Talk:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Notification of Dusten Brown of Adoption

I reverted the good-faith removal of "without properly notifying the father", which was felt to be subjective by LoveLuckBird. This statement was in the lead, and is supported by Note 38, citing the court's opinion that the Capobiancos did not comply with the procedural requirements of the ICWA, i.e. notification and obtaining his consent to the adoption. See also 731 S.E.2d at 555. This was a theme of the court's opinion, that the Capobiancos had not complied with any of the notification requirements. It may very well be subjective, but if so, it is the court's subjective opinion (and based on the opinion and the law, I don't think it is subjective - the law spells out very clearly what must be done, and it either is done or not done - in this case, it was not done). GregJackP Boomer! 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "later contested" adoption

The use of "later contested" is WP:POV, biased on the Copobianco side of the case. The sentence cited in the edit summary "Father was aware of Mother's expected due date, but made no attempt to contact or support Mother directly in the months following Baby Girl's birth." (from 731 S.E.2d, at 555) is taken out of context, as the next sentence clearly states "Appellants filed the adoption action in South Carolina on September 18, 2009, three days after Baby Girl's birth, but did not serve or otherwise notify Father of the adoption action until January 6, 2010, approximately four months after Baby Girl was born and days before Father was scheduled to deploy to Iraq." Clearly Brown could not contest an adoption petition that he knew nothing about, and he filed his action contesting the adoption within seven days of being notified. GregJackP Boomer! 19:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See also "Veronica's loving father, Dusten Brown, is a decorated Iraq war veteran who has been fighting for custody of his daughter since learning of the proposed adoption while trying to honor his responsibilities to his country while in military service.", Levi Rickert, US Supreme Court Review of Cherokee Baby Girl May Become Test of Indian Child Welfare Act, Native News Network, Jan. 5, 2013.

Other sources are available that note the same thing, both that he is a decorated veteran (which is relevant, since the action was commenced when he was deploying overseas, and directly addresses the argument that he just waited two years), and that he did not wait until "later" to contest the adoption. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Off topic

Let Veronica go. I agree with Mr. Brown. Since he didn't sign the papers by law he has every right to take Veronica. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't love her. Matt and Melanie should let Veronica go. It's better for Veronica to be with her birth dad. I'm sure somebody in his family will look after her while he's serving this country. I do feel sorry for them. Mr. Brown should at least give them supervised visitation rights. That way they can see Veronica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.22.222 (talk) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of topics. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs update

SCOTUS has ruled on this case. [1] --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Seal of the Supreme Court of South Carolina
Court	Supreme Court of South Carolina
Full case name	Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a minor child under the age of fourteen years, Birth Father, and the Cherokee Nation
Decided	July 26, 2012 (2012-07-26)
Citation	398 S.C. 625; 731 S.E.2d 550
Case history
Appealed from	Charleston County Family Court
Subsequent actions	Rehearing denied by South Carolina Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari
Court membership
Judges sitting	CJ Jean H. Toal, JJ Costa M. Pleicones, Donald W. Beatty, John W. Kittredge, Kaye G. Hearn
Case opinions
Decision by	Toal, CJ

In one of the more recent edits we lost the SC Supreme Court infobox. While the SCOTUS box is more important, this should still be somewhere on the page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the decision. Not sure we need the SC box AND the SCOTUS box, though it's not a moral issue, too many infoboxes do crud up an article, however... ?? Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How about in the State Supreme Court section? There's enough text in the article that I don't think this would be clutter. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the SC infobox. The standard SCOTUS article does not use infoboxes for lower courts. I'm willing to discuss, but it just isn't normal (which is why I didn't think anything of removing it or discussing it prior). I also had to create the SC S Ct infobox from scratch, so it is not one that has been used prior to this article. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

5-4 split?

I'm not familiar with articles on court decisions at all, but should it state somewhere that SCOTUS split 5-4 as it says the state supreme court split 3-2? Jonathanfu (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I added that to the lead. GregJackP Boomer! 12:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Inherent Bias By Adoption Industry against parents

Keep in mind that adoption laws are written by adoption attorneys who have also been the ones working with adoption agencies, as well as lobbying Congress. There is an inherent bias in the adoption industry to favor the protection of adoption. To be unbiased, this page should reflect the growing understanding that adoption in America is in great need for reform. Parents and adoptees, and their needs have been largely silenced and have not been covered in the press because the adoption industry has had a strangle hold on adoption education in this country. Please bear in mind that many visitors here will try to convey this other viewpoints that have been long silenced, and that much of the critic towards these alternative viewpoints of adoptees and parents, will be the adoption insiders. This page and others to be unbiased should reflect this, and editors be aware of the hidden struggles in adoption. A google search can prove that there is a great deal of antagonism on this subject. This is a conversation that must be heard and must finally be spoken about publically. This page is limited to one subject, but the larger social issues will be reflected by the visitors here. So just some perspective for the wiki editors who are not aware of the issues.