S.C. Court Grants Former Longtime Glasspro Employee Finalized Adoption of Baby Veronica

Matt Capobianco and his daughter, Veronica. Source: SaveVeronica.org

Matt Capobianco and his daughter, Veronica. Source: SaveVeronica.org

In a custody battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Matt Capobianco, a former longtime employee of Glasspro in Charleston, S.C., and his wife, Melanie, have won custody of the daughter they have sought to adopt for more than two years, according to reports.

Though the South Carolina Supreme Court recently finalized the Capobiancos’ adoption of baby Veronica, the case continues to remain tied up in the courts after the biological father, who lives in Oklahoma, has refused to hand over custody.

An arrest warrant was issued for biological father, Dusten Brown, after he refused the court decision to allow his daughter to be reintroduced to her adoptive parents.

Originally, brown had successfully argued in the South Carolina courts that the termination of his parental rights was invalid under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

He was not married to the Hispanic mother of baby Veronica. The biological mother had selected the Capobiancos as her adoptive parents.

The Capobiancos appealed the state ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided in favor of the adoptive couple.

Justice Samuel Alito writes in the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, “This case is about a little girl who is classified as an Indian because she is 1.2 percent (3/256) Cherokee. Because Baby Girl is classified in this way, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 required her to be taken, at the age of 27 months, from the only parents she had ever known [Matt and Melanie Capobianco] and handed over to her biological father, who had attempted to relinquish his parental rights and who had no prior contact with the child. The provisions of the federal statute at issue here do not demand this result.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the South Carolina court reconsider its decision, which it did.

Brown refused to bring Veronica to a court-ordered transitional meeting with her adoptive parents on August 4. The South Carolina court responded to this refusal by ordering that Veronica be immediately turned over to her adoptive parents and local authorities issued an arrest warrant for Brown, charging him with custodial interference.

Brown surrendered this week to the Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Office in eastern Oklahoma.

He refused extradition and paid bond and has another court hearing within 30 days.

However, a hearing by the Cherokee County Court was moved up to today after Brown was arrested and released on bond. All parties are due in the Cherokee Nation court today.

As soon as the Capobiancos’ learned of the hearing, their attorney asked for and was granted a writ of habeas corpus, which requires the person at the center of the case—baby Veronica—to be brought to the hearing.

The Capobiancos have not seen baby Veronica in more than two years.

“We fought for Veronica through the courts and won,” says Matt Capobianco in a statement released via SaveVeronica.org. “In the end, it has been decided by every court who has reviewed this case that Veronica is our daughter and we are her parents. … Enough is enough. … No more delays, no more excuses. Our daughter has been kidnapped and I expect the situation to be treated as such.”

This article is from glassBYTEs™, the free e-newsletter that covers the latest auto glass industry news. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Auto Glass Repair and Replacement (AGRR) magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to S.C. Court Grants Former Longtime Glasspro Employee Finalized Adoption of Baby Veronica

  1. Kelly says:

    The bio father obviously wants his own child and should be allowed to raise her, she is his.

    • Patty says:

      A child is not a piece of property. Biology should never be a deciding factor, there are lots of biological parents who kill their children, blood means NOTHING. This child was kidnapped from the rightful parents and should be returned.

  2. Veronica says:

    This article is completely biased and stating inaccurate information. The birth mother kept the baby from the dad and did not allow contact because she was already in negotiation to have the baby adopted by this couple, without the father’s knowledge or consent. Then that father was provided with a form he thought was agreeing to give the mother custody while he was serving in Iraq. The papers were misleading and as soon as he realized what they were, he appealed. He has been fighting for his daughter the whole time. The “adoptive couple” knew this, yet for their own selfish desires, pursued the adoption despite knowing the girls father was fighting for her. The girl was rightfully given back to her dad where she was been for almost the last 2 years. She doesn’t even know the adoptive parents anymore. They want a baby above all costs and above what is morally right. The behavior and attempts to smear this loving father is shameful! They are destroying this poor girls life just to make themselves happy! They should have backed off long ago. These are not actions of people that want what is best for a child they love. Really..take a 4 year old from her rightful loving parent? She will remember that for the rest of her life! They give adoptive parents a bad name. I would not want to be associated with them!

    • Veronica says:

      Also, they provided false information to the tribe initially, so the father couldn’t be identified as a tribal member. They provided an ICWA form contain the father’s incorrect name and birthdate. Their shady tactics are the only reason they initially had the baby as long as they did. If it was an uncontested adoption from the start, they wouldn’t have done all these shady things to try to get the girl. Shameful!

  3. Pingback: News – US » Custody fight for Cherokee girl moves to 2 Okla. courts – USA TODAY

  4. Veronica says:

    And why does this article even mention the fact that the father was not married to the mother? Since when does the marital status of a parent determine whether they should have custody. Not being married does not mean a child should be given up for adoption. And in fact, the father wanted to marry the mother, but she was the one that called the engagement off then shut him out of all attempted contact. And coincidently, had financial support/gain from the adoptive couple during this time. Pseudo Baby selling? Fraudulent adoption? Smh

  5. Pingback: SC Court Grants Former Longtime Glasspro Employee Finalized Adoption of … – glassBYTEs - The Cream of Internet! - MyNetLike.com

  6. Pingback: News – Top Stories » SC Court Grants Former Longtime Glasspro Employee Finalized Adoption of … – glassBYTEs

  7. Audrey Clausen says:

    If the biological father wanted the child, he should have married the mother and been a father from the beginning. I see it as a 3-1 case. The biological mother and the adoptive parents against the biological father. The bio. father is outvoted by the bio. mother and the adoptive parents. 1.2% Cherokee??? That’s almost laughable.

  8. grace says:

    Maybe “IF” these idiot politicians would have laws in place to protect “EVERY” child this would stop happening….No court show have the right to make this decision even thou this family had her for 2 years.
    So many children are used by a parent to get back at the other one in these relationships. No child should be eligible for adoption until “BOTH BIO PARENTS” have signed off.
    If neither come forward, then this law would protect the child, and family members would have first rights to legal custody of raising the child so she is kept within her biological family PERIOD…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *