November 30th, 2012
10:24 PM ET

Supreme Court could see baby Veronica case

Veronica's adoptive parents are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for custody. The 3-year-old is currently living with her biological father. Jeffrey Toobin gives his perspective on the likelihood of the case going before the court.

Watch Randi Kaye's report for background on the case and to hear from Melanie and Matt Capobianco:

Post by:
Filed under: Jeffrey Toobin • Supreme Court
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Ray

    CNN gets it wrong again: the Indian Child Welfare Act is far from a little known piece of legislation. I have worked in the field of child welfare for over 30 years. Every petition filed in the State of CT either in Superiosr Court for Juvenile Matters or the Probate Court system requires workers to attest to the native affiliation of the named child. The father may have initially signed his agreement to the adoption, but parents have the right to change their minds until a court terminates their rights and the appeal period has expired. It is unfortunate that a planned transition to her father's care was not done in this case. That being said, Rebecca is where she belongs: with her father.

    December 8, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • Ray

      correction: Veronica is where she belongs, with her father.

      December 8, 2012 at 10:10 am |
  2. Linda

    Why is that when it concern's Caucasian's, that it must be right to beg for the Supreme Court to Intervene in what it is that THEY WANT, this is a Native American Child, she belong's with her Biological Father, whether anyone agree's or not, what more do they want to take!!!

    December 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
  3. Caroless

    Heartbreak for all involved, nobody wins. Too bad a co-parenting agreement couldn't be worked out where all the parties, especially the child win. All the legalese can be examined over and over, and kicked up to the Supreme Court but like most cases, only the lawyers will profit. Too bad the parties can't be locked in a room together, with a mediator, NOT litagators and a compromise reached

    December 4, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Julian Winnfield

      How would YOU like to be locked in a room together with ME, and a mediator, and be FORCED to come to an agreement regarding the shared custody of YOUR child with someone who has absolutely NO LEGAL RIGHT to that child? Doesn't sound like such a good idea now...does it? This little girl belongs with her father just as much as your children belong with you, not someone else who simply wants her for themselves.

      December 9, 2012 at 5:44 am |
  4. Romado

    Also why have the C's not been asked the hard questions? Like why the hurry to leave OK? Why not get all the paperwork signed before they left? Why the whole secrecy surronding baby's birth? They filed for adoption in SC 3 DAYS AFTER SHE WAS BORN before both states had even approved the transfer of the baby to SC, why wait 4 mths to notify father and why is it not a TPR and just I wont contest adoption and I waive my 30 days?? WHy did they ignore the mom when according to the SC ruling she told them all he was NA even after the denial came in? Why did they not send their lawyer to the base with a TPR right after she was born? No one not one reporter or Dr Phil or ANderson Cooper has ever asked the C's any of these questions.

    It seems to me this whole adoption was done wrong from the beginning and blame can be thrown toward all of the. The child is the only innocent one in those whole bad case. She was deprived of her family for 2 yrs just leave her alone!

    December 2, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • lissette

      These adoptive parents are relentless. I get they bonded with this child but they never stopped to think that they shouldn't have. They were in such a rush to have a child that they never considered the law or the biological father. They dismiss his importance in this little girl's life which is ironic because they themselves would do anything,I'm sure, to have a child of their own naturally. The father is in his legal rights, leave the little one alone. it's sad that these two don't see how selfish they are behaving, which is not what parents do. They have to make the sacrifice for their little girl to have the opportunity to be raised by her BIOLOGICAL father who lovers her.

      December 4, 2012 at 12:32 am |
    • Caroless

      Begging the question why these two "parents", so ill prepared went ahead and had a baby in the first place. Obviously, she was never a priority to them, or the child wouldn't have ended up being adopted in the first place. To place all the blame on the adoptive parents is totally unfair. I think you need to spread it around to all four parties. Most fathers can hardly wait until their babies are born, they are not "NA". So he developed a conscience, that's great. But he made a huge mistake, and it will affect his child for a long time.

      December 4, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  5. Paula

    A good resolution would be for the Supreme Court to tell the potential adoptive parents you can't use mob rule to steal someone else's child

    December 1, 2012 at 6:04 am |
  6. Paula

    This child was never legally adopted she is where she belongs with her father.

    December 1, 2012 at 3:39 am |