Holy crap, folks...this one's a doozy...

[ShindoL Shill]

A lot of people are saying that she should go back to her biological mother, because she has more right to raise the child because she's biologically related.
Which is basically like saying the people who raised her for five years have no right to continue doing so.
Just playing devil's advocate here, folks.
What I said there could also be interpreted as saying the mother has no right to raise her child. Which I sort of am.
But think about it. We don't know if she's fit to raise this child. She has no idea what her daughter is like.
The daughter probably knows nothing about living in Guatemala, will probably have different religious beliefs etc and has a different cultural background now which her biological mother probably knows very little about (just like how the adoptive parents know very little about Guatemalan culture).

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

Leave the creature with her adoptive parents. She doesn't know her birth mother. She doesn't remember her birth mother. To plunge a child into a new culture in the the cqare of a stranger, removing her from any family and friends she has ever known cannot be considered 'The moral choice.'

 

[Bertylicious]

It isn't that tough a question to be honest. The girl has grown up with her adoptive parents and taking her away now would do more harm than good. I'm no expert but I think if a child is placed with a new family for more than 2 years then the amount of bonding means that seperating the child from their new family becomes very destructive in 100% of cases. The adoptive parents should tell the child either now or in the future, but when they do it is up to them.

It sucks for the biological mum but at the end of the day she knows that her daughter is alive, well cared for and will one day see her again.

 

[Bertylicious]

*reads comments*

Right. Well. Okay. Here's the thing:

In these situations you have to consider the welfare of the child to be paramount because the child is the most vulnerable person in this situation. The child is in a loving home, presumably, and disrupting that and using her as a token in some sort of weird game of moral brinksmanship is going to do nobody any favours.

I can appreciate the sentiment, truly, and also agree that sending the child back to her biological mother seems like the common sense approach but common sense isn't always right. Afterall, common sense would tell us that the world is flat.

 

[Ickorus]

It does really, whilst it is getting better Guatemala still isn't a the most stable of countries and crime is still extremely high; not the best country to raise a child, she'd have a much better life in America.

What sort of life you have isn't solely dependant on what sort of country you live in. Nor is there a direct link between happiness and what country you live in.

Just because the parents who adopted her live in the USA doesn't necessarily mean she will have a better life there than in Guatemala. It is also a horrible argument to use because it is essentially saying "These people can have her because they are American. Sorry, you don't get to have your child anymore".

That is NOT what I'm saying.

Think about it, why did she get kidnapped? most likely because she lived in a country with an extremely high crime rate.

There are over twenty five murders a day in Guatemala city alone and that's completely discounting all other crimes violent or otherwise.

When it comes down to it I don't care about which parents she gets, they both clearly love her dearly if neither party is willing to give her up but I'm thinking about what is best for the child here and it's absolute fact that she would live a far better life in America than in Guatemala so that is where I believe she should remain.

See: The comment above me, he knows what I mean.

 

[karloss01]

Let the kid decide who she wants to live with. I'm sure she'll decide to live with her adoptive parents depending upon how nice they are. I don't really understand why this is a tough decision. Sure, I guess separating a mother from her child is a little cruel but this decision is not all about the mother.

If i was the adoptive parent i would let the kid decide but not matter the decision i would want to be part of her life. if she chose me then i wouldn't stop the biological parents from having some part in her life. it would be the best choice to make, stopping either side from seeing/being with the kid would be a bad move.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

This is... dicey. Because, while there is no way to say this in a way which doesn't sound horrible or cruel, the child was kidnapped while with her biological parents. That... does not make me, personally, think it's a safe place for her to be.

On the other hand, she's the second child as they already had another so at the very least they are capable enough parents given the first child was presumably not kidnapped. Really, it's a shitty situation as the adoptive parents haven't done anything wrong except spend large amounts of money caring for a child who they didn't know was kidnapped and will likely be returned to Guatamala but resents her birth mother as I doubt a Brick-Layer's salary will give them enough money to keep her in the manner she's accustomed to... everyone's going to end up miserable, I think.

And I have NO idea what the right moral choice is. Huh.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

This is probably a really cruel thing to point out; but if the family in the US adopted her, there's a good chance the reason is they cannot have children. Her birth-mother, probably still can.

Madam, you were dealt the shittiest hand I can imagine a parent being dealt. You searched, tirelessly for five years to find a most precious part of you that was snatched away from you by a cold hearted bastard who I hope rots on a roadside as we speak. Unfortunately, your child does not remember you. Mummy, to her, is the woman of Missouri who raised, loved and appreciated her in your stead (through NO fault of your own).

I could agonise over this for days, I could yell, run, hit a bag, talk to everyone from The Pope to Richard Dawkins and everyone inbetween. In the end though, I'd have to admit that when compared to the nation of her birth, the social stability, educational benefits, and quality of living would be far greater in the United States. This doesn't mean the people of Guatamala are lesser than the people of the US. I just couldn't bring myself to deprive her of that.

She could take heart in knowing, that her family may well have just gotten bigger than it was before. In the US, she could go to school, learn the language of her mother and they could talk over the internet or phone.


I'd suggest as a gesture they give the biological mother American citizenship so she can at least stay close to her daughter but I'm sure I'd be yelled at for letting another wellfare queen or something like that into the country.

 

[SorrySight]

Why does the child's opinion matter?

A 7 year old doesn't have a say in where they live and they can't choose what to do with the majority of their day (mandatory schooling, bedtime, grounding). Parents/guardians are the ones that decide if and when children of that age interact with their friends and extended family, what they eat and what they can and can't do with the spare time they're given.

Why should the adopting parents keep the child?

The child is stolen property. That they've had her for some time and bought her in ignorance doesn't entitle them to keep her. If the child were American or the parents the kidnappers this would be a non-issue.

 

[PhantomEcho]

Boo-hoo, my kid was kidnapped and adopted and has been gone for five years now but I want her back.

The kid is my PROPERTY! I -deserve- it back!

Preposterous.

Biology doesn't mean shit, when it comes to a child identifying with their parents. We've shown that time and time again, with adoption and adopted families. What matters is trust and emotional attachment. The girl has no memory at all of her biological family.

The idea of 'justice' being to rip the child from the family she DOES know, throw her into a 'foreign' (that's to HER, as well, folks) country, and tell her that her NEW family is actually these OTHER people? It's ridiculous.

It's more than ridiculous. IT'S BLATANTLY STUPID.


I get it. We're all materialistic and greedy, even about our offspring. Nevermind that we can always make more, we're possessive of the ones we have. It's a genetic thing, really. Ensures the species survives.

But what I don't get is that anyone actually has the gall to act like this is SENSIBLE.

You want to fuck up a kid for life? Take them from their parents. Give them new parents. Then take them from their parents again. If you're lucky, they learn how to cope with change... and then have difficulties maintaining a stable lifestyle with any kind of emotional attachments to anybody.

"Congratulations! It's a Sociopath!"

The girl belongs with the parents she knows. And as long as she knows that they aren't her biological parents, which ought to be REQUIRED, she ought to be given the choice to maintain contact with said biological parents if she so chooses. She's seven. That's old enough to know whether or not you want to talk to somebody. And that gives her plenty of time to get to know her biological family and reform all those severed attachments.

But she's already got one to the family she has now. Legal or not. And severing her familial bonds AGAIN is just asking for all kinds of trouble.

 

[Zhadramekel]

It's tough to say. On the one hand, the kid has grown up with her adoptive parents so if she went back to her biological mother it'd be tough at first. But if she was kidnapped when she'd had 2 years with her birth mother then, somewhere deep down, the kid is gonna have those memories. It's not like she was kidnapped when she was a couple of days old.

As for the mother, that kind of wound never would have and never will heal. She might have given up on seeing her baby ever again but that doesn't mean it doesn't still hurt.

 

[Colour Scientist]

=/
Honestly though, if I was in this position, I would do everything I could to move to the US and attempt to have a joint-parentage type situation. Full disclaimer, I have no idea how difficult it would/would not be to move to the US.

Or, alternatively, the adoptive parents could move to Guatemala, right?

 

[Dastardly]

Fun fact, considering that the child is A VICTIM OF KIDNAPPING they never had any right to raise her.

Her adoptive family didn't kidnap her. And they've been caring for her for most of her life so far.

You're approaching this case as though it were about property rights.

What should be done here? The only right answer is back to the mother, no if's and's or but's. Would that suck for the kid? Yes. Does it matter? No, not really.

And there's the problem -- what "sucks" for the kid is the only thing that matters. Now, it could be argued both ways, to be sure. But there's no getting around that this decision should be based on what's best for the child, not the pride or feelings of either set of parents. That's how custody cases work.

She's not a car or a television set.

 

[Dastardly]

=/
Honestly though, if I was in this position, I would do everything I could to move to the US and attempt to have a joint-parentage type situation. Full disclaimer, I have no idea how difficult it would/would not be to move to the US.

Or, alternatively, the adoptive parents could move to Guatemala, right?

Doesn't make much sense. Most of the people involved in the case are US citizens, and the US legal system is the one sorting through all of this at the moment. Just speaking logistics, that puts the solution on this side of the border for now.

 

[Vivi22]

The kid is only 7 years old, she probably couldn't properly articulate in a sentence what family is yet let alone choose for herself who to live with..

This is incredibly naive. A 7 year old may not be able to articulate what a family is very well (then again, maybe she could), but they absolutely know what it is and to this girl, it will not be her mother back in Guatemala. Simply ripping her from the family she knows to give her back to the family she doesn't in another country, especially when she may not even speak the language at this point, would absolutely traumatize the kid. And regardless of who has legal right to the child, her welfare should absolutely be the top priority.

I agree with the person who said that a reasonable solution would be to leave her with the adoptive parents and allow the biological mother to have as much contact as possible. Is it an ideal solution? No. Is it a just solution? Certainly not. But nothing about the situation is ideal or just. The most important thing at this point is not causing further harm to the child, even unintentionally.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Doesn't make much sense. Most of the people involved in the case are US citizens, and the US legal system is the one sorting through all of this at the moment. Just speaking logistics, that puts the solution on this side of the border for now.

It seems pretty unfair to only expect the mother to pack up and leave her home though. I think the child should be returned to her biological mother even though it is a tricky situation and, if that were to happen, no one seems to be entertaining the possibility of the adoptive parents moving if some sort of visitation/joint custody situation was to arise.

 

[mirasiel]

Neither set of parents matter, not biological nor adoptive. Neither 'deserves' the child, like she's some kind of fancy electronic device to be bidded for on E-bay.


What matters is what is best for the welfare and development of the child in question, without a battery of child psych experts, medical professionals and possibly Super Nanny to give me information...I'll go with my own opinion which is that she should probably stay with her 'adoptive' family who she's known most of her life rather than putting *her* through the trauma of being kidnapped and forced to live in a forieng land...again.

Only this time she might actually remember it and understand whats been done to her, again.

Biological parents should have generous visitation rights, though that will need some serious support financially and legally to be feasible.

 

[michaelknives52]

Give the child back... enough said. She will get over it.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Fun fact, considering that the child is A VICTIM OF KIDNAPPING they never had any right to raise her.

The adoptive parents do not have any rights to the child, the adoption is null and void. The only person here having any rights is the biological mother.

What should be done here? The only right answer is back to the mother, no if's and's or but's. Would that suck for the kid? Yes. Does it matter? No, not really. There is no perfect solution here, but the only one that is even close to being right is sending her back.

From a legal standpoint, they had no right. Under CONTRACT law. That would work if she were a cow or a stolen lamp. She is a human child.
That means this an issue for children's court, which has the legal obligation to do what is best for the child. Which is most likely letting the adoptive parents keep her. The parents who raised her.

The best solution I can think of is basically the US giving her Mother citizenship and practically paying for her as a sign of goodwill, then have her live next door to the adopted parents so that the child can slowly warm up and ultimately live with her. This is the best solution I can think of for the child.

Not really a solution. For all we know, the child may never warm up to the birth mother. That's pretty likely, as the child
1. Won't remember her
2. Probably won't speak the same language
3. Is from a different culture and
4. Might even shun her on purpose to stay with her adopted parents.

she is really effected by "Stockholm Syndrom".

That only applies in situations where the captors put the victim in danger.
Saying that applies here is like saying ALL adoptions where the child likes the parents are actually Stockholm Syndrome cases (which only happens about 27% of the time), because the parents thought it was a legitimate adoption.

 

[michaelknives52]

But then again it depends on different factors... like did the original mother sell her child for money? Or was she duped into believing that the child was being sent to America for some program or something. Or was the kid just scooped up one day when she turned her back. International law is on the side of the mother regardless of whether she is rich or poor. :3 I mean seriously people... allow her to stay. Business would be booming and more people will be willing to go through the risks of gaining a legal adoption. Sorry it isn't finders keepers losers weapers guys. I your 2 year old was kidnapper and by the grace of god he/she wasn't sold to a pedifile... and the child was found a few years later in say France or Bulgaria... would you be like gee... he has been there for a while with an adopted legit family.... she can stay.... If you said YES you would give up your baby in this situation the you sir/ma'am are lying.