Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Is. 5:20
I looked up the history of the original "Trail of Tears" and found some similarities. Our Native American's land was removed from them due to greed.
"In 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act which evicted all Indians in the southeastern United States to what is now Oklahoma. At the time of this act, the Cherokee were an advanced nation having built towns and cities, having a written constitution and even printing their own newspapers in the Cherokee language. The primary motivation was greed. The whites in Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Alabama desired the lands of the Cherokee. The United States military had the might to grant the whites their wish."Veronica's "land" (her identity, family, and heritage) is being targeted in much the same way.
Adoption's "stated" purpose is to care for children who need a home.
Veronica's father has been fighting for her since she was a baby. If the potential adoptive parents and their attorneys truly had Veronica's "best interest" at heart, they could have done the right thing when they realized Veronica had a father and family who loved her and wanted to raise her. A South Carolina court finally awarded custody to Veronica's father when she was two, and she has been living in Oklahoma with her family ever since. The NICWA has released information regarding the details of this case here: "Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl".
Fathers aren't aware (nor mothers) of the coercive tactics used in a billion dollar per year adoption industry whose goal it is to supply babies for those willing to pay. Until it is too late.
This case only proves that adoption in America is not about finding homes for children who need them. It is about supplying babies for people who want them.
Even potential adoptive parents are speaking out. Why would a humane society advocate for a child to be adopted, unless absolutely necessary?
This case should open the conversation about ensuring ethical adoption law in America. David Smolen, in his article, "The Baby Veronica Case and the Abuse of Adoption", writes:
"Unfortunately, adoption all too often has become about the desire of adoptive parents to parent, rather than the needs of a child for a home. There is nothing wrong with wanting to parent a child, but everything wrong with taking someone else’s child to do so."
In order to ensure that adoption is reserved for children who would truly benefit, there are numerous changes that need to be made in adoption law.
Maybe father's should have to appear before a Judge before their babies can be adopted, rather than being chased down by a "server", or their names published on a registry or publication they don't know exists.
Mothers and fathers should both be given ample time to withdraw their signature in a voluntary relinquishment. Wouldn't that be a reasonable way to ensure they are fully aware of their decision? Instead, mothers are often pressured to sign away their rights in a hospital room, immediately after giving birth.
Should pregnant mothers, simply seeking help, be eyed as potential "birthmothers" when they enter the doors of a "crisis pregnancy center"?
Is "counseling" provided by adoption "professionals" (in the business of procuring babies for paying customers) truly non-directive?
In his article, "Oklahoma Case: Adoption and the Buying and Selling of Children", Robert Franklin, esq. writes:
"Face it, a lot of these mothers are strapped for money. The line between paying her legitimate living expenses and paying her for her child is not a bright one and is easily crossed."
At one point, the practice got so bad in Oklahoma a grand jury was convened to look into the baby market called adoption.
In 2006, a state grand jury reported adoption judges were so indifferent or grossly incompetent in overseeing expenses that birth mothers basically were allowed to sell children for cars, televisions and vacations.In short, particularly where the adoptive couple is wealthy, there’s a pot of money there for the taking, and everyone in on the deal wants some. Attorneys and adoption agencies are happy to facilitate the “transaction,” and adoptive parents have no reason to do anything but turn a blind eye.
It’s the buying and selling of children, particularly newborns, and it happens often in this country.
Needless to say, a father who wants to care for his child just gums up the works. After all, if the adoption doesn’t get finalized, a lot of people don’t get paid. So it’s in everyone’s interest, as they see it, to keep Dad out of the picture altogether."
These practices are pure marketing (or even trickery). Even "open adoption" is not legally enforceable.
Look at Australia and how they have reformed adoption practices. They have even issued a national apology.
Let's eliminate coercive "pre-birth" adoption plans altogether, and remove the marketing component from adoption. This would better ensure children who truly need homes can find them.
The money in adoption also creates an environment for conflict of interest (some ICPC officers are also adoption business owners). How many in important decision-making positions are consumers of adoption?
Adoptees are not commodities or perpetual children, but adoption law treats us as such, with no identity rights, or access to our original birth certificates.
If the Capobiancos and their attorneys have their way, not only will she lose her family, but (see "Three Destructive Mindsets of Adoptive Parents"), according to current adoption law, Veronica Brown's Original Birth Certificate will be permanently sealed. She will be issued an "Amended Birth Certificate" listing Melanie and Matt as her biological parents. She will forever be forced to use this document as proof of her "birth".
This is what adoptees in this country are forced to live with. It is illegal to see one's own birth certificate. We are treated as blank slates and given new identities.
Veronica's human rights are being disregarded. She deserves to be heard.
From an OK Supreme Court decision in 2005 regarding ICWA ~
"In any State court proceeding for adoption or termination of parental rights to an Indian child, . . . the Indian child's tribe shall have a right to intervene at any point in the proceeding." It would be difficult indeed to enforce the right to intervene in the proceeding without receiving notice of it."
Lord, we ask for your intervention and blessings upon Baby Veronica and her family. We, as a country, have asked forgiveness for taking the land of our Native American brothers and sisters. Please help us realize what unethical adoption laws are doing to separate and "seal" identities, families and histories.
Please stop this "trail of tears"...
For the best overview of this case please click here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/03/1243613/-Adoption-Series-part-2-Veronica-Brown