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

[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."

 

[chadachada123]

How about this: The adoptive parents can keep the child if they pay the woman for all of the money wasted between birth and kidnapping (including hospital bills for the birth).

Since the mother only had the child for two years, she doesn't have nearly as much attachment to the child as the current parents do, so some monetary compensation should make up for it since she could just have another child.

 

[w00tage]

Obviously the child should be returned to her natural mother, BUT... offer the Guatemalan mother immigration and help her get set up near the adoptive parents. The best thing for the child is that she gets all relationships instead of being ping-ponged.

 

[Risingblade]

Seriously these adoptive parents have no right to keep the child from her real parents. The whole adoption thing wasn't actually official anyway.

So the parents aren't allowed to love her like their own daughter because the paperwork was a fake? Sound logic.

So her real parents have no right to have their daughter back? Someone can just kidnap your child give her to to someone else and you can't get them back? Love your logic there mate.

 

[ablac]

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.

The kid is five. She isnt really old enough to understand why,how or the consequences of such a decision. Plus theres the pressure upon her to make a decision which will effect a large part of her life. Then theres also the fact that it would be pretty cruel to the ones she didnt choose since she would either be ungrateful (quite the understatement) or she would be rejecting her own mother. I think this really needs to be decided between the adopters and the parents with the girl being involved and having things best explained to her. No one else can really make such a decision, whilst staying with her adopters would be 'better' since she has spent all her knwoing life with them it really is a question for those involved since its impossible to understand what it must be like for them.

 

[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.

1. no it wouldn't.

2. The parents don't live in shacks. They live in the suburbs. That's where the middle class/rich Latin Americans live.

Well yeah, the suitability for parenthood of both parties does make it more ambivalent than it otherwise might be, but I'm not convinced that it is a decisive factor. The reality is that you'd be breaking up a family, for a second time and I'm seeing this as a classic 2 wrongs don't make a right scenario.

I dunno if it has any traction with you, I don't know if it does with me to be honest, but would the "innocence of children must be protected" argument hold any water with you?

 

[Maze1125]

Seriously these adoptive parents have no right to keep the child from her real parents. The whole adoption thing wasn't actually official anyway.

So the parents aren't allowed to love her like their own daughter because the paperwork was a fake? Sound logic.

So her real parents have no right to have their daughter back? Someone can just kidnap your child give her to to someone else and you can't get them back? Love your logic there mate.

And what about the adoptive parents?
If you give her back to her biological parents then you're taking away the adoptive parents child.

Yeah, having your child taken away really really sucks, especially if there's no way to ever get them back.
So why are you advocating precisely that?

 

[orangeban]

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."

Alright, but that doesn't change the fact she knows the adoptive parents better than the biological parent.

 

[Gatx]

I think she should just stay with whoever can offer her a better quality of life, I mean it would be what's best for the child right?

 

[Maze1125]

You're missing the point where the child was unlawfully removed from her home country. She is essentially still being kidnapped.

No, you're missing the point where the law is not the infallible arbiter of right and wrong.

 

[Risingblade]

Seriously these adoptive parents have no right to keep the child from her real parents. The whole adoption thing wasn't actually official anyway.

So the parents aren't allowed to love her like their own daughter because the paperwork was a fake? Sound logic.

So her real parents have no right to have their daughter back? Someone can just kidnap your child give her to to someone else and you can't get them back? Love your logic there mate.

And what about the adoptive parents?
If you give her back to her biological parents then you're taking away the adoptive parents child.

Yeah, having your child taken away really really sucks, especially if there's no way to ever get them back.
So why are you advocating precisely that?

It's a fucked up situation either way I'm just saying that since the adoption was illegal and she was kidnapped from them first she should go back to them. It's not like they just abandoned her and they obviously love her hence the 5 years of searching. I'm worried about the precedent this case might set. That suddenly it will be ok to keep kidnapped children if they've been with you long enough.