What many are failing to see here is that procedure and law were not followed from the beginning. You can add in all the commentary and emotion you'd like. You can even bring up support and text messages, which you seem to want to allude to yet no one has produced, and play on sympathies but the fact remains that the father had a right to his child and again, procedure was disregarded. And why is it that 'what is best for the child' always seems to be the battle cry? I don't see that the adoptive couple would be any better parents to this child. Yet, they would somehow be the better alternative simply due to their want and desperation to get the child back? Or is it because they are financial better off? Is that what we are suggesting? Veronica had a right to grow up within her culture. The couple have several support pages and on one, they suggest that they would have supported her heritage and given her opportunities to be a part of her culture. Yet, on another they dispute the use of I.C.W.A in this case and slander her father saying things like 'She is more Hispanic than anything', 'Dusten only had like one drop of Indian blood and is just using this law to get her back' and suggesting he only applied for membership in the Cherokee Nation to win this case. I'm sorry but which is it? I don't see how a couple who has been so slanderous with respect to her culture can claim they'd want to celebrate it with her.
Monday, March 12, 2012 - 20:29