General Discussion

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)

21. There seems to be a disagreement about the facts of the case

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 08:44 AM

Jun 2013

I haven't read the court decision, but if the reports quoting Alito are accurate, the father abandoned the child before she was born and consented to the adoption, albeit not in the venue prescribed by the statute. Importantly, the assertion that he only became aware of the adoption after it took place is, apparently, untrue.

Here's another report that confirms the USA Today version.

http://news.msn.com/us/court-child-isnt-required-to-go-to-biological-father?ocid=ansnews11

I would assume that the facts of the case presented to the SCOTUS were accurate. I would also assume that the news reports quoted Alito accurately. Based on that I believe the father gave up on the child before she was born and shouldn't be able to change his mind after the fact.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules for adoptive parents in Baby Veronica case [View all] East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 OP

Tough call, but I think the SCOTUS got it right. badtoworse Jun 2013 #1

+ 1 virgogal Jun 2013 #2

Nope ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #3

Read the story - that's not what happened badtoworse Jun 2013 #4

Reposting my answer to another thread - the mother concealed the adoption from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #5

How far is the child removed from the tribe with 3/256th heritage? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #7

I think it's ridiculous that 1% of her ancestry is enough to make her bound by Cherokee law. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #9

From the USA Today article badtoworse Jun 2013 #18

Sure, here you go ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #20

There seems to be a disagreement about the facts of the case badtoworse Jun 2013 #21

Exactly what adoption is that? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #22

Doesn't change my opinion badtoworse Jun 2013 #23

They shouldn't have hidden it from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #24

Here's my bottom line badtoworse Jun 2013 #25

Except your facts are wrong. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #26

I'm reacting to what I've read in the media and I'll concede the media could have it wrong. badtoworse Jun 2013 #30

3/256? That's about 1.18%. How does that even count as anything? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #6

It still qualifies the child ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #8

Well, she's 99% other, which should qualify her for protection under regular US adoption laws. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #10

No, but I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #11

So would you deny citizenship to a child born abroad to a US parent? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #12

I agree with giving US citizenship to a child based either on the citizenship of the parents. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #13

Which is why the law was enacted ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #14

The tribe almost certainly couldn't give a shit what happens to the child. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #15

The tribe cares more about her than these white people (the adoptive couple) do ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #16

What a pile of horseshit. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #17

I agree your post is a pile ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #19

I'm trying to understand something about this Orrex Jun 2013 #27

Tribal citizenship ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #28

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful answer Orrex Jun 2013 #31

except, what rights would the US actually have when American parents live out of country permanently rebecca_herman Jun 2013 #42

The US is a Contracting State under the Hague Convention ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #43

I read it, but I'm not seeing where it applies to the situation I described? rebecca_herman Jul 2013 #44

Sec. 26(2) & (3) state: ExCop-LawStudent Jul 2013 #45

that's so ridiculous that my jaw dropped. and offensive. cali Jun 2013 #29

You just lost the debate with that racist statement. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #33

I didn't see anyone object to this statement ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #34

Because two wrongs always make a right. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #36

No, I did not ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #37

I am not taking sides on this but I think that a little history regarding the reasons behind this jwirr Jun 2013 #32

Well put. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #35

My sil has family that were treated similairly. The history is there for anyone to see. Do you know jwirr Jun 2013 #40

I don't know ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #41

This is a horrific case. Xithras Jun 2013 #38

Exactly right, plus he was at a distinct disadvantage ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #39