YouTube/Cynthia T.

Heartwarming YouTube Video Protests Adoption of Veronica Brown

ICTMN Staff
10/9/13

A YouTube video is protesting the "illegal and unethical adoption of Veronica Brown," a member of the Cherokee Nation. In the background, father-daughter team Jorge and Alexa Narvaez sing a cover of 4 Non Blondes' "What's Going On." The pair, who became a YouTube sensation starting in 2010 with their cover of Edward Sharpe and The Magnetic Zero's "Home," when Alexa was 6, gave permission for their video to be used with the photo compilation of Veronica hugging and laughing with her dad.

Hearing the musical collaboration between a loving father and his vibrant daughter amplifies the hard reality that Veronica Brown will miss out on this kind of incredible bond with her biological father, who lives in Oklahoma near the Cherokee reservation, while being raised by an adoptive couple in South Carolina.

The video description asks viewers to learn more about the case at www.keepveronicahome.com or on Facebook at Standing our Ground for Veronica Brown.

RELATED: Support Mounting for Dusten Brown on Facebook Page 'Standing Our Ground for Veronica Brown'

What's Going On! Sung by Jorge and Alexa Narvaez-- Video made for Dusten and Veronica Brown

You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page

POST A COMMENT

Comments

Bobbie lightfoot's picture
Bobbie lightfoot
Submitted by Bobbie lightfoot on
Unfortunately, it seems that children of color ( Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Black-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans etc. ) are expendable, and can easily be adopted outside of their cultures, even when there is family or other people in their culture who want them. The same is not true about children who are White-Americans. Rarely, if ever do you see a White child in a non-white family. I think Veronica she be allowed to be raised by her dad, and her people, if it's found that she would be safe and loved there.

Alfie's picture
Alfie
Submitted by Alfie on
The Law is no longer the Law. If I had adopted Veronica, I'd win and then tell her dad and Veronica it's time to go Home.I will just wait in the wings and whenever Veronica wants to come to stay she is most welcome.If social services come and check I'll just say it was amicable and not me but all of us agreed that this is the way life should be.

CD's picture
CD
Submitted by CD on
I don't feel like people are getting the entire truth here. Look I am all for Native American rights, I was actually brought to this page, because I was showing my little niece why it was wrong to want to wear a Native American costume, because Native Americans are not costumes. But this case, this case is way off. 1. Veronica was raised by these adoptive parents for the first 2.5 years of her life. I am sure that she cried being put in a strangers car and being dragged away from them too. 2. Her father relinquished his rights at birth and refused to pay any child support towards the birth mother, who could not afford to raise Veronica herself. 3. They didn't "buy a Cherokee child". They adopted a hispanics woman's baby, who happened to have a Cherokee father, and when that baby was taken from them, they fought for her. I would have too and don't lie and say you wouldn't. 4. After 2.5 years he tried to use a special law to make the adoption invalid that was created in the 70s for all Native American tribes who put their babies into white households, so that they could decide to raise the children in their tribe if they so chose. 5. He took their baby, they didn't take his. End of story. I am glad Veronica is home. He relinquished rights and I don't care if you're the King of England, you relinquish those rights, you relinquish them. He signed the papers. He didn't care four years ago, I don't know why it matters now.

Keely Denning's picture
Keely Denning
Submitted by Keely Denning on
It seems CD has been reading into the falsehoods to which the Capobianco people want others to believe. The truth is, this father has fought for his daughter since he learned she was illegally taken to South Carolina, a fact hidden from him until Veronica was 4 months old, the moment he learned of this, he began his battle for HIS child. He NEVER relinquished his rights, he signed a notice he had been served papers, Capobiancos paid the birth mother over 10k the state of Oklahoma paid for the birth of Veronica, so yes, this was a sold child when Oklahoma does not allow a birth mother to be paid over 1k, it was not after 2.5 years he tried to use the ICWA law to get his daughter back, he tried the moment he learned she had been TAKEN, and last, she is NOT Capobiancos daughter! She NEVER WILL BE THEIR DAUGHTER!

Mary Ellen's picture
Mary Ellen
Submitted by Mary Ellen on
CD, Just a few points: 1) The Capobiancos should have relinquished Veronica at four months when Dusten began his fight for her. They choose not to, somehow feeling entitled to a child that they testified in court to knowing that the father would never agree to adoption. She wasn't their to take. 2) Dusten did not relinquish Veronica at birth (and even if he did, there should be a six month period to revoke relinquishment similar to that which enlightened countries have, like Australia). Christine Maldonado cut Dusten out of her and Veronica's life with the tried-and-true practices of the adoption industry. 3) By their own testimony in court, the Capobiancos agreed that they gave Christine Maldonado a large number of financial incentives such as rent, assistance in paying her back child support, paying her attorney fees, paying for her to fly to SC, etc. While Mel C couldn't remember much of anything in her testimony and certainly couldn't remember specific monetary figures, you can be certain that their "gifts" well exceeded the Oklahoma limit of $1,000 for assistance given by adopter to biological mothers. 4) Are you familiar with Jim Abourezk, who actually wrote the ICWA? He was first misinformed on this case by the Capobianco PR team and though that ICWA shouldn't apply, but upon hearing the truth of the case, he recanted his approval of the adoption and stated that this was exactly the kind of case that ICWA applied to. As the SC Family Court and the SC Supreme Court originally rules, and it took SCOTUS, in one of their many erroneous rulings, to begin the evisceration process of ICWA (and the white folk, they're really after the land, the Indian kids are just a bonus) by calling up the "existing Indian family doctrine" that most states do not allow in interpreting ICWA. 5) Dusten's parental rights were terminated by the SCFC after the SCOTUS decision, and if the courts felt the need to do so, you can state with 100% accuracy that Dusten never terminated his rights himself. Veronica is his child, and no amount of legal shenanigans will change that for them...they are family. Have you not read the court documents from the original trials of the SCFC and SCSC that decided that he did not know what he was signing as the practices of the Capobiancos and CM were deceptive and meant to deliberately misle him (by the way, that's fraud - but only the money is talking here, we know).' And if you don't understand why it matters, I'll try to tell you...because, like Scalia said, it has always been viewed that people have an inherent right to their families. Because Veronica loves her father. Because Veronica is part of something larger, a tribe, that she has a right to. And she has a right to her father. Because no child that has willing and able biological parents should be adopted. Because adopted children do not fare as well as those who aren't, particularly children of color. Because the only purpose served in making Veronica an adoptee was to satisfy the needs of a couple unable to have a child and desperate for their own.

Stephanie 's picture
Stephanie
Submitted by Stephanie on
CD, YOU are not telling the whole story. He never consented for his daughter to be adopted. This is not their child to covet. This man obviously wanted to raise his own child and had every right to do so. What is next, children just being snatched up from the hospital or local playground for entitled adopters? What has happened in this case is a crime of humanity. The Supreme Court is despicable and anyone who cheers this travesty on is truly deluded and sick. Which one of your kids are you handing over, since the poor adopters are so entitled to a child that is not theirs?

jeze's picture
jeze
Submitted by jeze on
CD: I'm afraid you, yourself are greatly misinformed. 1) Veronica had not lived with adoptive parents for the first 2.5 years of her life. She had not been adopted. The SC couple had wanted to adopt her, but they couldn't get the adoption approved. He had been contesting the PENDING adoption ever since she was less than 4 months old, when he first found out about any adoption plans. 2) He had never signed away parental rights or relinquished his parental rights - that is why the SC couple couldn't get the adoption approved. Again, he contested the adoption almost 4 years ago and immediately filed for paternity and custody once he learned about the adoption plans. That isn't the act of someone who wants to avoid child support and child-rearing responsibilities. He and the mother had been engaged and upon hearing that she was pregnant, he wanted to push the wedding up. Those aren't the actions of a man who doesn't want to be a part of his child's life. 3) Without Dusten, who is Cherokee, Veronica wouldn't exist in any shape or form. So, yes, she is also Cherokee, by Cherokee law and lineage. She is also hispanic and other races. That's the way biology works. 4) ICWA is a law to protect Indian children, because their rights to the families and heritage they were born into were being compromised and violated much more than those of other children. And again, at 2, 2.5, 3 or 3.5 years old, there had been no adoption to invalidate. Dusten didn't use ICWA to invalidate any adoption - NO adoption had taken place. 5) Again, he had NEVER relinquished his rights. NO court ever ruled that he had relinquished his rights. When the SC courts had awarded Dusten custody of Veronica, no adoption had been done, thus Veronica was not legally or biologically the SC couple's child at that time. Taking care of children doesn't make them your children. Aunts, uncles, gramps, etc. may house their young relatives for a summer, but that doesn't make them the child's parents. Boarding school or camp counselors make look after children, that also doesn't make the counselors the children's parents. And again, if Dusten hadn't cared 4 years ago, then he could have just walked away and never filed for paternity, custody, or guardianship when Veronica was under 4 mths old. But he immediately filed, despite preparing for deployment to Iraq days later.

エアジョーダン's picture
エアジョーダン
Submitted by エアジョーダン on
is a 2007 graduate of the University of Vermont. But in the back of our minds, you will. With honky-tonk on the soundtrack.Rihanna was the last best hope for any kind of dance display,—?Over the years, She is also the interviewer for our video series and the long-form feature reporter for the section. Its not going to make many people happier." It was wrong and needed to be fixed, and government problems get everyone’s attention. This weeks list comes from Vernard R.1) Shopping at Zawadi on.“To be able to get them here and having them support us a little bit more in this last month would be huge.
9