Christinna Maldonado chose Matt and Melanie Capobianco to love, nurture, and raise her soon-to-be-born child. The Capobiancos had long wanted to be parents and after seven failed in vitro fertilization attempts, made the decision to enter into an “open adoption†of Baby Veronica. On all accounts. Veronica was a happy, thriving, child residing in a stable, nurturing environment. To this day, Maldonado remains committed to her choice.
On or around Jan. 4, 2010, Dusten Brown, the biological father, signed away custody of his daughter in exchange for not having financial responsibility. Brown later changed his mind and sought custody of Veronica. Initially, due to South Carolina law, he was denied standing because he was considered an absentee father.
However, because he was 3/128th Cherokee heritage, the Cherokee Nation intervened in the adoption proceedings and argued that this happy, healthy two-year-old be transferred to Brown under the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act. Baby Veronica, only 1.12% Cherokee heritage, was ordered removed from the Capobianco’s care and placed in Dusten Brown’s custody. On Dec. 31, 2011, despite abundant evidence from child psychologists and attachment experts that removing toddlers from care-givers they’ve bonded to could cause long-lasting psychological damage, Veronica was handed over to her biological father.
Though supporters of ICWA say it has safeguards to prevent misuse, Veronica and numerous other multi-racial children across the U.S have been hurt by it – many of whom have never been near a reservation nor involved in tribal customs. Some opponents of ICWA question the motivation for seeking after children whose families have chosen to be disconnected from Indian Country. The Cherokee Nation alone had over 100 attorneys targeting some 1,500 children across the country in 2012.
Now Veronica’s case has reached the highest level. On February 26, 2013, the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of Matt, Melanie and Veronica. SCOTUS will hear testimony of the case on April 16th and will make a ruling by the end of the term in June 2013.
CAICW is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision made by the high court of South Carolina and return Baby Girl Veronica to the Capobiancos, family chosen for her by her birth-mother. The statutory and constitutional issues addressed in this case impact the equal protection, due process, liberty, and state rights provisions of children in need of care. A child’s best interests should be considered in every child custody determination. There is no presumption that residing with members of a child’s tribe is in the child’s best interests, particularly when the child is lives off the tribe’s reservation. Further, tribal governments lack inherent jurisdiction over nonmembers. Application of the federal ICWA to cases involving the parents who are not tribal members violates the equal protection provision of the U.S. constitution, even if a non-member parent lives within reservation boundaries.
If you have any doubts to the how justice should rule in this case – consider Christinna, who is 50% Hispanic (if her heritage isn’t important, but another persons supposed minute heritage is, isn’t that….racism?)
SHE was the one in the position of being an unwed mother – told by the biological father that he was not going to help support the baby she was carrying. No one else was in that position. (But if what she went through isn’t important, but the father’s belated “pain” is, isn’t that….sexism?)
Then imagine if this had been your daughter, sister, or niece who had made the mistake of sleeping with a man who later refused to help with a child. Now pay attention. This man appeared to be Caucasian. So at some point he mentioned that he has Cherokee ancestry. However, in the time your daughter was with him, he never made an issue about being Indian, practiced anything traditional, or gave any cause to assume he was anything other than the myriad other Caucasians across the United States who claim to have Cherokee blood. Yes, those people of minute heritage who many tribal members of significant heritage mock as “wannabe” Indians.
Now, imagine you and the rest of your family had supported her decision to move ahead with adoption and helped her find a good home for this child. Then imagine a tribal government coming in weeks, months or years later, and telling the courts that this man has 3/128th heritage, and based on this tiny bit of blood quantum, this man many tribal members would have mocked if it weren’t for Veronica – is now “Indian” and they are there to invalidate the decision your family had made.
What the Cherokee Nation is pushing for and the South Carolina Supreme Court erroneously overlooked – is that any woman, of any heritage, who sleeps with any man of any apparent heritage – even a one night stand – CANNOT go ahead with an adoption without somehow ensuring that this man does not have a smidgen of tribal heritage.
WHAT does this kind of ruling do for the rights of women – of unwed mothers? What kinds of hoops will teenage girls now have to go through if the Supreme Court rules for the tribal governments? Where is the outrage from women’s groups over this case?
And yet – no one would say a thing of she opted to abort her baby instead. The tribal government wouldn’t – couldn’t stop her from doing that. Just consider the ramifications of a tribal government victory in this case.
Our Families are NOT Chattel for tribal governments – no matter how many claim them to be. As parents, we will continue to fight for full rights and freedom for our families – every one of whom is a United States Citizen – even if this Supreme Court makes the wrong decision.
In the words of Dr. William Allen, former Chair, US Commission on Civil Rights (1989) & Emeritus Professor, Political Science MSU, “… we are talking about our brothers and our sisters. We’re talking about what happens to people who share with us an extremely important identity. And that identity is the identity of free citizens in a Republic…”
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRAY NOW THROUGH TUESDAY – for Veronica, her parents, and all involved with this important decision.
Elizabeth Sharon Morris is Chairwoman of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and author of ‘Dying in Indian Country: A Family Journey From Self-Destruction To Opposing Tribal Sovereignty.â€
12 users commented in " Baby Veronica’s rights, Women’s rights, and States Rights…vs Tribal Gov’t Tyranny "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackImagine, you have a son. The mother of his child conceals giving your grandchild away. Wouldn’t you do anything in your power to get your grandchild back? I would.
P.S. the picture of Veronica in the paper this week with her real father was so sweet. She looked really happy.
Dana, but keeping your grandchild is not your choice. This son chose not to be involved in this child’s life, and in fact signed away custody of his daughter in exchange for not having financial responsibility. When he did that, he signed away any rights you might have had as a grandparent. You lost standing to get the child.
He signed away custody to the mother, not an adopted family. I think he regained custody of the child at 4 months old. The adoptive parents are potentially uprooting a toddler, not the other way around.
Let’s not forget this was a private adoption and she was supplemented throughout and after the pregnancy. What does this say about wealthy white couples effectively buying babies from poor WOC?
No – he did not regain custody when the child was 4 months old.
I have worked closely with the adoptive mother since October, 2011, and I have communicated with the birth mother. Brown never even once asked to visit the child – which he would have been allowed to do if he wanted. The first time Veronica ever saw him was when he took her from the only parents she had ever lived with – when she was about 2 and a half.
The adoptive parents took every step they were told to take by attorneys and the adoption agency to do this right. The ‘adoptive’ father was there to cut the cord at the birth, and the adoptive mother stayed in a room at the hospital to nurture the newborn.
The bio father, who knew when the child was due, wasn’t there and never bothered to inquire about the birth.
So it is patently false to say that the adoptive parents ‘uprooted’ anyone. Veronica was with THEM from the first moment.
Further facts:
1. The adoptive couple is not wealthy.
2. The adoptive couple did not buy the baby – but did go through an adoption agency.
3. The Hispanic birth mother is not ‘poor.’ She is working mom. Intelligent, hard-working, and a great mom with her older children. She chose the home she chose after careful consideration, knowing the birth father had said he wasn’t going to help support the baby. She has been broken-hearted for the last year over what has happened to her daughter – who she KNEW was happy in the home she had chosen.
4. The birth mom KNEW Veronica was happy because it was an open adoption and she and her other children did visit and know Veronica.
5. The birth father has not allowed the birth mother or her other children to visit or speak to Veronica at all during this last year, let alone let the adoptive parents speak to her as initially promised.
6. Because the bio father, knowing about the pregnancy and due date, had NEVER attempted to help with the pregnancy, visit the baby, or even buy a bag of diapers, he did NOT have standing as a father in South Carolina. The ONLY reason he was able to get into court was by claiming to be an Indian – after having lived as a Caucasian for most of his life. (He is about 97% Caucasian)
7. The child is not “Indian.” The child is 74% Caucasian, 25% Hispanic, and a tiny bit more than 1% Cherokee Nation.
Further – it’s time to stop trying to label people by blood quantum. Children are children – and it is fact that any toddler torn from the only people she knows and loves WILL be hurt by it.
You shouldn’t pick and choose which facts you “allow” to appear in your article. You have lost all credibility from me by dismissing the fact that the Father was deployed to serve in Iraq while the bio mom engaged an adoption without his knowledge or consent.
If that were a fact, I would include it. But it isn’t. He wasn’t deployed until January – four months after Veronica was born. He was home, still not deployed, when he signed the papers to relinquish his rights as a parent. In January. Four months after she was born. He was deployed a few days later.
Check your facts.
Interesting. Thank you for the detailed response! There is a lot of contrary info out there. Very odd that it’s almost the opposite on most details -from the age of the child, to his Cherokee heritage. I’ll have to do some digging, such a shame that the truth isn’t clearer.
I do take some issue with couples that use their relative wealth to obtain a baby. It’s not personal, it is a symptom of wealth inequality that people are uncomfortable acknowledging. The couple has the means to support the child, the birth mother does not. In a perfect world a child would not change hands over such an issue.
I’m all caught up now. This article covers all areas very well and I think provides an impartial overview of the facts: http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/indian-affairs-adoption-and-race-the-baby-veronica-case-comes-to-washington/274758/
Since the father did contest the adoption at 4 months when he was notified of it, I think it’s disingenuous to say he is responsible for her being uprooted as a toddler as a result of the ensuing custody battle. Your writing does leave me with a lot of concerns about how women may be prevented from placing their child up for adoption while simultaneously denied child support. Thank you for covering this and all your hard work in the pursuit of justice.
Fusillisara – That is true; I agree. It would have been great if Christinna had felt she could handle Veronica.
It should be noted that Matt & Melanie aren’t wealthy other than being 2 working parents with no other children rather than 1 parent with several.
But yes – finances shouldn’t be an issue. My husband and I have been very, very low income at times in our lives. We found ways to cope with several children in our house with no money. My husband refused govt help – so we were poorer than many poor. We raised goats and chickens to help with costs, baked homemade bread, raised a garden, etc.
It was a struggle, but one that was good for us and the children.
But… we were also still two people rather than one. Even without money, at least we had each other to lean on.
I know that sounds cliche – but I didn’t know how true it was until after my husband died of cancer. I didn’t realize at the time how significant it was to have two of us… to have a spouse to share all the hardships with.
I wish now that I had realized back then how important it was to that we were a team. I would have expressed appreciation to him a whole lot better.
Now – having to make decisions about the children and finances on my own for the last few years – is very different and very… unsettling much of the time. You never know if your decision is right because you have no one walking with you, seeing all the same factors you see, and being able to discuss all the various factors with you.
Sure, I have good friends and relatives – but they aren’t living in this house. They don’t know the kids the way I do. They don’t know our history the way I do. They can make good and helpful comments – but it’s not the same. Nothing is the same as having a partner to talk to.
So for me, even more significant than the financial aspect, is the spousal presence.
I’m usually for biological fathers being given a reasonable chance to stop an adoption they never wanted, but two things about this law (one of which applies to this case, and one which does not) really concern me:
If the US SC interprets the law in favor of the biological father in this circumstance (where the father claimed during the pregnancy to not want parental rights and did not file for paternity in any state for several months), a father who happens to be Indian is given all the rights, none of the responsibilities. He can tell the mother he won’t help at all with the child, but then block an adoption. In a different case, he could refuse custody, yet also refuse the non-Indian mother’s choice of adoptive parents. Basically, a father can play bait and switch. A father could even manipulate the situation to ensure he gets full custody. He could not disclose the Indian status, show extreme disinterest in the child, wait til the mother’s rights are terminated, then swoop in and get sole parental rights and full custody. And yes, I know a mother whose decision is only based on money could try to force the support issue in the courts – but she’ll have nothing while the case is ongoing, and depending on the father’s employment it can be a struggle to get the money even once a judge orders it.
The second concern though, is that this law seems to essentially make mixed children – since ICWA advocates hate blood quantum arguments, I’m using “mixed” to refer solely to the fact that one of the parents is NOT a tribal member (and could still in fact be ethnically Indian, but they are not a tribal member as defined by ICWA) – this law effectively seems to be using such children as a form of reparations, which a human being should never be. So a child who has one tribal member parent and one non tribal member parent. ICWA makes an extremely strong presumption that child needs to be in an Indian home if the parents can’t raise it. If this is a child who lived with the birth parents for some time, and the birth parents chose not to expose the child to any Indian culture at all, for whatever reasons – then basically, ICWA mandates the child lose their culture, and the shock of being removed from parents due to death, abuse, or extreme incapacity is compounded by the shock of being placed into a foreign culture environment. The only excuse for this seems to be to give the Tribes “their” children to replace the children taken for schemes such as the boarding schools, etc. And while that was indefensible, what this law allows is equally indefensible. The tribes say “stop stealing OUR children.” What they don’t seem to get is a child of a mixed relationship is not just “theirs.”
Thanks for your note.
Remember, I speak as a birth mother – one of many in our org who do NOT want corrupt tribal govt to interfere with our families. Therefore, in our eyes, the Atlantic article gave a very biased report – embarrassingly pro-tribal govt and not necessarily accurate. They took their report primarily from our opponents.
As for as the bio-Dad’s right to intervene at four months – this are a few excerpts from what was said in Oral Arguments today at the US Supreme Court concerning Veronica:
“So State law is you have to support the mother during pregnancy or at birth. So the
cases are pretty clear that the father can’t wait till he learns of the adoption.”
“But for the application of ICWA, two things would be crystal clear: The birth father would have absolutely no parental or custodial rights under State law or the Constitution; and second, the baby girl would be entitled to a custodial determination that focused on her best interests”
“You’re assuming that this entire Act was to make sure unwed dads who are Indian got more
time than non-Indian dads to veto adoptions, and that had — that’s not even remotely the purpose of this.”
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I’m just wondering
is 3/256ths close — close to zero? I mean, that’s - that’s the question in terms to me, that if you have a definition, is it one drop of blood that triggers all these extraordinary rights…
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: He was excited, but
there is no doubt he paid nothing during the pregnancy and nothing at the time of the birth, right, to support the child or the mother?
MR. ROTHFELD: That — that is true. But I — I am -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So he was excited by
it; he just didn’t want to take any responsibility.
(Laughter.)
BLATT: “…Well, there was no way to return this child to anybody other than the mother. And I want you to keep in mind about this case, is your decision is going to apply to the next case and to a apartment in New York
City where a tribal member impregnates someone who’s African-American or Jewish or Asian Indian, and in that view, even though the father is a completely absentee father, you are rendering these women second-class
citizens with inferior rights to direct their
reproductive rights and their — who raises their child. You are relegating adopted parents to go to the back of the bus and wait in line if they can adopt. And you’re basically relegating the child, the child to a piece of property with a sign that says, “Indian, keep off. Do not disturb.”
And Thank you, rh1985! Very well said.
Leave A Reply