when I'm discussing the case, I call him "bio dad" or the biological father.

I think he wasn't fully aware of what he was signing — this was a few days before he was to be deployed to Iraq — but the point is that once he figured it out, he acted quickly to request a stay on the adoption.

oh good. so you're just trying to be dismissive & offensive. that's always a good stance in a discussion.

I think the issue is that they provided incorrect info to Cherokee Nation, and yes, based on that information proceeded with their arrangements. But at the time that the baby was removed to South Carolina, they still hadn't secured relinquishment of paternal rights. I just think that if anyone is trying to adopt…

maybe you should read this:

Can people stop using the crappy NPR article as their source base? Really, if you want an unbiased summary, check out scotusblog:

Had she, her lawyer, the adoption agency, the adoptive couple, and the lawyers for the adoptive couple followed ICWA protocol (which is to remind you, a FEDERAL LAW) — including providing correct information to the Cherokee Nation and not omitting the child's Native heritage on the request to remove the child from…

The use of the term "sperm donor" is really offensive and hateful in this case. The bio dad had a relationship with the bio mom, they had a falling out & she cut off all contact with him while still pregnant. One month after cutting off contact with him, she was signing an adoption agreement with the adoptive parents…

The NPR piece is pretty biased. I suggest you read the fact pattern portion of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision.

This is a typically non-Native way of understanding Native identity, which uses race rather than nationality and community connection of trying to understand who is Native or not. Native identity is not race-based. There are blue eyed, blond haired people who speak their Native language, participate culturally, etc.…

yeah I wouldn't put much stake in what the lawyers are saying, they are after all attempting to win the case for their side. I suggest you read scotus blog & the South Carolina Supreme Court Decision instead.

He didn't know about the adoption until he was served with the termination of parental rights papers. and the termination papers were not called that, they were called an "Acceptance of Service and Answer of Defendant." Immediately after signing he tried to get the papers back from the person who served him, but that…

read the fact pattern portion of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision:

No, the form submitted to Cherokee Nation had the misspelled name AND a completely wrong birth date. When Cherokee Nation sent back the response that they had no record of him on their rolls, they even stated in the letter that if any information that had been submitted to them was incorrect, it invalidated their…

Immediately after signing the termination of parental rights he tried to get the papers back and the guy who served him threatened him with legal action. When he couldn't physically get the papers back, he contacted a JAG lawyer that day, and 5 days later he had filed a stay of adoption in South Carolina courts.

yah that NPR story sucks. I encourage you instead to read the scotus blog about the case, and to read the fact pattern portion of the case from the South Carolina Supreme Court decision.

maybe stop trying to minimize people's concerns, just try to understand them, and realize that recognizing someone's concern doesn't mean you have to agree.

Yeah, maybe, but that's a very big logical leap to make. Everyone has different reactions to things, and for every fat person who is traumatized by the medical establishment, there are fat people (like me) who actually appreciate getting this type of information.

win.

Who says only fat people would refuse to let a doctor collect info on their weight, BMI, & glucose? I don't understand how this is aimed only at fat people. You're assuming that only fat people would refuse to participate in the program.