti-adoption—it just means that they believe it's best for children to be raised in the cultural surroundings of their ancestors. I'm not saying if I agree with the philosophy or not, but it doesn't make them unhonorable.

There's more to this story than how it appears on blogs in cyberspace. I know you first said that the child only has one percent Cherokee blood...but then retracted that statement. All I know is the child looks very, very similar to many Cherokee children I've seen when visiting my mother in Oklahoma...as does her father and paternal grandmother.

[MizT]

Originally Posted by RavenSong

I know you first said that the child only has one percent Cherokee blood...but then retracted that statement. All I know is the child looks very, very similar to many Cherokee children I've seen when visiting my mother in Oklahoma...as does her father and paternal grandmother.

Please do not insult my integrity. I copied that info from the website and believe it to be true. However, much of the specific info has since been removed so as not to jeopardize the family's appeal. Since I cannot confirm the number, I am no longer presenting it.

I don't believe that the NABSW does not have legal standing to overturn a legal adoption.

I do not mean to insult your heritage, but I do believe the Cherokee nation got it wrong this time. I don't see the best interests of the child at play! For example, why no transition period from one family to the next??

FWIW, the baby looks a very, very similar to my daughter who is biracial/ Caucasian and AA.

[millie58]

Haven't read the story but having Cherokee ancestry, I can honestly say they are working a nerve. I get the whole heritage thing; I used to think the same way. Used to - not anymore. I don't think the biological father should get the child back. If he really loved the child, he should have asked for an open adoption or some type of visitation. but having 2 young ones who've been moved 5 times (one time they were placed with family) and with my youngest now having flashbacks and problems in school, the "father" isn't thinking in terms of what's best for the child.

[TemporaryMom]

Originally Posted by MizT

On December 31, 2011, the Capobianco family was forced to hand their 2-yr-old adopted daughter over to her biological father - a man that was absent during the birth mother's pregnancy, informed her that he wanted to sign over his rights and signed a legal document stating he would not contest the adoption. Four months after the baby was born, he changed his mind and used ICWA to take her.

Sorry, I don't mean to bash you, but really, why didn't they hand the child over when the father changes his mind at 4 months? That would have been the best for the child. I read a story from a lawyer working in this arena last month and RARELY do these cases win for the Adoptive family. Yes, it would have sucked to hand the child over after loving her for 4 months, but it would have sucked a lot less for them and for the child to have done it then.

Whether you agree with the ICWA laws or not, they exist. I'd say it was borderline ignorant for this family to have fought it. I am sure that some lawyer made a killing in fees to help them fight it, but who won? Had then worked with the father, and maybe they did, I don't know the full details, he might have either realized that she was in a good home and left her, maybe with an OA, or at least not been a threat to him and maybe been able to keep in touch with the child after she left.

Many people debate the timelines around changing minds when it comes to adoption. I see it from both sides. Unlike the mother, who gives birth to the child, the father doesn't have that connection to see the immediate pain of giving them up, so for him, it probably took longer.

If the adoptive family did a good job of teaching this child to attach, she will attach to her father and should probably not have a large trauma associated with this move.

I tend to agree that I think the Tribe have too much leeway with the laws, but unfortunately, the laws exist because they needed to When I see so many tribal children waiting for adoption by other tribal families, it saddens me. Many are younger and I know would get adopted much faster if they were open to all. But that is the reality. At some time in history, these people faced abuses that they should not have had to so they now have laws to protect them.

[Barb65]

By blood I am 1/8th Cherokee, my great grandmother having been a Cherokee orphan raised by a caucasian family (we still can't prove or disprove wether it was a legal adoption, although she did go by their last name). I am blonde haired and blue eyed, and by blood rights would still be eligible for tribal registration had my great grandmother maintained hers and passed it on to her children. My point here is, I think the decision on where a child should be raised is more important than blood. If the child is only part Cherokee, they obviously have other cultures intermingled that should be honored as well, but it seems that all one has to do is claim tribal affiliation and that changes all the rules. What about my Celtic clan affiliation, do they have no rights?

I guess what I'm trying to say is for an older child that has been raised in tribal traditions, I get it completely. They should not be removed from that enviroment in the same way my great-grandmother was. As in placed in a Caucasian home, forced to change her name, her looks, her spiritual beliefs, in effect having the "Indian cleansed from her". But for a newborn with only partial heritage, and no history with the tribe, it just seems like a loophole to be invoked when it benefits someone. Just my .02.

[mommy2fiveplus]

Originally Posted by TemporaryMom

Sorry, I don't mean to bash you, but really, why didn't they hand the child over when the father changes his mind at 4 months? That would have been the best for the child. I read a story from a lawyer working in this arena last month and RARELY do these cases win for the Adoptive family. Yes, it would have sucked to hand the child over after loving her for 4 months, but it would have sucked a lot less for them and for the child to have done it then.

Whether you agree with the ICWA laws or not, they exist. I'd say it was borderline ignorant for this family to have fought it. I am sure that some lawyer made a killing in fees to help them fight it, but who won? Had then worked with the father, and maybe they did, I don't know the full details, he might have either realized that she was in a good home and left her, maybe with an OA, or at least not been a threat to him and maybe been able to keep in touch with the child after she left.

Many people debate the timelines around changing minds when it comes to adoption. I see it from both sides. Unlike the mother, who gives birth to the child, the father doesn't have that connection to see the immediate pain of giving them up, so for him, it probably took longer.

If the adoptive family did a good job of teaching this child to attach, she will attach to her father and should probably not have a large trauma associated with this move.

I tend to agree that I think the Tribe have too much leeway with the laws, but unfortunately, the laws exist because they needed to When I see so many tribal children waiting for adoption by other tribal families, it saddens me. Many are younger and I know would get adopted much faster if they were open to all. But that is the reality. At some time in history, these people faced abuses that they should not have had to so they now have laws to protect them.

I agree, some of the pain this child will suffer rests on the shoulders of the adoptive parents as well as the father. A simple google search of ICWA suits would have told the parents they had very little chance at winning, and they could have relinquished her at that time but continued to fight if they felt they needed too. I get it, they probably felt they had a better chance if they still had her, but if they were really thinking about her and weighed thier chances saw they were at a huge disadvantage they could have thought about the long term emotional consequences to her and choose to minimize them by giving her up, they didn't. I am not saying the situation doesn't suck and that the father is 100% right, just that he does not shoulder all of the blame. Also, why was the ICWA status of the child not addressed by the placing agency? I don't believe ICWA should be used at as a whim but I do completely understand its importance and believe that they are coming from a wise perspective. No matter if you are 100% NA or 5%, that heritage should be honored. They are soveriegn nations and should be treated as such, disrespecting them is asking to have our own nation disrespected. What if an american soldier fathered a child in another country and the women decided to place? Would you want the United States to have a standing int he case to protect the father's rights and the child's right to ba an american? I would, the same applies to the Cheerokee Nation as far as I am concerned. This is why placing agencies need to do their homework on all bioparents, just because the parent is not an enrolled member of the tribe does not mean that the children do not qualify to be and is not protected by ICWA. This sucks all around and the blame needs to be shared all around.

[Barb65]

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

just because the parent is not an enrolled member of the tribe does not mean that the children do not qualify to be and is not protected by ICWA.

So are you saying that if the adoptive parents could prove the same eligibility for enrollment that they should be considered tribal members and allowed to adopt a native child?

[LibbyHawkins]

[quote=TemporaryMom]Sorry, I don't mean to bash you, but really, why didn't they hand the child over when the father changes his mind at 4 months?

Because he signed his rights away and didn't contest the adoption, it's not as if he didn't know about the child or the adoption.

Whether you agree with the ICWA laws or not, they exist. I'd say it was borderline ignorant for this family to have fought it.

Ignorant??? Wow. Would you agree then if the birthmother changes her mind 4 months later after passing a revoke period that adoptive families should just return the babies without question? What is the differnce in one law versus another? I don't think anyone could have predicted an overturned adoption considering the father gave away his rights with full disclosure. I too believe it dishonorable of ICWA to use the law in this way, I would see it differently if the father hadn't know everything when the child was given up for adoption.

quote]

[TemporaryMom]

[quote=LibbyHawkins]

Originally Posted by TemporaryMom

Sorry, I don't mean to bash you, but really, why didn't they hand the child over when the father changes his mind at 4 months?

Because he signed his rights away and didn't contest the adoption, it's not as if he didn't know about the child or the adoption.

Whether you agree with the ICWA laws or not, they exist. I'd say it was borderline ignorant for this family to have fought it.

Ignorant??? Wow. Would you agree then if the birthmother changes her mind 4 months later after passing a revoke period that adoptive families should just return the babies without question? What is the differnce in one law versus another? I don't think anyone could have predicted an overturned adoption considering the father gave away his rights with full disclosure. I too believe it dishonorable of ICWA to use the law in this way, I would see it differently if the father hadn't know everything when the child was given up for adoption.

quote]

I must not have explained my point well, apologies for that. I am not defending the actions of the father in any way. My point was, and another PP pointed out, that the adoptive family seemed ignorant to the law and how this would play out, or had a money-hungry lawyer. I'll see if I can find the site I found last month that showed something like less than 5-10% of these cases are successful for the adoptive family. They would have made the case better for everyone to relinquish the child instead of fighting it out for over 2 years.

I pointed out that I do not always agree with the law. I think it is abhorrent to make children wander in foster care when there are thousands of potential adoptive families for no other reason than they are partial native.

[TemporaryMom]

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

Also, why was the ICWA status of the child not addressed by the placing agency? I don't believe ICWA should be used at as a whim but I do completely understand its importance and believe that they are coming from a wise perspective.

I found the news articles after I posted. Apparently the father was not forth coming about this information when he signed the no-contest agreement. He only invoked his Tribe affiliation AFTER he wanted the child back. I can't defend his or the Tribe's actions on that note. As a PP indicated, it isn't as if this child's parents resided on tribal land or even followed tribal culture. I don't think that the law should allow someone to do this as the father did, but, the fact remains it does. In fact, I got worried because at the last moment, my STBAS's bio dad said that he was part Tribe. But, here in OH, there isn't a major influence from the Tribe so they did the standard reporting and so far at least there has been no question about it.

I am 1/8th of something myself. My family says Cherokee, but I am on sure that is true, just what most people from my hometown say. OH has a large portion of Native American descendants. I have no way of proving my tribe affiliation or I would for no other reason than to be able to potentially adopt some of the children.

None of what I read changed my mind though. The adoptive family had almost no chance at winning this and should have considered relinquishing at the 4 month mark. I suspect that the father changed his mind before that mark and it just took that long to get the legal actions in place. There are no winners here, both sides suffer. My heart breaks for the adoptive family. I have had Chubbs now for 4 months and to lose him now would be heartbreaking.

[MizT]

Interesting to read your replies. To clarify, this was not a foster/adopt situation. This was a finalized private domestic open adoption, and the BDad had previously signed off. I would have fought it too!

[mommy2fiveplus]

Originally Posted by Barb65

So are you saying that if the adoptive parents could prove the same eligibility for enrollment that they should be considered tribal members and allowed to adopt a native child?

Yes, that is actually how it works in our area for some families who choose not to be enrolled members of the tribe. As long as they are eligible, they are ICWA approved (which actually means tribe approved, since the tribe has to sign off on all adoptions), even if they are not an enrolled member.

And my bigger point was that a child does not always (and should not as far as I am concerned) lose their tribal eligibility just because the parents choose not to enroll in the tribe. They simply have to prove that another eligible family member is enrolled (such as a grandmother/father, aunt/uncle, sibling, etc.) and that they meet the required blood quantum for that tribe.

A similar example: injured veterns and their children are provided for with special resources from the federal government, if the veteran chooses not to take advantage of those resources we don't strip them from the children also, so why would we in this circumstance?

[mommy2fiveplus]

Originally Posted by MizT

Interesting to read your replies. To clarify, this was not a foster/adopt situation. This was a finalized private domestic open adoption, and the BDad had previously signed off. I would have fought it too!

I gathered from your original post that this was likely a straight domestic adoption not foster to adopt. I probably wouldn't have fought, for four reasons

1) A biological parent regretted their choice enough to bring legal action against me to regain custody of his child after I had only had her for 4 mos, what would I tell her when she is 16 and wants to know why her family didn't want her? Someday, she will search her bio familiy and they will tell her thier story, I don't want her to get the impression that I stole her from parents who quickly regretted thier decision to place. I would much rather tellher that I adopted her from parents who deeply wanted her but were unable to care for her and while the decision was very difficult for them they are at peace with it.

2) the reality is that at 4 mos, the emotional damage of a planned transition is not very significant on the child if I were to lose a child at this age. It would be VERY hard on the parents but not significant on the child enough to deny her the ability to be raised by her biological family.

3)Coming from a world of adopted parents, adoptive siblings and adopted children, I have seen what adoption does to a child from birth through age 65(my mother and all her brothers are addopted), the harsh truth is that adoption is always second best. It is best to be raised within your biological family unless there is true risk to that choice, in which case an adoptive placement would trump the benefits of being raised within your biological family. IMHO it is wrong to deny an infant this option, an older child who may have greater negative impact from a transition from one family to another, that is different, but an infant? No way.

4) Fighting this is almost futile and that is easy to ascertain by a simple google search. I am not saying that fighting for something you believe in even when the odds are against you is a bad thing, I actually admire it, but I tend to fight battles I think I can win, otherwise people die and get hurt and for no really good reason. It would be like Peru waging war against the United States, they know they are not going to win, they know that they are sending thier people to certain death, they know those deaths will be meaningless as thier objectives are not going to be met, yet they make that sacrifice anyway, a scarifice made in vain that has huge negative impacts for everyone and nothing positive to come of it.

[mamallama]

This adoption was NOT finalized. Even thought the biological father initially signed a document saying he would not contest the adoption, he changed his mind. From what I've read, he didn't register with the tribe until AFTER he decided to contest the adoption and his first application was denied. Eventually he was successful and then he Cherokee Nation joined him in fighting to regain custody of his daughter.

Honestly? I think BOTH parties are at fault.