An ethical question involving adoption

[tigermilk]

The kidnapper goes away for a long, long time and the child is returned to their rightful guardians.

Definitely this. Kidnapper is biological parent only - does not make them a good Mummy.

No, the kidnapper is not the biological parent, she has perfomed the role of mother presumably in every way but is not the biological parent.

OT: Undecided, there are a lot of factors to take into account.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

Well actually now that I think about, its not really about adoption per se but I guess it deals with similar themes.

This is inspired by some british mini series I half saw once and I cant remember the name.

Ok the scenario is a child is Kidnapped at a very early age, by a woman.While what she does is inherintly wrong she does it because she is distraught because she cant have children, not "thinking clearly" at the time (doesnt justify it, just her reason)

ok so fast forward the kid is 13 or 14 she has been raised perfectly fine by the "kidnapper", basically its found out.

So whats the right thing to do? give the child to her original family? not only is the news that your mum kidnapped you, thats a very vulnerable age...basically what Im saying is that shit might not go down well

however the biological parents have a right dont they?

so anyway as I can remember in the original miniseries I DONT agree with the decision they made,

1.ok kid automatically goes and lives with biological parents...who are upper class, she came from a lower class background, doesnt fit in so much (and from what Ive seen on TV britan has some serious social issues, like its youth are friggin scary) anyway in regards to that I honestly dont know

2. "kidnapper" mother isnt allowed to see kid....ok THATS fucked up, not only are you made live with strangers but you cant see your mum again

anyway Im interested to what you guys think

It's obvious what should be done. The daughter should be given a rifle, and she gets to shoot the parents she doesn't want. Then, things won't be awkward later.

 

[Anjel]

The kidnapper goes away for a long, long time and the child is returned to their rightful guardians.

Definitely this. Kidnapper is biological parent only - does not make them a good Mummy.

No, the kidnapper is not the biological parent, she has perfomed the role of mother presumably in every way but is not the biological parent.

OT: Undecided, there are a lot of factors to take into account.

Opps, speedread fail.

In short, the child should go with whoever ISN'T the kidnapper

 

[zeldagirl]

Wasn't this the plot of "Tangled"?


I think that if I found out the woman I thought was my mother actually STOLE me as a child, I'd be pretty pissed off and wouldn't want anything to do with her.

 

[ZtH]

I would say make it the child's decision, but after the child leaves the home/reaches maturity the kidnapper faces their punishment. The law is not the end all of morality. Choices that go against the law can be correct, however you should make them knowing full well that you will be held accountable.

 

[Sikratua]

What that kidnapper did, in my opinion, was worse than rape.

I take it you've been raped, and that qualifies you to make that assertion.

I take it you've been kidnapped for nearly your entire life, before finding out that the most basic fact that made up your reality was a lie, and that qualifies you to dismiss my assertion.

 

[Gralian]

I've never seen a group of people so blindly for following the law to a T.

You mean you don't follow the law? How many red lights have you run, or shops have you lifted? Seems a bit of a stretch to make the claim that you've never seen so many people "blindly following the law to a T".

If a child is kidnapped at infancy with no literal memory of his/her real parents, and then is raised properly by the kidnapper, what are you going to do?

Abduction is a serious crime. Are you seriously advocating a criminal act? And we're the ones who are blind?

Are you so filled with petty vengeance that you'll take the kid away and give it to the biological parents?

In honesty, if i was the child in question i think i would feel "petty vengeance" toward the people i trusted more than anyone in the world if i found out that my life had been a lie and they were in fact not my blood relation. They're not even foster parents. They maliciously abducted me for self-satisfaction. If it wasn't a malicious abduction, it would be a different case altogether. For example, if the biological parents were abusive and unfit to look after the child - child services should have been contacted immediately by the 'kidnapper'.

What if they end up being complete pricks that abuse the child? What if they aren't fit to be parents and the child dies from negligence? Woop, guess that's okay because they were the "real" parents and justice has been served.

Court processes are not as clear cut as that. The court will take into account whether or not the new parents are fit to look after the child and child services will be in contact to make sure the child is settling into his or her new home. If the child is unhappy for whatever reason or does not want to live with his or her biological parents, he or she can request to be taken into care and put into a foster home. Parental custody is generally only denied in extraordinary circumstances, but if the child is unhappy or is living in an abusive household, the court will take action and the child will be taken into care. If the situation is as dire as "abuse", the child won't die the second it arrives at its new home. There will be plenty of opportunity to voice concern.

I would think it to be fine for the child to learn the truth once they were an adult, capable of making their own decisions. Because when they're still a child, they are given no rights of their own.

So you think it's perfectly acceptable for somebody to live a lie through ignorance? I think you give youth discredit; the child in question would be more than capable in making a decision. They just don't have any direct control over custodial rights. The person in question is 13-14, not 6. Young teenagers aren't stupid and they aren't completely dependent on parental figures. As i said before, it is the age of responsibility and a time where they develop a sense of agency about the choices they make.

This entire discussion (at least, on the pro punish-kidnapper side) has utterly ignored the child.

So have you. You're assuming the biological parents won't be earnest in their wishes to be reunited with their stolen child and won't try everything in their power to give them a good life. It's just as folly to assume the biological parents will be absuive and neglectful as it is to assume everything will be sunshine and roses. Newsflash; the world isn't as evil as saturday morning TV would have you believe and some people actually do have good intentions. I think a mother or father having their young returned to them for the first time in 13-14 years would be overjoyed and brought to tears at the prospect of getting to know their child.

What if the child wanted to stay with their kidnapper? What if they were traumatized and never acclimated to their new parents?

Aside from "this is what counselling is for", any 'trauma' is unlikely to last for such a period of time that it becomes utterly debilitating. The child in question is 13 to 14. A teenager. A young adult. By that age, kids are not as stupid and naive as people make them out to be. If the child was very young, between 5 and 10 years, then the damage would be far more severe in my opinion.

The child is a human being, with real emotions and therefore real consequences to your decisions. It'll be a whole lot more damaging to give them off to some random couple that they've never seen before and deny them the ability to see the person that raised them ever again.

Yes, and the court takes the best interests of the child to heart when making a decision. They won't give the child to its biological parents if, for example, they have a bad history with drug or alcohol abuse. The legal system is more complex than people give it credit for and many things are taken into consideration before a ruling. "Random couple"? What's random about being the biological father or mother? The real family? As for being unable to see the 'kidnapper' parents ever again, that is what prison visitation is for.

So take your petty justice and stuff it. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey. You can't just say "against the law herp derp" and expect that to fix everything every time. Sure, it'll make you feel good inside to see the naughty kidnapper get put away, but that child will be permanently damaged.

Your passion is admirable but ill-thought out. You claim the world is shades of grey, but you're seeing it as very black and white if you're assuming the biological parents will be useless and the child will be immediately traumatised. The law is there for a reason. Judges know what they are doing and you should have more faith in the legal system. Not every child case in court produces a maladjusted individual.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Well, the child has a pretty big case of Stolkholm Syndrome by now, so they'll have to readjust,a nd thats going to be hard for the child.

i dont know. Legally you should return the child to the actual parents, but what thats going to do the child could make it worse i suppose.

 

[M Rotter]

well if i was the kid, the fact that my "mum" effectively made my life horrible would make any transition a bit easier. It sucks, but the reason the kidnapper should be punished is because she took away any justice that could happen by stealing him in the first place. It really sucks, but the kidnapper made that choice for him unfortunately and there's nothing that can be done about it, besides returning the kid to his parents.

 

[Sudenak]

You mean you don't follow the law? How many red lights have you run, or shops have you lifted? Seems a bit of a stretch to make the claim that you've never seen so many people "blindly following the law to a T".

I don't blindly follow it. Or do you mean to tell me that you've never done anything against the law? I've run a light or two when there was an emergency, I've sped when the speed limit was illogical, I've jay-walked when there were no cars in sight, etc. I've broken so many petty laws that it's hilarious. And you'd be pretty much guaranteed to be a liar if you've never copied a CD before, or circumvented DRM, or any number of things that we can't discuss here.

Abduction is a serious crime. Are you seriously advocating a criminal act? And we're the ones who are blind?

It is a serious crime. I'm not advocating it. I'm not saying everyone should run out tomorrow and grab a baby for the sake of doing it. I'm saying that after fourteen years have passed, your window has closed. You screwed up bad, you didn't get the baby back, it's a teenager now that was raised by an entirely different human being. If you take them back, you're only hurting them even more. Because then they know their entire life was a lie, and that they can never see their parent again because it wasn't the real one.

In honesty, if i was the child in question i think i would feel "petty vengeance" toward the people i trusted more than anyone in the world if i found out that my life had been a lie and they were in fact not my blood relation. They're not even foster parents. They maliciously abducted me for self-satisfaction. If it wasn't a malicious abduction, it would be a different case altogether. For example, if the biological parents were abusive and unfit to look after the child - child services should have been contacted immediately by the 'kidnapper'.

If you were the child. If I were the child, I would hate my new parents for stealing me from my "real" parent, even if the law says they are right. I would move out as soon as I could and never speak to them again. But neither of us are the child. Which is why it should be the child's decision. If they want their real mommy and daddy, okay. But if they don't, then don't fucking force them to go. Or else you're no better than the kidnapper, doing it for your own reasons.

Court processes are not as clear cut as that. The court will take into account whether or not the new parents are fit to look after the child and child services will be in contact to make sure the child is settling into his or her new home. If the child is unhappy for whatever reason or does not want to live with his or her biological parents, he or she can request to be taken into care and put into a foster home. Parental custody is generally only denied in extraordinary circumstances, but if the child is unhappy or is living in an abusive household, the court will take action and the child will be taken into care. If the situation is as dire as "abuse", the child won't die the second it arrives at its new home. There will be plenty of opportunity to voice concern.

Oh, so that makes it better somehow? So instead of even getting biological parents, the kid would be thrown into a foster home. A completely different, often tough life. And for what? Once again, this is assuming the kidnapper was a loving parent and treated the child right. So because the law got in there, and the real parents were unfit, the child is taken away from the person who raised them and thrown into a -completely- random home. And that's a good thing?

So you think it's perfectly acceptable for somebody to live a lie through ignorance? I think you give youth discredit; the child in question would be more than capable in making a decision. They just don't have any direct control over custodial rights. The person in question is 13-14, not 6. Young teenagers aren't stupid and they aren't completely dependent on parental figures. As i said before, it is the age of responsibility and a time where they develop a sense of agency about the choices they make.

Don't we all? Literally every single American is taught wrong about our entire history so that we can be painted as noble heroes in the eyes of our children. And yes, I said that the child should have the choice to make. But the law won't let them choose. So if they want to stay with the kidnapper, they don't get to. They get to live with the people who ripped them away from their home. Which is ironic, in that they were ripped away from the home they should have been in, but that doesn't matter. The point is that the child has no say, and that is disgusting. It shouldn't be my beliefs, or yours, that dictate where the kid goes. The kid should get to choose.

So have you. You're assuming the biological parents won't be earnest in their wishes to be reunited with their stolen child and won't try everything in their power to give them a good life. It's just as folly to assume the biological parents will be absuive and neglectful as it is to assume everything will be sunshine and roses. Newsflash; the world isn't as evil as saturday morning TV would have you believe and some people actually do have good intentions. I think a mother or father having their young returned to them for the first time in 13-14 years would be overjoyed and brought to tears at the prospect of getting to know their child.

They probably would be. They could also be terrible. Neither of us knows. Assuming rainbows and kittens is just idiotic, because if you believe that nothing but good things will happen every single time, you'll have a bunch of demented, stressed, miserable kids. Statistically speaking, there is never a point where 100% of the population will agree on something. Assuming every single child will be overjoyed to go with their biological parents and that every biological parent will treat their child great is a fool-proof way to leave a lot of children in misery. I advocate for worst case scenarios, because if you pretend they don't exist, you ruin someone's shit down the line. A middle ground needs to be reached, and the middle ground is making it the child's choice. Damn the law.

Aside from "this is what counselling is for", any 'trauma' is unlikely to last for such a period of time that it becomes utterly debilitating. The child in question is 13 to 14. A teenager. A young adult. By that age, kids are not as stupid and naive as people make them out to be. If the child was very young, between 5 and 10 years, then the damage would be far more severe in my opinion.

Based on speculation. Again, you are assuming that all teenagers are strong. I know a girl who, at thirteen, broke down sobbing because her boyfriend of two weeks dumped her. She then proceeded to drop out of school because kids made fun of her for her breakdown, eventually leading to her getting pregnant with a twenty-one year old at sixteen and then marrying him at eighteen. Would she[i/] have been able to take her entire childhood being a lie? You can't assume every single teenager will come out of this perfectly fine and adjusted to their new life. Not repeating the reasons, see above for details.

Yes, and the court takes the best interests of the child to heart when making a decision. They won't give the child to its biological parents if, for example, they have a bad history with drug or alcohol abuse. The legal system is more complex than people give it credit for and many things are taken into consideration before a ruling. "Random couple"? What's random about being the biological father or mother? The real family? As for being unable to see the 'kidnapper' parents ever again, that is what prison visitation is for.

The randomness is of never having seen these people before. It's nice that they're biologically your parents, but that doesn't change the fact that they are strangers. Also, the never-seeing-the-kidnapper-again statement, that was more from a few morons posting that the kidnapper should be barred from even prison visitation.

Your passion is admirable but ill-thought out. You claim the world is shades of grey, but you're seeing it as very black and white if you're assuming the biological parents will be useless and the child will be immediately traumatised. The law is there for a reason. Judges know what they are doing and you should have more faith in the legal system. Not every child case in court produces a maladjusted individual.

[/i]In this case, I'm merely giving the extreme negatives to offset all of the rainbows and farts from the other posters. Everyone's assuming it'd all work out great. It will for some children. For others, it'll be the one thing that ruins their entire life. You can't make a blanket judgement that avoids what the child wants just because it feels good to you. If they want to stay with the kidnapper, let them stay. If they want to go with their real parents, let them go. But you can't say they are "tough and smart" whilst simultaneously giving them absolutely no control over their future.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

Considering the parents of the child, the people who gave birth to them, love them more than life itself and miss them, miss giving them birthday parties, buying them clothes, playing in the backyard, taking them to school - all the things that parents deserve to share with their child - will want them back, it is cut and dry.

Also, the kidnapper will be in prison and can't look after the child they stole. /thread

This is true but your basing your case on the parents wants and on the law. Law has absolutely zero to do with ethical/moral debates so we are left with what is morally acceptable and what is not, based on the kidnapper, the parents AND the child. Looking at a utilitarian approach, it would almost be better to leave the child in the care of the kidnapper. Why? Because personally I find it unlikely they will be "better off" with their biological parents. It seems highly unlikely to me that they will be happier, being taken away from a parent they have known for 13/14 years of their life and being told "here you go, these are your actual parents". Since with utilitarism you balance the good over the bad, the parents and kidnapper would in my opinion balance and you would be left with the decision of the child themselves. Therefore it would mostly depend on the child's attitude to their kidnapper. And no, before you ask, kidnapping is never morally acceptable, but just reversing a morally unacceptable action doesn't always correct it.

 

[BrassButtons]

When you get down to it, this scenario isn't that different from any other scenario where the parent commits a crime, goes to jail, and the kids go into foster care. Only in this case the foster family would be the biological family.

If the feelings of the kid are going to be taken into account when determining punishments for kidnapping cases, then they should be taken into account any time the punishment will take the parent away from the kid. And if we're not going to take the kids' feelings into account for every other scenario where the parent faces jail time, then why should we make an exception here?

 

[triggrhappy94]

Well if the kidnapper isn't arrested, it should be up to the kid, more or less.
I'm pretty sure they'd want to see their real parents. And then the kid should be allowed to see their kidnapper from time to time if they want to.

 

[Saelune]

She is already capable of doing crazy things. Who knows what else she could be motivated to do. Id rather know my "mom" is crazy.
It would be different if say, someone was kidnapped, but ended up in an adption agency, and was adopted by a sane person and raised well. If found, it should (depending on teh child's age) be the child's decision. Though the atoptive parent deserves to be allowed involvement after a certain point.

 

[4li3n]

My relationship with my parents is awesome, I wouldn't have traded them for any other parents. I'm also an adult, so I can look back on the tribulations and be comfortable with them. I don't think anything in my statement even eluded to any kind of 'drama' with my family that would encourage me to trade them in for a better model. It was rather funny of you to bring up, though.

But under the example given in this thread those aren't your real parents... that was the point. Way to miss it.

Also, there's no guarantee that you'd get a better model in the first place, you'd just be with your biological parent.

A child shouldn't need counseling? Okay, lets go back to this hypothetical situation. Whether the kid is taken from the kidnap-parent, or allowed to stay with them, they'd need some kind of support outside of that little, screwed up unit. Because nothing says love like "I snatched you from your real parents." You don't think, as that child, you'd be honestly happy, adjusted, and 'normal' (as normal as normal is.. since there is no real normal)?

But the situation given in the OP the kidnapper is a good parent... there's little point in discussing the situation in different terms for what the OP wants to know.

I also didn't say it was a simple matter of slapping cuffs on the kidnapper, and things would revert to sunshine and lollipops. I said the child would need counseling. Perhaps they'd choose to forgive their kidnapper. Maybe even the bio-parents would. That would depend on alot of extenuating circumstances and the relative personalities of all parties involved. But the bare bones of the matter is: the kidnapper committed a crime, they should be punished. Just because they treated the kid right, didn't abuse them, etc, doesn't mean they get a free pass. And in that situation, no, I don't think the child should have the nominal choice on deciding where they should stay. It should be guided by the courts and child protective services, especially if that child is very very young.

Deferring punishment for a later date or using another alternative then jail isn't a free pass... and is hardly too much of a price for justice compared to doing something to a kid that will require fixing through counselling.

 

[4li3n]

What that kidnapper did, in my opinion, was worse than rape.

I take it you've been raped, and that qualifies you to make that assertion.

I take it you've been kidnapped for nearly your entire life, before finding out that the most basic fact that made up your reality was a lie, and that qualifies you to dismiss my assertion.

No see, i'd also have to be raped to be able to actually say 100% that you're wrong... while atm i was simply pointing out that you lack an actual way to be able to tell...


Plus, unless Santa is actually real we've all had experience with out parents building our lives around lies...

Considering the parents of the child, the people who gave birth to them, love them more than life itself and miss them, miss giving them birthday parties, buying them clothes, playing in the backyard, taking them to school - all the things that parents deserve to share with their child - will want them back, it is cut and dry.

Yes, it's not like there are a million examples of biological parents being awful to their kids ever...

Hell, some might even care more about their car window then their kids life and no one is talking about taking the kid away: http://www.postroad.com/news/2006/20060124.stamford.pd.fd.lawsuit.baby.locked.in.car.html