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

[Vern5]

[

Can anyone explain what exactly qualifies the birth mother to be a better parent than the adoptive parents?

Well she didn't knowingly adopt a kidnap victim for a start....

Look up for details.

So they adopted a kidnapped child. I fail to see a correlation between a strange decision and their parenting abilities.

You consider kidnapping a child a strange decision that doesn't make the parenting abilities of the person questionable?

Really?

Did the parents specifically ask for that child to be kidnapped in the first place? That's not a sarcastic response; I didn't care enough about these people to comb through the article looking for that piece of information.

Still, the way I see it, if they took good care of that kid then the only people being hurt here are the birth-parents. This is why I say the kid should have the first say on who she wants to live with, as the welfare of the child is more important than the wants of any of the involved parents. If her adoptive parents are really bad people or even just annoying people, that kid will suddenly have the ability to escape a living situation she hates.

 

[SEXTON HALE]

Hmm...
Ths is a tricky one the mother does have a good claim to her own child but so does the family who spent five years raising her.
I would sympathize with the mother but leaving her with the family might be for the best.
When she was only two being taken from her mother and adopted by a family she probably was'nt even aware of what was going on.
Doing that to her again at seven now that she is old enough to be aware of what is happening would definatly be difficult for her and could even bring back some upleasant memeorys.
Though has anyone tried asking her what she would like to do?

 

[zefiris]

Some people are seriously arguing that because the kidnapping-associate "adoptive parents" stonewalled for some years, they should be rewarded for being terrible people by...letting them have their way?

WHAT? Seriously?

NONE of you would argue this if the criminals weren't american. None. It's completely insane to side with people that behaved this horribly.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

Back to the mother, no question about that whatsoever in my mind. Unless she was somehow unfit to raise a child then the child goes back. Sad for the people who raised her in between but much worse to have your biological child taken from you illegally and raised by someone else.

so if you were seven years old with loving parents living in Missouri then all of a sudden some people claiming to be your real parents saying you were kidnapped and that they want you back with them no questions asked, would YOU want to go with them? I fucking doubt it. you can't tear away a kid from his/er parents even if the kid is adopted it just ain't right.

 

[Vern5]

Yes, they should totally keep their abducted child because they were nice to her. What the fuck are you smoking dude? You really think the kid isn't losing when she is living with criminals who knowingly went through with a illegal adoption because they wanted to have a kid?

Sometimes I smoke cigarettes but only when I can bum them from other people. It's funny how generous smokers can be. But, to answer your question, I don't know enough about the child's living situation to say if she has gained or lost anything.

You have to take into account that the criminal activities of the adoptive parents do not help or hinder their ability to love and care for a child. Yes, they are criminals and I can't possibly dispute that but, in the long run, their one crime is not as important as the livelihood and well-being of that child.

Is it your opinion that all people who commit crimes are intrinsically bad people at heart? Is the man who steals money to feed his starving family an evil person because he broke the law? That is a terribly naive point of view. You must filter your own personal objections in order to determine what is best for that kid, as she is the one who has the most to gain and lose in this entire debacle.

If her adoptive criminal parents have the ability to give her a decent upbringing and treat her with civility and love then it might do more harm than good to forcibly remove the child and place her with her birth-parents. Keep in mind that the child probably will not recognize her birth parents at all; they will be complete strangers to her. Making that sort of transition at such a young age could prove to be psychologically problematic. On the other hand, if the foster parents abuse or cannot provide for that kid, then she should be placed with her birth-parents immediately, as they will (hopefully) appreciate her more and ultimately do a better job of raising her.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Back to the mother, no question about that whatsoever in my mind. Unless she was somehow unfit to raise a child then the child goes back. Sad for the people who raised her in between but much worse to have your biological child taken from you illegally and raised by someone else.

so if you were seven years old with loving parents living in Missouri then all of a sudden some people claiming to be your real parents saying you were kidnapped and that they want you back with them no questions asked, would YOU want to go with them? I fucking doubt it. you can't tear away a kid from his/er parents even if the kid is adopted it just ain't right.

No, but that is irrelevant to me now, I am not 7. You can tear a kid away from their parents, it happens a lot. It has happened to this child once before. DNA says it's hers, unless she was somehow complicit in the original kidnapping or is currently an unfit parent the kid goes back with no second thought from me.

Also:

The mother identified the child in 2009, but it's taken this long to go through the courts in Guatemala, let alone the US. Whilst I haven't seen any confirmation of when the Monahans found out about her origins it is clear that they have known since at least the middle of last year. Have they contacted the mother direct and tried to come to an arrangement? No, they've hired lawyers and a PR firm and stonewalled. There's some ugly possibilities that this is being dragged out because the longer the kid lives in the US the more likely the (US) authorities are to decide it's in her 'best interest' to stay.

Further information here

Wow, that is a enlightening and horrific read, I'm not surprised by the typical stonewalling from the adoptive parents on the issue, but by the resistance from the Guatemalan government. This should have been sorted out years ago before there was even any debate that the child be kept in the US. That a hunger strike even happened (and was ignored by the US media) to highlight these issues shows just how much deeper this problem goes.

Edit: Read the comments too, they put the adoptive parents in a far worse light (they knew the child was kidnapped before they adopted her) - However it does seem they love/are highly protective of the child.

If this is true the parents would also be facing some pretty hefty criminal charges if it was up to me.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Yes, they should totally keep their abducted child because they were nice to her. What the fuck are you smoking dude? You really think the kid isn't losing when she is living with criminals who knowingly went through with a illegal adoption because they wanted to have a kid?

Sometimes I smoke cigarettes but only when I can bum them from other people. It's funny how generous smokers can be. But, to answer your question, I don't know enough about the child's living situation to say if she has gained or lost anything.

You have to take into account that the criminal activities of the adoptive parents do not help or hinder their ability to love and care for a child. Yes, they are criminals and I can't possibly dispute that but, in the long run, their one crime is not as important as the livelihood and well-being of that child.

Is it your opinion that all people who commit crimes are intrinsically bad people at heart? Is the man who steals money to feed his starving family an evil person because he broke the law? That is a terribly naive point of view. You must filter your own personal objections in order to determine what is best for that kid, as she is the one who has the most to gain and lose in this entire debacle.

If her adoptive criminal parents have the ability to give her a decent upbringing and treat her with civility and love then it might do more harm than good to forcibly remove the child and place her with her birth-parents. Keep in mind that the child probably will not recognize her birth parents at all; they will be complete strangers to her. Making that sort of transition at such a young age could prove to be psychologically problematic. On the other hand, if the foster parents abuse or cannot provide for that kid, then she should be placed with her birth-parents immediately, as they will (hopefully) appreciate her more and ultimately do a better job of raising her.

Holy shit. If you aren't smoking something then I'll take a shot of the same drink, actually make it a double because afterwards I'll probably need one after I blow my fucking brains out.

 

[Aglynugga]

I wonder what the little girl wants. Does anyone know?

 

[Vern5]

Holy shit. If you aren't smoking something then I'll take a shot of the same drink, actually make it a double because afterwards I'll probably need a drink after I blow my fucking brains out.

I'm well aware that I'm being viciously rational and cold-hearted about this whole thing but what you said is just depressing.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Dito. No words can describe how utterly appalled I am by that post.

Guys, it's been a pleasure but seriously Vern5... Cannot tell if troll or just stupid.

Anyway, until people who have anything intelligent to say return, I bid thee adieu...

 

[Vern5]

Dito. No words can describe how utterly appalled I am by that post.

Guys, it's been a pleasure but seriously Vern5... Cannot tell if troll or just stupid.

Anyway, until people who have anything intelligent to say return, I bid thee adieu...

So instead of forming an intelligent and informative response to the admittedly unsympathetic things I say both of you opt to run and hide behind a facade of morality? Well, I wont stop you but I was hoping to come away from this thread by learning something interesting. Adios! I eagerly look forward to more stirring future debates.

 

[Vern5]

Holy shit. If you aren't smoking something then I'll take a shot of the same drink, actually make it a double because afterwards I'll probably need a drink after I blow my fucking brains out.

I'm well aware that I'm being viciously rational and cold-hearted about this whole thing but what you said is just depressing.

By making it so that crime pays? Eh, people always like to think of themselves as 'viciously' rational and 'cold-hearted'. They should learn that when they're too busy doing that they're probably being anything but rational.

When did "making it so crime pays" even come into this argument?

 

[Vern5]

Dito. No words can describe how utterly appalled I am by that post.

Guys, it's been a pleasure but seriously Vern5... Cannot tell if troll or just stupid.

Anyway, until people who have anything intelligent to say return, I bid thee adieu...

So instead of forming an intelligent and informative response to the admittedly unsympathetic things I say both of you opt to run and hide behind a facade of morality? Well, I wont stop you but I was hoping to come away from this thread by learning something interesting. Adios! I eagerly look forward to more stirring future debates.

I cannot give that post the answer it deserves without getting a infraction. I cannot word how impossibly stupid that post was within the confines of the code of conduct. It simply cannot be done, atleast not by me.

Why not? I've been civil for this. You would probably replace the word "civil" with "emotionally stunted" but I can take that.

 

[thisbymaster]

What is best for the child's welfare to stay with a well off family in a first world country or go live the ghetto in a third world country, which makes more sense?

 

[dancinginfernal]

Guys its not that difficult, the girl was freaking kidnapped, and at two years old its certainly something the mother will remember. It's not like the mum put her up for adoption and now all of a sudden wants her child back. The kid absolutely has to go back to her true biological mother without question.

Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. 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.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

I'm frankly more concerned about how she came to be put up for adoption after being kidnapped and that what ever legal system that was taking care of the adoption clearly missed something pretty fucking important...

You have a very low opinion of second graders. Most 7-year-olds are fairly lingual, and very comprehensive.

Besides, regardless of what the biological mother remembers, the girl has no memory of the first mother and believes she has lived with her current family her whole life. Taking her away would be a crime, and entirely unfounded. Another person suggested the mother be allowed visitation rights, while the child stays in her adopted family. I second this idea. The mother should be comprehensive enough to know that her daughter belongs with the family she knows and loves. Would you like to be pulled away from the arms of the family you've been lovingly raised by and be given to a woman you're certain you've never before, just because the world says you're her daughter/son? It's cruel, and it shouldn't happen.

 

[Vern5]

Holy shit. If you aren't smoking something then I'll take a shot of the same drink, actually make it a double because afterwards I'll probably need a drink after I blow my fucking brains out.

I'm well aware that I'm being viciously rational and cold-hearted about this whole thing but what you said is just depressing.

By making it so that crime pays? Eh, people always like to think of themselves as 'viciously' rational and 'cold-hearted'. They should learn that when they're too busy doing that they're probably being anything but rational.

When did "making it so crime pays" even come into this argument?

When you want to reward the adoptive parents for their actions. It's kind of hard to stop people from committing the same offense when they get off free with exactly what they want. But apparently noticing that isn't rational?

Okay, that makes more sense now.

Technically, I guess you could call it rewarding the adoptive parents if you want to consider the child as some sort of prize to be won or lost as opposed to an innocent human being. I'm still of the mind that the adoptive parents should suffer some sort of penalty for knowing that the child was kidnapped and not reporting this information to the correct authorities.

However, what should truly determine the foster parents' right to keep the child should be their parenting abilities and not their criminal record (unless said records fall into the category of domestic violence, drug-abuse, murder, rape, etc.). The child has already spent the largest portion of her life with these foster parents and removing her from that environment (provided her foster parents are good parents) could be traumatizing for her.

On the other hand, if the foster parents' parenting abilities are found to be lacking (as discovered by a competent social worker or another specialist of this kind) then the child should be returned to her true parents.

"It's kind of hard to stop people from committing the same offense when they get off free with exactly what they want." <- This bothers me. Are you telling me that, should the foster parents keep custody of the child, their victory will prompt a trend of similar child-kidnapping/adoption situations?

 

[Vern5]

Snipsis

It doesn't matter if the kid is a prize or not, they're getting what they wanted out of it. And what kind of penalty really matches up to deter this behavior?

While I respect your enthusiasm for making sure that criminals get what's coming to them, my primary concern goes towards the ultimate well being of that child. This is not solely an issue of punishing criminals; the future of an innocent child is at stake.

Also 'could be' is not much an argument.

It is an argument of the utmost importance when we are talking about traumatizing a child.

Or she could just go back to the parents she was stolen from.

This issue is far from being so simple. Like I said before, depending upon what happens withe the custody battle, that child's life could be saved or ruined as a result.

I'm saying there is no deterrent to adopting from shady agencies if the government goes on to consider such deals legitimate.

The only deterrent I can think of would be to find all of the people within that shady agency and shut them down permanently and with extreme prejudice as a warning to all other agencies like them. It is not fair that families that are already together should be broken up now just to prove a point. Again, my sympathies and worry go to the child rather than the foster parents; she needs the family that raised her more than she needs the one that birthed her.

 

[Vern5]

Snipmeister

(This section by section response stuff is annoying)

Look, if you're just going to say things like "No, it isn't" and "Prove it" then we're going to be here all day.

If you really want my "cold-hearted" assessment of this whole debacle then it would probably go something like this: Nobody should get that kid.

Put that child up for adoption with someone else, someone better, because none of these parents deserve to keep her. The foster parents went through criminal dealings in order to get her and so, are unfit to keep her if they are willing to ignore the law so effortlessly. The original parents were not able to keep their own child safe and so, do not deserve to have her back.

Why do you care more about punishing the foster parents than the upbringing of the child? What makes you think that the birth parents are better suited to raise the kid? You do know that no amount of deterrence can stop those who are desperate for a child?

 

[gideonkain]

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.

Not possible, a child can't decide what is best for them - any seven year old would say the person who gave them Ice Cream is a nicer person than the one that didn't. They don't possess the capacity to make this kind of choice.

This has to be sorted out by the law - my opinion: stay with adoptive parents, financial stipend for mother with option to visit.

I come back after a few days and every single quote I've had from this thread is about how a 7 year old can't make decisions that affect their lives. Not all children are complete morons. Hell, I've seen many children make more rational and direct decisions than adults in certain situations. Children do not have set ideas about how things should or should not be since they haven't come out of their formative years or suffered the growing pains that accompany growing up. This does not make them stupid, it simply makes them inexperienced.

While I can understand the reasoning behind not asking a child to decided whether a convicted criminal should live or die, I would certainly expect a child to know who he or she wants to live with simply based on experiences. Everyone here seems to be leaning towards the emotional impact of a mother who had her child taken from her. While that is very sad and tragic there is simply no maneuvering around the fact that her child has no familiar memories of her. A child should grow up in the company of those he or she finds most comfortable.

Can anyone explain what exactly qualifies the birth mother to be a better parent than the adoptive parents?

Whether or not there are smart children is meaningless, just as whether or not there are idiotic adults. A line is (perhaps arbitrarily) drawn based on the average human's decision making ability. Across the world, it has been agreed upon that a person is an adult at roughly 18, meaning they are responsible for themselves and capable of acting in their own best interest.

That is why we have a distinction between child and adult.

 

[Vern5]

Snipocrisy

I don't have to prove anything to you. I've given my reasons so what are yours?

You seem to believe that this problem ends when the foster parents are punished and the child is torn from her most familiar setting to be placed with people she hardly knows. What proof do you have that the child will not be psychologically harmed by being torn from her current family?

Everything you have posted (section-by-section) points to you being more concerned with deterring other adoption agencies than sparing an innocent child from having to choose between two families or, worse, being forced from a familiar family to a family of strangers.

What is point of saying "in the real world bad things happen"? In the real world bad things can also be prevented. If bad things always happened then what would be the point of having home security? If bad things just happened all the time then you might as well leave your own home unlocked with the doors wide open.

Now, i'm open to having my opinions changed by good reasoning. Please try to phrase your response without attempting to insult me as I have only shown you respect and civility.