Bring Veronica home

I'm curious as to where you got your information that the child has only 1 percent Cherokee blood. Although the requirements differ among the various bands of the Cherokee Nation, none of them allow anyone who has a blood quantum of less than 1/16th to enroll as a tribal member. Most of the bands require a quantum of at least 1/4th Cherokee blood...and they must prove direct lineage to an ancestor who signed the Dawes Rolls.I've read most of the articles published online about this case in recent days, and none of them state anything about the child only being 1-percent Cherokee.

Interesting. The website has changed since yesterday when it stated she was less than 1%. (I copied and pasted the info.) Wonder if it was a typo and should have stated less than 16%??Regardless, the situation stinks.

Talk about a quick ride to an attachment disorder. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, Baby Veronica will suffer.

I have cherokee ancestry and they're working a nerve!! Veronica's best interests have been kicked to the curb.

While I agree this is a horrible situation. This birth father has been fighting since this child was four months old. He revoked his consent only two weeks after he gave it. IMO this child should have been with him a long time ago. It's a very sad situation for everyone nonetheless.

While I agree this is a horrible situation. This birth father has been fighting since this child was four months old. He revoked his consent only two weeks after he gave it. IMO this child should have been with him a long time ago. It's a very sad situation for everyone nonetheless.

Agreed, depending on state laws that if he revoked his consent only two weeks later that most state laws would protect his interest, and the child should have been returned at that time. I'm really confused however on the ICWA implications. I've read things from 1% to 15%. Being 12.5% Cherokee myself with my kids being the last generation eligible for registration at 6.25% I have lots of questions. I'm not registered because you have to either be registered by your parents as a child or register within so much time of your 18th birthday (which I had already passed by the time I knew the rules, so I'm not eligible). I'm reading a lot of conflicting information concerning birth dad's registration or eligibility for registration. Seems to me like somebody has a good lawyer pulling all the right strings and it is likely that many if not most of us could fufill the same 'blood" requirements with the right lawyer representing us. I'm not anti-tribal rights by any means, but as a blonde hair blue eyed caucasian that only knows traditional European culture, I'd be pretty ticked if as a child I was placed on a reservation based on some minimal blood affilitation that likely my caucausian adoptive parents shared as well.

My DS's bfather was going to try the same stunt. He wasn't Cherokee though. Registered with the tribe a couple of years after the adoption. I'm pretty sure the law read the child had to be 1/32 Native American. Maybe it was that the parent had to be 1/32? I can't remember exactly, but I remember the 1/32. You can check tribal law for more info. Anyhow, good luck. It's so sad for the child.

My dh has a tribal card stating he is 1/32 Cherokee and he is definately an enrolled member. Cherokees have a "one drop" rule.

Cherokees have a "one drop" rule. that's interesting!! I thought it had to be on the mother's side.

if birthfather rights were properly protected universally across the united states instead of varying by state the child's father wouldn't have had to "play the indian card" as some people have callously called it. (Which by the way is very offensive to Native and First Nation citizens because the tribes of this country are nations in their own right and have a vested interest in protecting their future, and the children are the future of these tribes). Adopting a tribal eligible child is just like adopting internationally....you have to get the permission of the nation you are adopting from, just like you have to get permission from the tribe....which is likely why the mother incorrectly spelled the birthfather's name and gave an incorrect birthdate to the Cherokee Nation when she initially tried to have her attorney clear the tribe.....I mean get real, you don't know your former finance's birthdate....highly doubtful. BTW people keep mentioning how she is only x% Cherokee and what about her Hispanic heritage (which she is 50% allegedly). well, this story is circulating on a number of Hispanic boards and from what I can tell (granted my Spanish is rusty) the consensus is she should stay with her biofather, which doesn't surprise me since I work closely with our local migrant population and the focus on biofamily integrity is very high and they rarely seek adoption for any of their children. This whole case makes me angry for a number of reasons: 1) adoption law was completely mishandled via ignoring ICWA, if the industry can not follow its own laws than how does that reflect on the validity of all of the rest of our adoptive families? 2) This situation has made a mockery of termination and consent to adopt....these are not matters that are handled by text or should even be handled by process servers...for heaven's sakes these are children not car repossessions.....all terminations of parental rights should occur in a court of law and be explained to both parties by an impartial judge so that what is at stake and being surrendered is VERY clear and understood by both parents 3) An appropriate revocation period should be given from the signing of termination...and 2 weeks is not appropriate IMHO, 30-60 days seems much more appropriate 4) there is argument (and laws in some states) that father's should have to support the birthmother's during the pregnancy in order to retain paternal rights....this is complete BS...this father offered marriage and in return the relationship was broke off....to me that is a red flag that "hey maybe this kid isn't mine".....what is she had 6 or 8 potential birthfather's supporting her during the pregnancy just so they could all retain their potential paternal rights 5) adoption should be about finding homes for children that do not have safe parents who are willing and able to parent them.....not findng babies for childless couples.....this child has a safe and willing parent that stepped up early in her life (just 4 mos old, and couldn't be there when she was born because the birthmom restricted access at the hospital, and that is legally documented in the south Carolina transcripts so not something that is hearsay)....so this is not a child that needed a family...just a family that desperately wanted a child....that is not what adoption should be about. there are a few other points that irritate me but those are def the top five. I feel so strongly about this as an adoptive parent that I hope the Cherokee Nation fights to retain jurisdiction (as the rightly should have had since her birth and the mother's termination of rights) and I will be one of those adoptive parents circling the safe house awaiting the National Guard (of which the birthfather is an active soldier) to come for her removal if this comes to a Cherokee Nation versus State of South Carolina stand off.

mommy: So true!! and well said. Bio mother, the attorneys and the adoption agency were all unethical. There needs to be serious repercussions to those involved in this faux adoption.

Wow. Really surprised to see this old thread resurrected. For those interested, there's a current thread about the Veronica Brown situation that gets updated with every new development: [URL="http://forums.adoption.com/foster-parent-support/418414-baby-veronica.html"]http://forums.adoption.com/foster-parent-support/418414-baby-veronica.html[/URL]