Girl's 'cultural identity' rights considered
By The Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013, 6:39 p.m.
OKLAHOMA CITY — A United Nations official who focuses on the status of indigenous people called on state, federal and tribal authorities on Tuesday to ensure that the rights of a nearly 4-year-old girl in the middle of a custody dispute are considered.
James Anaya said in a statement that authorities should consider Veronica's rights to maintain her “cultural identity” as a member of the Cherokee Nation.
Veronica's father, Dusten Brown, who is a member of the Cherokee Nation, has been fighting for custody of the girl with a South Carolina couple who adopted her.
“Veronica's human rights as a child and as (a) member of the Cherokee Nation, an indigenous people, should be fully and adequately considered in the ongoing judicial and administrative proceedings that will determine her future upbringing,” Anaya said. “The individual and collective rights of all indigenous children, their families and indigenous peoples must be protected throughout the United States.”
Veronica's birth mother, who is not Native American, was pregnant when she put the girl up for adoption, and the South Carolina couple, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, had been lined up to receive custody since 2009. But Brown and his family claimed the Indian Child Welfare Act mandated that the child be raised within the Cherokee Nation, and he won custody when the girl was 2.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Patriots’ back Nevada rancher; Reid labels them ‘domestic terrorists’
- IRS, other agencies award contracts to license plate tracking company
- Health care law enrollee passwords at risk for Heartbleed Internet security flaw, feds warn
- Washington’s snowy owl recovers from apparent bus crash, returns to wild
- Ohio couple married for 70 years dies just 15 hours apart
- Authorities say they have trove of evidence against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in Boston Marathon bombing
- Denver wife killed 12 minutes into 911 call, sparking inquiry
- First date in New Jersey ends with him pilfering her TV and Yorkshire terrier
- Del Taco customers mistakenly charged thousands for fast-food meals
- Gun rights to return to Supreme Court’s agenda
- Court upholds EPA emissions restrictions