Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Brown Versus Capobiancos: Father v Strangers

As the Supreme Court decides the fate of Baby Veronica - now 3-1/2, major newspapers editorials take sides. some asking that the Indian Child Welfare Act be ignored and or done away with.

The comments posted to these editorials and those supporting the rights of Veronica's father, are  VILE and clearly indicate that public opinion on these issues have remained unchanged since the 1970 Olga Scarpetta contested adoption.

The public is firmly entrenched in the perception of adoptive parents ALWAYS being the more deserving party. They are seen as hallowed, selfless saviors who are above reproach. And they are the wounded party in a disputed adoption as they deserve to have what they paid for.

The naural parernts in disputed adoptions are reneggers, forgive me, but what e used to call "Indian givers."

Prevailing belief is that anyone who even THINKS about or considers placing a child or allowing a child to be adopted is contemptuous, despicable and unfit. Societal lepers. Public opinion says once you think about adoption, you do not get a second chance, no change of mind.

The facts of the case are irrelevant to this mob mentality that seeks only to tar and feather the "lowly" natural parents.

Underlying these strong - albeit unreasonable - opinions on the part of the public and some newspapers' editors - is that they can identify with the adopters and not a parent who in any way considers adoption, even for a split second, or under pressure, or forced or coerced, or without full knowledge of what they are signing. No matter. They are sure, they never would!

Signing - under any circumstances - puts us in a category with child abusers.

In addition, in this particular case, you have the racial issue and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Regarding these, I have read comments that outright or subtly suggest “reverse discrimination.”
White, wealthy, married = power and "right."

Sadly the best interest of the child is of little concern, and constitutional right of parents to their own child, less still.

Finally, there is little to no value placed on nature and biological connectedness. Blood relations are meaningless (unless you are researching your own ancestry and roots). Babies are commodities that are bought and manufactured with bought eggs, sperm and rented wombs that use mothers as human incubators -- all for the wealthy who "deserve" them and are entitled to them. Indicitive of this view is a comment that callled Brown a sperm donor.

We are entitled to disdain and disgust.

Pray for Veronica and her DAD!! They need and deserve one another and belong to be together forever after.


Anonymous said...

I am particularly concerned about the legal precedent this case could set. I too tried to gain custody of my child and ICWA was the only tangible protection we would have had. Although we do have substantial Native American heritage, we lack the documentation to prove this, and had to build a case along the lines of Kelsey S. (1992, CA)

"in which an unwed biological father has a right under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to withhold his consent to the biological mother's decision to give their child up at birth for adoption by a third party. We are also asked to consider whether an unwed father can be equitably estopped from attempting to veto such an adoption on constitutional grounds, whether an unwed father is barred as a matter of law from asserting such a veto if he was over age 18 and the mother was under age 18 at the time of conception, and whether children have a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in the continuity and stability of their family lives that limits their unwed father's ability to exercise his own Fourteenth Amendment right to veto the adoption."

Mr. Brown is already an enrolled member, so his child should have protection under the ICWA. If the Supreme Court rules against them - and I say "them" because the ICWA is designed to protect babies who cannot speak for themselves, and their tribal identity – not just the father - it is an attack on their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

Women have fought hard for the right to vote, to be treated as equals in the workplace, essentially for gender equality and protection from bias. When it comes to the right to raise children - men are viewed as unequal, and are consistently legislated out of the picture in many states, where an adoption is at hand. Today, many married men often stay at home to raise their children while their wives work. However, the adoption law in many states essentially says that if you're not married, it IS ok to be a single mother - but it is NOT ok to be a single father.

I understand, too, that the law does afford children and women protection from DEADBEAT dads, who do not provide support, and who often have prison records or other serious issues. But what is a GOOD dad to do when the adoption agency, birth mother, social workers, lawyers, and judges have a bias that is not based on his merit as a father?

It is not easy to provide support to a birth mother who does not want support (she wants an adoption!), and even if you do provide support during the pregnancy, proving it is difficult. You would have to know that "my girlfriend is pregnant, she wants an adoption, and therefore I must marry her, must buy her and the baby things even though she does not want them, document these purchases, and file for custody before the birth." How many birth fathers know to do this? How would they know? There are an abundance of resources for people who want adoption, and few for those who don't want it.

Some birth mothers have unique circumstances that warrant the birth father being out of the picture. The laws are designed for these bad dads, and many good men become collateral damage. Those who go along with an adoption, if they're lucky, might get one visit a year. Those who fight for their child...often end up with no visit, no pictures, nothing. I talked to one such unfortunate biological father who hadn't had any contact with his child for 8 years, all because he fought for custody and lost!

This is the grey area, the tricky part for a father to be - go along with the mother, and you can see your child. Resist - and lose all contact.

Mirah Riben said...

Thank you! Well said!

"There are an abundance of resources for people who want adoption, and few for those who don't want it."

Indeed, indeed.

Care to identify yourself?

Mirah Riben said...

Also everything you said about fathers - spot on

RussiaToday Apr 29, 2010 on Russian Adoption Freeze

Russi Today: America television Interview 4/16/10 Regarding the Return of Artyem, 7, to Russia alone

RT: Russia-America TV Interview 3/10

Korean Birthmothers Protest to End Adoption

Motherhood, Adoption, Surrender, & Loss

Who Am I?

Bitter Winds

Adoption and Truth Video

Adoption Truth

Birthparents Never Forget