An ethical question involving adoption

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

Excellent question.

I think the kid should decide. Maybe go into some kind of foster care and keep in contact with both families. But to give the kid to the biological family and forbid them from seeing the kidnapper (the only mother the kid has known) would be foolish and dangerous.

 

[SinisterGehe]

The kidnapper would be the kid's parent since he has taken care of the child.

If you have any evidence for this at all, it would be most welcome. As it stands, it looks to be a hollow, baseless claim.

If you can read Finnish I am glad to send you paperwoks of these one case that happened in 97 I think. I set the guidelines on how to treat cases like these in Finnish law.

 

[NathLines]

I can't let a person who stole a child just get away with it.

I want to say that you should ask the kid. If you're 13/14, you should be able to wrap your head around the situation. Still, the kidnapper can't go unpunished.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Legally, the kid should go back to his/her original parents. But if we're just going by what's right, I say let the kid decide.

 

[Sharalon]

Simple solution: Abortion!

Ok, ok! Well, if I were the the child I would probably like to stay with the mother I grew up with, since biological bonds means nothing to me. I don't really think I would care at all if it turned out I was kidnapped.

 

[Grospoliner]

You follow the letter of the law. The child is returned to the biological parents. The child should be warned prior to this by a psychologist, which s/he would be taken to anyway. Once s/he reaches the age where parental control of their life may be legally remitted then the s/he could conceivably return to the kidnapper should s/he desire.

 

[SinisterGehe]

The kidnapper would be the kid's parent since he has taken care of the child.

If you have any evidence for this at all, it would be most welcome. As it stands, it looks to be a hollow, baseless claim.

If you can read Finnish I am glad to send you paperwoks of these one case that happened in 97 I think. I set the guidelines on how to treat cases like these in Finnish law.

So you cannot offer here any sources or references that mention any legal support of your claim at all? I thought as much.

Can you give me any sources or mentions that this wouldn't be the case. Honestly I would be happy to send you the paper collection of 229 A4's if you supply the address and pay the shipping fee.

But if you don't bother to believe this fact about my country's law. This discussion can be deemed useless. Since you are ignorant enough to deny other perspectives to this subject. So unless you are ready to broaden your views and accept the fact that there indeed are other cultures out there that have different laws than yours.

So you want to be an ignorant smug or have a civil discussion about the cultural differences in situations like these.

 

[electric_warrior]

Considering the parents of the child, the people who gave birth to them, love them more than life itself and miss them, miss giving them birthday parties, buying them clothes, playing in the backyard, taking them to school - all the things that parents deserve to share with their child - will want them back, it is cut and dry.

Also, the kidnapper will be in prison and can't look after the child they stole.

I suppose, but damn I'd hate to be that kid. I guess there's nothing can be done to preserve the kid's happiness. In all honesty, and this might sound harsh, the parents don't matter nearly as much as the child does. The parents deserve to share that stuff with their child, but equally the child deserves whatever makes it happiest, be it them or their abductor.

In the real world, however, you are right. There would be no option available other than to give the kid to its biological parents and send the abductor to prison. Factually, yes this is right, but ethically I'm in favor of whatever's best for the child. Whether that's the parent its known and loved since it was a baby (and probably also loves it more than life itself) or with the biological parents, I don't know and, in all honesty, nobody really does.

I think we can both agree, however, that stealing someone's kids is beyond reprehensible and deserving of a pretty severe punishment, but whatever happens shouldn't be about appeasing the parents.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I love how in this topic people are thinking the child as an object owned by the biological parents. Instead of the child being a human being who's well being both physical and mental should be priority over the desires of the biological parents.

 

[Gralian]

Well according to the law the child is old enough to decide for himself.

No, the child is not old enough to make any decisions for themselves until he or she reaches legal age of maturity. In the UK, that is 18. I can't speak for the US. Full legal rights remain with the custodians of the child regardless of the situation. The child's wishes may be taken into consideration, but they have no rights in the court of law regarding matters of child welfare.

But why should he be returned to biological parents after 14 years? He doesn't know them, they don't know him, there is no "parental love" between them, they are strangers to each other, and it might give the kid really hard time mentally to settel in specially if he has grown up recognizing the kidnapper as hes parent.

Setting aside the fact you're advocating a criminal act, i think the child would feel pretty horrified if they found out the person(s) they thought were their father and / or mother were actually kidnappers. I can't back that up without evidence from an actual case where this has happened, but that would be my reaction for sure. So much so that i'd want out of there regardless of how my relationship with them was. I'd feel lied to and i wouldn't be able to trust them. If you found out you had a brother or sister your parents never told you about, wouldn't you want to do all that you can to see them? Get to know them?

Returning a lost child to parents after 14 years would be objectifying the child. Hes not a properity of the biological parent.

Yes, he is. Property is the wrong word, but his statutory rights are the responsibility of any guardian(s). This can reside with either biological or non-biological (foster) parents. In the case of biological parents versus criminal non-biological parents, the rights reside with the biological parents by default unless the child is taken into care.

Think what is best for the child, not what is right according to the law.

Once again, as soon as you disregard the law your argument becomes invalid. The law always has the final say. If you have an issue with the outcome, you must take it up with the court of appeal.

In Finnish law the kidnapper would be the childs guardian, since he has taken care of the child for so long and the child recognizes the kidnapper as parent.

I cannot speak for Finnish law as i know nothing about it, but that doesn't sound right to me and i would question the validity of that assertion. A case may be argued for an amendment to the right of custody over the child, but possibly only in exceptional circumstances and with the backing of a youth welfare agency and social services as well as testimony from the child. I would also question the circumstances of the case. Were the biological parents neglectful? Was the kidnapping malicious? Was there abuse involved? What was the motive for the kidnapping? These variables make it hard to really justify that above statement as i'm sure such things would be considered during a prosecution.

 

[tzimize]

Jail the mother and return the child.

Why? Because if we become even slightly lenient on this matter, it's very possible people will think of it as "Oh, I guess it's alright if I kidnap children as long as I take care of them!"

No, absolutely not. Having the child live ignorantly with a parent she did not belong with isn't going to solve the issue, it's going to traumatize her in the short term to move in with her biological parents but they have every right to take care of their own flesh and blood.

Regardless of whether or not the child has issues, it sets an example and makes sure that people are still aware that doing this is very wrong, and that you will only harm the child in the process, deterring people from doing it again.

I can't imagine more distraught mothers watching this story and going "Oh, so if I just kidnap a child it'll all be okay!"

profile pic

SteelStallion(Demented Shaman): OMG NOOB WHY U PICK NOOBHOUND WTF CC 15 MIN

Setting that example might be useful when dealing with sane people. Kidnapping and raising a child is not specifically sane. So my guess the deterrent is pretty non-existant.

You say regardless of whether or not the child has issues...and I guess thats where we differ. Blood parents are NOT always the best thing. Look at Fritzl...

If said kidnapper has treated the child well, I dont see any reason why said child at least should not be able to see the kidnapper now and then, if it wants to of course. The kidnappers feelings mean squat. The child is at the center.

I didnt pick noobhound for a specific reason, I played him a bit for a while, and loled at webcomics featuring him. So...*nighthoundtrollface*

 

[SilentCom]

This is a hard one to answer. The kidnapper didn't have any right to take away someone's child however it may be difficult for the kid to adjust. If a situation like that was found out, the kidnapper would probably get sent to jail leaving the child to the biological parents. The child would have to adjust, if not, then maybe spend time with the kidnapping parent? Can't really say.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Well according to the law the child is old enough to decide for himself.

No, the child is not old enough to make any decisions for themselves until he or she reaches legal age of maturity. In the UK, that is 18. I can't speak for the US. Full legal rights remain with the custodians of the child regardless of the situation. The child's wishes may be taken into consideration, but they have no rights in the court of law regarding matters of child welfare.

Yeah but I am not American, I am Finnish and here the child can decide at the age of 15, but child in the age range of 12 to 15 ask a social officer or psychologist to give him a hearing why he/she shouldn't or should be placed in to a different home, these things usually pass. And the child can also ask for different home after the trial period of 2-3 months is over.

 

[Tehlanna TPX]

I'm rather boggled that most people find it horrible to take a child away from its kidnapper. That it's 'collateral' when the law punishes said kidnapper. Uh.... I would say its acceptable collateral in this situation. That is not their parent. They were STOLEN. And once their child-mind has realized the reality of the situation, they will come to accept their true parents. This is also why all children in this situation receive counseling.

Well we are talking a hypothetical situation where the kidnapper was actually a good parent, which is unlikely in real life as kidnapping a kid isn't a sign of parent material and the kid would probably be grateful to be rid of them.

And since people are pulling the snarky, "if it happened to you" card: I think I would be fine, eventually, after receiving counselling for my situation, and glad that it hadn't turned out worse.

I wonder, how's your relationship with your parents? Would you trade them for a bunch of strangers right now?

And a kid should not need counselling... anything you do to a kid that would require him to get counselling doesn't count as "the right thing for him" to me.

See, it's not that simple as "put X in jail and everything will be fine".

My relationship with my parents is awesome, I wouldn't have traded them for any other parents. I'm also an adult, so I can look back on the tribulations and be comfortable with them. I don't think anything in my statement even eluded to any kind of 'drama' with my family that would encourage me to trade them in for a better model. It was rather funny of you to bring up, though.

A child shouldn't need counseling? Okay, lets go back to this hypothetical situation. Whether the kid is taken from the kidnap-parent, or allowed to stay with them, they'd need some kind of support outside of that little, screwed up unit. Because nothing says love like "I snatched you from your real parents." You don't think, as that child, you'd be honestly happy, adjusted, and 'normal' (as normal as normal is.. since there is no real normal)?

I also didn't say it was a simple matter of slapping cuffs on the kidnapper, and things would revert to sunshine and lollipops. I said the child would need counseling. Perhaps they'd choose to forgive their kidnapper. Maybe even the bio-parents would. That would depend on alot of extenuating circumstances and the relative personalities of all parties involved. But the bare bones of the matter is: the kidnapper committed a crime, they should be punished. Just because they treated the kid right, didn't abuse them, etc, doesn't mean they get a free pass. And in that situation, no, I don't think the child should have the nominal choice on deciding where they should stay. It should be guided by the courts and child protective services, especially if that child is very very young.

 

[Korolev]

The kidnapper should be punished. If the child is under the age where they can make informed decisions (usually 16 in most countries), then they should be placed with the Biological parents, provided that they are fit to raise the child. As for contact between the kidnapper and the child, that is up to the child (unless it can be proven that the child has been abused).

In all cases the Kidnapper must go to jail (to satisfy the biological parents call for justice and to deter future acts). The child must be placed with the biological parents provided they are fit to take care of her.

Whether or not the kidnap victim wants to remain in contact with the kidnapper should be left up to the victim, provided that they are of a sensible age to make such a decision.

 

[Gralian]

Yeah but I am not American, I am Finnish and here the child can decide at the age of 15, but child in the age range of 12 to 15 ask a social officer or psychologist to give him a hearing why he/she shouldn't or should be placed in to a different home, these things usually pass. And the child can also ask for different home after the trial period of 2-3 months is over.

I think there is some confusion as to the definition of key terms. The age you mentioned (12-15) is generally the age a child may be considered legally responsible for his or her actions. However, the rights of the child still reside with the guardian(s) until the child has reached the age of maturity. This means if the child commits a crime, he or she can be put on trial as they are old enough to be responsible for their actions. They are however denied any say in custodial rights. The age of maturity is different from the age of responsibility and they deal with two seperate issues. One being the responsibility of a person's actions, and the other being the custodial obligations of that person. From what i understand of what you have said, if the child is not happy with living with their biological parents they can ask to be placed in a foster home for a trial period, after which they can choose to live there indefinitely or ask for a different home. This is different to your previous statement about the child being able to live with the kidnapper. I don't see how this could happen as the kidnapper would be under arrest for abduction and would very likely face a jail sentence.

This is a hard one to answer. The kidnapper didn't have any right to take away someone's child however it may be difficult for the kid to adjust. If a situation like that was found out, the kidnapper would probably get sent to jail leaving the child to the biological parents. The child would have to adjust, if not, then maybe spend time with the kidnapping parent? Can't really say.

I think what you are talking about is visitation rights, which is perfectly understandable. It's certainly not unreasonable to expect visitation rights for the child to see their 'kidnapper' parents at jail.

 

[subtlefuge]

It's essentially brainwashing on top of kidnapping. Absolutely lock up the kidnapper for life and let the family try to pick up the pieces.

 

[Candidus]

Punishment is of paramount importance in this case. The kidnapper should go away for a decade. If the young adult wishes to see his or her kidnapper again, it will have to be via prison visitation- and even this should be prohibited until the young adult is 16-18 years old.

Sorted.

 

[Canid117]

I could swear I saw what was almost this exact situation in the news a year or two ago. Two very young kids had full custody granted to their mother in a divorce so their father kidnapped them and raised them until they were in their mid teens. Pretty sure the father got all the standard kidnapping charges and was thrown in prison.

 

[Sudenak]

Reading the discussion is near headache inducing. I've never seen a group of people so blindly for following the law to a T.

If a child is kidnapped at infancy with no literal memory of his/her real parents, and then is raised properly by the kidnapper, what are you going to do? Are you so filled with petty vengeance that you'll take the kid away and give it to the biological parents? What if they end up being complete pricks that abuse the child? What if they aren't fit to be parents and the child dies from negligence? Woop, guess that's okay because they were the "real" parents and justice has been served.

I would think it to be fine for the child to learn the truth once they were an adult, capable of making their own decisions. Because when they're still a child, they are given no rights of their own.

This entire discussion (at least, on the pro punish-kidnapper side) has utterly ignored the child. What if the child wanted to stay with their kidnapper? What if they were traumatized and never acclimated to their new parents?

The child is a human being, with real emotions and therefore real consequences to your decisions. It'll be a whole lot more damaging to give them off to some random couple that they've never seen before and deny them the ability to see the person that raised them ever again.

So take your petty justice and stuff it. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey. You can't just say "against the law herp derp" and expect that to fix everything every time. Sure, it'll make you feel good inside to see the naughty kidnapper get put away, but that child will be permanently damaged.