John Echohawk et al. on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: “The Adoption Industry’s Ugly Side”

John Echohawk, Jaqueline Pata, and Terry Cross have a scathing op-ed on Politico here.

An excerpt:

Poke beneath the basic facts, though, and you will find the ugly underbelly of the American adoption business. All across this country – but especially in states that are home to multiple Native American Tribes – unethical adoption attorneys are purposely circumventing the federal law that is meant to protect Native American children. Even worse are the continuing attempts by some adoption lawyers to take advantage of active duty service members in the process of being deployed to combat, or in active deployments.

Brown’s case is a sad example of both of these disturbing trends. At its very heart, this case is about a father’s deep desire to raise his daughter, named Veronica. Veronica’s mother and Brown were engaged when she was conceived, but her mother broke off the engagement while Brown was serving in the Army and stationed at Fort Sill, Okla. Unbeknownst to Brown, his fiancé began the process of placing her child up for adoption.

In the final months of pregnancy, the mother cut off all communication with Brown and worked closely with an agency and attorney to place the child with a non-Indian couple from South Carolina, the Capobiancos. Brown was not informed of Veronica’s birth on September 15, 2009. Instead, Veronica was placed with the Capobiancos three days after her birth in Oklahoma, and they relocated her to South Carolina shortly thereafter.

Four months later, the day before Brown’s scheduled deployment to Iraq, the couple’s lawyer (who was also the lawyer for the adoption agency) finally served Brown with notice of their intent to adopt Veronica. The notice was served to Brown in the parking lot of a mall.

2 thoughts on “John Echohawk et al. on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: “The Adoption Industry’s Ugly Side”

  1. Helen N. April 16, 2013 / 2:43 pm

    The adoption industry has but yet another dark side. In cases where parents want to raise their children but for the impacts of discriminatory socio-economic policies places undue pressures on these parents to give up their children. In these cases, the adoption structure is nothing more than the state authorizing the status quo and a mechanism to market human flesh.

  2. Lisa May 2, 2013 / 6:21 pm

    The problem is people want to adopt and become eager to accept any healthy child they find. Abortion means the pool of potential children is limited. This means a healthy child native or even of another race will be accepted. Its sadly a side affect of our becoming a more accepting culture. They don’t see race and culture as a factor because we are all supposed to be simply American. This leads to then being fooled by those who would break the law for profit. I personally think the firms and mothers of these children should pay a hefty fine and perhaps jail time for the pain they have caused. I understand the mother may want a solid safe future for her baby but, she knew who she was with when she conceived she was in a relationship then suddenly decided that the father should not have the right to his child. That is wrong regardless of if he was native or not. The fact that he is and was serving to protect our nation makes this case all the more important. If we do not defend his rights what native would risk ever serving if the cost could be our children.

Comments are closed.