SorrySight said:
You're making the (admittedly common) mistake that children are more valuable than adults and are treated as such by law.
It doesn't matter that she considers the US home, it isn't hers by law. It doesn't matter if the adopting parents treat her kindly, they didn't acquire her legally. Her false paperwork is nullified, she cannot have a future in the US. She cannot acquire new paperwork legally, the US government will not break international law to help one child that isn't even a citizen.
Not at all. I'm not arguing who is more "valuable" by law. I'm simply arguing that the emotional well-being of a child should be more important than which adult "wins" a legal battle. I don't care which place she goes, as long as the decision is based on what is
best for the child.
The State Department has already stated they don't have the power to give her back. Clearly, then, there's a belief in the government that there's both reason and method to legalize her residence here.
Will it happen? The future knows, not us. But it baffles me that people want to try to pretend it
can't happen. Again, I put the question to such people: Why would it be okay for the US to step outside the clear letter of the law with regard to the Hague Convention, yet somehow "impossible" for them to do the same for any other solution?
This is a situation in which international law
isn't entirely clear right now. The kidnapping, for all legal purposes, took place outside the scope of Hague. To enforce this as though it were under the treaty would be to bend the letter of the law. And I'm okay with that, but that also creates the precedent that
we're allowed to bend the letter of the law.
If it bends one way, it
can bend the other. All I'm saying.