daily pastebin goal

The Facts in the Baby Veronica Case

youwantthetruth Aug 28th, 2013 744 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  2. VERONICA SUPPORTERS: The following are provable facts compiled by Save Veronica concerning the history of the Baby Veronica case. They are meant to assist us all in our ability to share the truth.
  4. 1. Matt and Melanie did not 'buy' Veronica. Their adoption is ethical and legal in every possible sense. They followed every step by the book. The US Supreme Court found it legal, as did SC Supreme Court and Charleston County Family Court.
  6. 2. Christy has custody of her two children and is doing a great job raising them. They all want this to be over desperately and miss Veronica.
  8. 3. Melanie was never charged with a DUI and does not have a criminal background. This sickens us every time we read this.
  10. 4. Lori McGill is an incredible attorney in DC and we are grateful for the countless hours she has dedicated to this cause.
  12. 5. Matt and Melanie objected to Angel Smith not because they don't believe in Veronica's best interests but because Veronica already has a GAL. The same GAL that represented Veronica at SCOTUS.
  14. 6. The online store on saveveronica.org was removed once the case was accepted by the US Supreme Court and all the attorneys began working pro bono. There is nothing wrong with fund-raising for our friends. All-in-all around $30K was raised, which only scratched the surface of what they owed prior to the legal team working at no charge. Matt and Melanie have not 'profited' from this ordeal in any way.
  16. 7. TRIO has never received any money from the Capobiancos. Actually, it's just the opposite. Several have spent their own money to support this cause.
  18. 8. Although there are documented facts concerning opponents, SaveVeronica will not stoop to that level with this cause. We can bring Veronica home on the merits of truth and justice.
  20. 9. Dusten was aware of the adoption and even acknowledged Christy after he signed the paper.
  22. 10. When he first filed for custody, Dusten said 'he was not Native American.' Then four months later, he amended the paperwork to say he was.
  24. 11. Dusten did not pay child support until V was 16 months old and then only sporadically and in relatively small amounts.
  26. 12. Neither Dusten nor family ever reached out to Christy with offers of gifts, money, support, or crocheted beaded booties
  28. 13. Christy never moved or changed her phone number despite Dusten's claims that she "hid". If she hid she did the worst job in the history of hiding considering she kept the same address, job, phone number, etc.
  30. 14. The Charleston Family Court and the SC Supreme Court did not find that it was in Veronica's best interest to be returned to her father. They were never allowed to consider best interest--only ICWA.
  32. 15. Matt, Melanie, Christy, and family have NEVER asked for a dime. They are in constant awe of the generosity of their friends and supporters and are such classy people they fear they can never "repay" people.
  34. 16. Matt and Mel didn't surprise Dusten with service a few days before deploying as he claims. He ducked service for months likely thinking Christy was after him for child support.
  36. 17. Dusten knew about the adoption. If you see the screenshot of the text message it's clear. He says it's clear that you have thought about this, it's not an easy decision.
  38. 18. Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare is NOT an anti-Indian racist organization. In fact, it is the exact opposite founded by a Native American father and his wife. They didn't believe in ICWA and began advocating for Native American children. I believe that actually makes them pro-Indian.
  40. 19. The cause was named 'Save Veronica' because at the time the group was trying to save her from being taken from her family and from her civil rights being violated. She had NO transition, taken from her Mommy and Daddy, put in a truck to never see them again. All because of a very small amount of Indian blood. It was wrong and we fought like hell to prove it. Thank you SCOTUS for confirming our belief.
  42. 20. The allegation that a transition plan was ordered and the Cs ignored it is not true. The original order was for V to be turned over at a certain date and time, NO TRANSITION. There was no "plan to meet at a park" that was thwarted by the sudden storm of media.
  44. 21. Dusten was NOT overseas when he got behind on child support for his daughter with his ex-wife. He didn't even join the military until after she took him to court for unpaid child support. This is probably obvious, but he was NOT in Iraq when V was born. He was served with papers about the adoption in Oklahoma when she was 4 months old.
  46. 22. ‘IndianCountryToday’ is similar to the "National Enquirer" in its reputation for salacious reporting. They have appeared biased in several reports and often cite "sources off the record" when asserting a fact that ethically requires a cite. When the opposition uses it as a reference, you can ask them to cite a more reputable record.
  48. 23. Regarding the misspelling of Dusten’s name. a) He misspelled Christy's name in the pleading he filed in Oklahoma b) He spells HIS OWN NAME three different ways: Dusten, Dustin, Dustan. c) He goes by Dusty d) his ex-wife has spelled it Dustin.
  50. 24. Although Dusten was deployed for a year (January 2010 - December 2010) AND V. had been born AND Dusten had filed his suit seeking custody, Dusten came home in August for a few weeks and never tried to contact V in any way. No calls, no letters, no offers to visit.
  52. 25. Regarding the ICPC form and the circling of the word "Hispanic" and whether that was a deliberate attempt to get around ICWA. The form was fill in the blank and all three races were provided, white, Hispanic, Native American. Hispanic was circled, not by Christy. Why? It is possible the clerk circled the mother's race since she's the only one there.
  54. 26. The ICPC is a binding enforceable contract between two states when a child has the approval to be placed with a family in another state. Children cannot be placed in another state without this approval. The purpose is to protect the child and the states involved in interstate placement of children so that
  56. (1) The child is placed in a suitable environment,
  57. (2) The receiving state can make sure the placement is in the best interest of the child,
  58. (3) The sending state can evaluate the proposed placement,
  59. (4) The care of the child is mandated by court arrangements, and
  60. (5) The child has legal and financial protection.
  62. People say that Matt and Melanie should have given Veronica back at 4 months. The ICPC bound them to care for her until there was another hearing.
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand