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

[orangeban]

Who does the kid want to be with? I presume the adoptive parents, she was 2 when she was kidnapped. This might be one of those really obvious things that I don't get, but why does the biological parent have rights above the legal parent? The girl should get to choose I say.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

 

[orangeban]

Who does the kid want to be with? I presume the adoptive parents, she was 2 when she was kidnapped. This might be one of those really obvious things that I don't get, but why does the biological parent have rights above the legal parent? The girl should get to choose I say.

Derp. Because you can't adopt a kidnapped child. Therefore they aren't legal parents. In fact, they are actually kidnappers, perhaps inadvertently, but kidnappers all the same.

But the adoption was seen to be legitimate at the time, I don't see why you should punish the girl (because I doubt she wants to move country to live with a stranger she can't remember) because of a mistake no-one could have prevented.

 

[SorrySight]

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.

The problem is that the well being of the child wouldn't even be considered if it were the well being of an adult, whether an illegal immigrant is "happy" in their new country won't stop them from being deported. Her happiness doesn't matter more than the fact the US would be complicit in her kidnap if they made her a citizen against the biological parent's wishes.

 

[orangeban]

But the adoption was seen to be legitimate at the time

So? What kind of a idiotic reasoning is that?

I don't see why you should punish the girl (because I doubt she wants to move country to live with a stranger she can't remember) because of a mistake no-one could have prevented.

You're assuming a whole lot.

I don't think it's too much of an assumption to assume the girl prefers the people she has been with for 5 years, and the country she has been in for 5 years, to a country and person she hasn't seen since she was 2.

 

[razer17]

If you buy stolen property, you don't get to keep it, even if you didn't know it was stolen. Same principle here, I think. It will suck for the adoptive parents, but the biological parents should have the right too get her back.

Children aren't property, it's a whole different set of laws. It's why a mother who's a junkie isn't allowed to care for a daughter she's selling into prostitution and they go into care. If the child was her property then the police would just stick their hands in their pockets and say "Oh well, she's the BIOLOGICAL mother, it's her call"

^ Obviously, extreme example, but it's what complicates things, she's spent 4/7 years in the USA (which seems like more than half to me but not disputing the maths of other posters) so is it the right thing to deport her? Her biological parents have a right to get to know her but the adoptive parents can't just be thrown aside, it's not like they bought a fenced TV.

I wasn't trying to say the child is property. Does no one get similes anymore?

The adoptive parent's never legally adopted her, so they have no right to say she is their daughter. It sucks for them, but the biological parent should have her back,

 

[Auron225]

Damn thats a hard one... the best moral outcome I can find of this involves the real mother being a champion. Let the adoptive parents keep her and at most let the real mother just visit from time to time. I can't see it being good for the girl if she found out at 7 years old that her parents adopted her - thats just too young. She can find out when she's older.

EDIT: Also, she'll have a much better chance of having a decent future growing up in America over Guatemala. As others have said, if the girl has no memory of her biological mother and original home then in her mind - strangers are taking her away from her real parents in America and making her live with other strangers in Guatemala. A bit much to expect of a 7-year old.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Leave her in Missouri. I mean honestly, how many people here think she would really be better off living in Guatemala than she would be living in the US?

Not only is Guatemala one of the poorest countries in Latin America (with over half the population living in poverty), the little girl doesn't speak the language at all, and won't be able to communicate with her mother for at least a year while she's learning the language, which would be an extremely traumatic experience.

Rodriguez obtained a Guatemalan court order last July for the return of Anyeli, who left the country on Dec. 9, 2008, according to court records. The court ruled that the girl had been stolen from her family.

You somehow think that she grew to be 4 and never learned Spanish while living in Guatemala? Sure it'll be far from perfect, but to say she won't be able to communicate?

OP says the little girl was 2 when she was kidnapped.

 

[runnernda]

The girl is only seven? I don't think she's able to make those kind of choices. I say some kind of open adoption situation, where the mother can still see and get to know her daughter, but she stays with the family that's been raising her.

 

[George_Harvey_Bone]

Always heartening to see people take angry, partisan stances on issues with this much emotional and moral complexity... despite not knowing all the details (and in some cases, not even the details in the OP's article).

It seems likely that one set of parents are going to get emotionally shafted... to me, the only thing that should matter is making sure the kid doesn't too. After a full investigation of the circumstances, one of the options will probably cause the least damage to the child - which is, to my mind, the moral option.

However, it's clearly not as simple as weighing up developmental damage or morality. US law and international politics will decide it.

One bright spot in this is that the biological Mother seems to imply she might accept access rather than drag out a interminable custody battle ("Even if she can't come home, to at least be able to have contact with her").

 

[Kopikatsu]

Giving birth to a child doesn't make you a parent.

Raising a kid makes you a parent.

I'd say keep her with the adoptive family, and if the girl wants, the biological parents can be permitted contact.

 

[AntiChri5]

If you buy stolen property, you don't get to keep it, even if you didn't know it was stolen. Same principle here, I think. It will suck for the adoptive parents, but the biological parents should have the right too get her back.

A child is not property, and it is illegal to treat them as if they are.

I wasn't saying children are property. I was making an analogy to simplify my thoughts on what should happen.

A flawed analogy, which simplified your thoughts far too much, from my perspective.

 

[AntiChri5]

snip

snip

the child belongs to her real mother.

its going to be elián gonzález all the way again.

A child does not belong to anybody. A child is a person, and people are not property.

yes you are right.

we should give her 100$, a bag with clothes and a bus ticket to Minneapolis.
there she can live as a free person and perhaps she may start a successful career as a associate producer.
and she may live happily ever after. loop di friggin doo.

this is ..... why do you even tell me this?
do you think i would not know this?

that doesnt change the fact that she belongs or better said belongswith her real parents/mother. (satisfied?)

Of course i thought you did not know it, since it is exactly what you said. You cannot blame someone for taking you at your word.

Yes, she belongs with her family. However, i believe the issue being debated here is which is her family. The woman who gave birth to her, or the people who raised her?

 

[Sneezeguard]

duh..
split the child in two, that way everyone's happy

 

[Eamar]

I don't think it's too much of an assumption to assume the girl prefers the people she has been with for 5 years, and the country she has been in for 5 years, to a country and person she hasn't seen since she was 2.

OP says the little girl was 2 when she was kidnapped.

The article says she was kidnapped in November 2006 but wasn't adopted and didn't leave the country until December 2008. It's not as black and white as "this is the only life she's ever known."