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

[dumbseizure]

I am sorry, but this just blows my mind.

For starters, at home is where a child should be and with her parents? What is to say that she does not consider her where she lives and her foster parents her home and family? A large amount of people who have foster parents from a young age consider them their "real family and home".

Parents produce offspring so they can raise them themselves. That is what a family is. A child belongs with her parents because that is what a family is.

This child was kidnapped, abducted, taken, stolen pick a word that makes it easier for you to understand. This child does not, and will not ever belong to that adopted family. The adoption was a fraud. Profit was likely involved. The foster parents, as much as I can sympathise with them, do not belong with this child.

Please can you recognise the difference between a legal adoption and an ongoing abduction which is exactly what this case is.

The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...

Until all the parties agree that it is in the best interest of the child that she remain with the adoptive parents and all the legal paperwork is settled, I will refuse to acknowledge that the child is where she should be.

This also blows my mind.

Will PROBABLY come to terms with it EVENTUALLY? You are not building a strong case for this. What you are pretty much saying is that it may happen, or it may not, and yet you are for this based on chance.

Also, it wouldn't be worse at 14, because at the age she would have an understanding of what is going on. How do you explain to a 7 year old that the family she currently lives with isn't her real one, and that she has to move away to be with a family she may not even remember?

You are speaking like someone who has clearly never met an adopted or fostered child who was aware of their own situation. You'll just have to trust me when I say that I have, and a 14 year old whirlwind of hormones and emotions reacts significantly worse to a situation such as being ripped from a family unit and being told they have a new family. I just can't stress this point enough.

I'm not an expert on child psychology but I really feel it would be better for a child to go through this kind of thing now when they have barely begun school and making friends than be forced to make a decision at 18 years old when they are legally an adult and will face some extremely complicated decisions.

This child will discover all of this in a few years time. Trying to pretend it never happened will not make the problem go away. And after all this time she will still be registered as an abducted person whether she feels this way or not. As others have mentioned, those kind of legal issues cannot be magic'd away no matter how much you sit there and say "But she'll get upset"...

I personally am not interested in how individuals deal with emotions or how much we "think" individuals deal with them. I am interested in the long term benefit of the child and of the political and legal shit-storm that is brewing around it.

This explains a lot. You haven't done child psychology.

Why does it explain a lot? Because I have done psychology in relation to family, I have done the whole nature vs nurture argument. Hell, I spent an entire year writing about how the way you are brought up affects your adult life.

The part that I THOROUGHLY like though, is when you say "The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...", which is confusing in the first place unless you know the child first hand. But then you also go on to state that you are not an expert in child psychology. I think if you do not know the child first hand, it does not make you capable of commenting on the child'd mental state or what she thinks.



And, I am not saying that a 14 year old would not be affected..... I am not saying that at all.

What I AM saying though, is that it would affect the 7 year old for a longer amount of time.
Why? Because they would not have understood what was going on, they wouldn't understand why, they wouldn't understand who they are being given too.

The only reason it would not affect a 14 year old as badly is because at that point they have the capability of completely understanding what is going on. That doesn't mean they will be like "alright, fuck it, let's go" like you seem to think I meant. They will react, badly.

However, it will not affect them as further until their adult life as it would with a 7 year old child.

No matter how much I say "she will be upset"? What is wrong with you?

Mental stress and issues are not just someone "being upset". Mental stress can affect someone to the point of where they do not even leave a room. They completely stop any daily routine what so over. Hell, they can stop eating.

And I am sorry, I really am. You can not care how people deal with emotions all you like. You can sit in the corner doing everything with a cold expression like your having a colonoscopy for all I care. But having the supposed "best long term" interests for the child involves mental and emotional factors. I think based on the fact that you do not care about how people deal with emotions, and that a factor of this solution is based on the emotional and mental level, you are nowhere near qualified to provide an answer to this situation.

Or she can stay in the US without citizenship or papers then be deported when a police officer finds out she has none.

You know, because being deported with no idea where your other family is sooo much better. /sarcasm

emotion and mental health is all well and good, but that doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law. If she stays there, she WILL have issues later in life. Considering she needs to magically find a way to get every document, she would wish she was killed when that woman abducted her.

Legality and paperwork is tantamount to a life. She may be happy having a "family" but she wont be able to go to elementary school (needs birth certificate) because her paperwork were forgeries. Since Guatemala nullified her adoption, they have no legal standing to get a birth certificate.

Basically, she wont be employable in ANY job, not even Mcdonalds.

Sending her back to Guatemala is better than having her without an education, and on the street.

I will agree with your point of view.

I am only speaking from a psychologists or social workers point of view, because that is what all of my university study has been based on.

I am interested in hearing the points of view from say, a lawyer (to do with citizenship, etc) and possibly a department worker (not sure which department, I live in Australia so it'll be different for us).

The only reason I am responding like I am earlier is because people assume that they know what is mentally best for the child, while apparently completely disregarding the mentality aspect.

Sorry if I sounded rude or condescending.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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?

We have no idea what went on between 2006 and 2008. She had a family until she was two, and then she was adrift for 2 years, and then she was adopted in 2008. Even assuming she was in Guatemala the whole time, given what we know of language development, it's not a stretch to think she's more a native English speaker than anything.

Most language development takes place at home and among family. Familiar faces, familiar voices, consistent speech patterns and vocabulary. And then being in school ramps that up another notch, but that's not until 4 or 5, depending.

Now, I don't think the language problem needs to be a deal-breaker, or even a central fixture in the proceedings... but I don't think it can be as casually dismissed as you think.

If she was kidnapped when she was 2, adopted in 2008 and it's 2012 NOW and her given ages is 7, doesn't that mean she'd more likely be three when she's adopted than four? I'm getting lost in the calculations people are having here where they tweak the numbers so she spent more time in Guatemala like that justifies their view somehow? Or am I imagining that?

She was born October 1st, 2004. She left the country in December of 2008. Ergo she was 4. So no, no one is tweaking the numbers. You apparently just didn't bother to read the article thoroughly before making baseless accusations. Feel free to apologize any time.

Oh and btw, my bringing up the time was simply to point out that someone else was being unreasonable about their claim that her mother wouldn't understand her. Having left the country at the age of 4 and it being only 3 years later I don't see how the guy I first replied to decided that she knows no Spanish. Reading the article and what people are arguing would probably help you to make less mistakes.

See, I would've apologised if you hadn't said it in JUST that right tone of condescending, so I won't you may notice the question mark at the end and that I'm not following the calculations, it was less a baseless accusation and more a general confusion which has been cleared up by your vitriolic response. So thank you, I hope that satisfies your ego. Incidentally, tweaking the facts to fit your viewpoint isn't an attack on your character, it's rationalisation, it's how you make decisions.

Have a nice day

 

[jklinders]

The child's right to a secure home and family environment should be paramount. If the adoptive family is a good secure loving environment then she should stay. This is an ugly situation for all but the child's needs must come first.

Being kidnapped and adopted is bad enough in terms of psychological damage (attachment disorders and whatnot) but then to take her away from the only family she knows just makes it worse. In this situation it needs to be about what is best for the child and not necessarily what is best for the families. All other facts surrounding the shady adoption agency and international politics should be secondary to this.

 

[Mictarmite]

Snip

Well, I don't have any knowledge about legal technicalities, but will the child really be considered American (without court intervention)? No passport, social security number etc. These documents don't just appear, nevermind pressure from the Guatemala government demanding a kidnapped (and in their eyes, still being kipnapped) child back.

The argument that the child should be staying with the adoptive parents simply because due to a better standard of life in the US is flawed and reeks of cultural bias - thus should not be used as the the major argument for the adoptive parents, just as it is wrong to base the argument on morality, the situation is far too complicated for this.

I would like to point out the time frame - child is kidnapped in Nov 2006, aged 2 (+9 months in womb), left the country in Dec 2008, and the bio family obtained a (Guatemalan) court order for the child's return in July 2011. It is wrong to assume that the child has been "socially formed" in the US, as the child had spent more time outside of the country by that time, while she had also been in three different situations for extremely similar amounts of time.

I never meant to argue that the adoptive parents didn't have a 'right' to keep raising the child, just that the bio family had more, and were in the right legally (she was kidnapped).I cannot say anything about what is right for the child in the complete picture - however the bio mother has herself been completely reasonable and said that she would accept having visitation rights.

 

[Raven's Nest]

The part that I THOROUGHLY like though, is when you say "The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...", which is confusing in the first place unless you know the child first hand. But then you also go on to state that you are not an expert in child psychology. I think if you do not know the child first hand, it does not make you capable of commenting on the child'd mental state or what she thinks.

Sorry I didn't mean that statement as literally as it reads. I would reword it to "The child may recognise her adoptive parents as her true parents but this would be a lie. They aren't her true parents and she'll find that out within the next ten years"

And, I am not saying that a 14 year old would not be affected..... I am not saying that at all.

What I AM saying though, is that it would affect the 7 year old for a longer amount of time.
Why? Because they would not have understood what was going on, they wouldn't understand why, they wouldn't understand who they are being given too.

The only reason it would not affect a 14 year old as badly is because at that point they have the capability of completely understanding what is going on. That doesn't mean they will be like "alright, fuck it, let's go" like you seem to think I meant. They will react, badly.

However, it will not affect them as further until their adult life as it would with a 7 year old child.

Well as I said, I haven't studied child psychology so I am open to being corrected here. It does seem to me that a younger child would have less trouble accepting it so long as the transition is slow and handled very carefully, which the latter is fundamental part of my opinion of how this case could be handled. Teenagers are rebellious enough, they would simply find more reasons to question it. Plus they don't have the highest track records for making logical arguments versus purely emotional ones.

Do you really think having to deal with all of this will be easier as (for sake of argument) an 18 year old? It is not simply about being brought up as an adopted child. As I've mentioned before, this child will have to deal with the fact that her real parents had fought tooth and nail to have her back, that the legal implications would require entirely new legislation. Hers would be a landmark case in determining international policy. Even if she didn't care about it she will be bombarded with questions all her life. Plus she will have to confront her adoptive parents about how they suddenly and very publicly found out that she was a kidnapped child.

At least a 7 year old kid would just have to learn to love two sets of parents. Assuming she moved back with her biological parents, at 18 years old she might just think of the adoptive parents as a kind Aunty and Uncle in the US who looked after her in a troubled time. I know that is how I would rationalise it, but then I wasn't kidnapped as a child and possible sold to another country. No-one on this forum has had that experience so nobody can even begin to claim how that might feel.

No matter how much I say "she will be upset"? What is wrong with you?

Mental stress and issues are not just someone "being upset". Mental stress can affect someone to the point of where they do not even leave a room. They completely stop any daily routine what so over. Hell, they can stop eating.

I think you can probably tell the way that statement was intended.

And I am sorry, I really am. You can not care how people deal with emotions all you like. You can sit in the corner doing everything with a cold expression like your having a colonoscopy for all I care. But having the supposed "best long term" interests for the child involves mental and emotional factors. I think based on the fact that you do not care about how people deal with emotions, and that a factor of this solution is based on the emotional and mental level, you are nowhere near qualified to provide an answer to this situation.

I didn't say I don't care how people deal with emotions. I waa interested in discussing the bigger picture of the case. The parts where this case will affect many peoples lives until they die. Making assumptions about how somebody might react to being moved to another country is not as helpful as addressing the real problems involved. I probably just value justice a little bit more than the feelings of one child. That is how the legal systems of the world operate, they cannot afford to make decisions based entirely on emotion. Unless you can address those issues realistically you are being about as helpful as being the lady in the corner screaming "won't somebody please think of the children.

None of us are qualified to provide an answer to this problem. None of us have independent access to the whole story. But that doesn't mean we can't contribute to a discussion about it. Whilst I think the situation is very sad, I think the discussion about the ethics and implications of this case is far more interesting.

After all, by leaving the child where she is we are saying it is fine for a child to be kidnapped and sent to a foreign country and never be returned so long as it's been X amount of time... If you don't find something fundamentally wrong with that then I guess I have nothing left to say to you.

 

[Maze1125]

After all, by leaving the child where she is we are saying it is fine for a child to be kidnapped and sent to a foreign country and never be returned so long as it's been X amount of time...

No it wouldn't. It would be saying that if a child has been kidnapped, but then has lived with people they consider to be their parents for a significant period of time, and the parents don't know the child was kidnapped then the best thing might be to leave the child the parents they are currently with.

At no point is the kidnapping being justified. Nor being considered "fine".
Nothing is fine about this situation. Whatever happens, people are going to lose out, the only thing to do now is ensure as few people lose out as possible.

And seriously, people need to stop saying "This'll make if fine to kidnap so long as it's been a long time." as though people would be able to kidnap a child for themselves and keep it. That's just rubbish. If someone kidnaps a child and raises it as their own, then they go to prison once they get caught, no matter how long it's been. They'll be no question of who will raise the child, as one of the two options will be locked up.

This case is unique as the adoptive parents never actually committed the crime themselves. It's not going to set any precedents about any other kidnapping cases at all.

Oh, and this:

"The child may recognise her adoptive parents as her true parents but this would be a lie. They aren't her true parents and she'll find that out within the next ten years"

Is total bollocks. Adoptive parents are just as real as biological parents. DNA doesn't mean squat and, as someone who was adopted and had to deal with my biological mother trying to "reclaim" me, I can say safely that anyone who thinks DNA means anything is a total fucking moron and it is an extremely offensive statement make.

My real parents are my adoptive parents, pure and simple.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Obviously she should be give back to her biological parents. She was kidnapped and they've been looking for her for the past 5 years. Hell her biological mother at the very least wants to be able to have contact with her. Seriously these adoptive parents have no right to keep the child from her real parents. The whole adoption thing wasn't actually official anyway.

As far as the child is concerned the adoptive parents ARE the real parents.

I agree that the biological mother deserves contact with the child. But you cant just say to a kid "Yeah we found your real mother turns out you were kidnapped say bye bye to who you thought was mummy now get on the boat... heres a spanish to english dictionary. This wont mentally scar or traumatise you at all. Now get in the house with that woman that youve never met before".

It isnt "obvious". If anyone gave more than a single crap about the child it would be "obvious" that the case isnt clear cut.

I think its wrong to take the poor child away from the life shes always known. Its just terrible for the mother... but if she cares about her daughter shell agree its best. Perhaps it could be arranged (funded by whatever stupid fucking agency let this happen) for the mother to come live in the US and visit the child.

Basically the solution to solving the kidnap isnt to kidnap her again back to Guatemala.

 

[Raven's Nest]

After all, by leaving the child where she is we are saying it is fine for a child to be kidnapped and sent to a foreign country and never be returned so long as it's been X amount of time...

No it wouldn't. It would be saying that if a child has been kidnapped, but then has lived with people they consider to be their parents for a significant period of time, and the parents don't know the child was kidnapped then the best thing might be to leave the child the parents they are currently with.

At no point is the kidnapping being justified. Nor being considered "fine".
Nothing is fine about this situation. Whatever happens, people are going to lose out, the only thing to do now is ensure as few people lose out as possible.

And seriously, people need to stop saying "This'll make if fine to kidnap so long as it's been a long time." as though people would be able to kidnap a child for themselves and keep it. That's just rubbish. If someone kidnaps a child and raises it as their own, then they go to prison once they get caught, no matter how long it's been. They'll be no question of who will raise the child, as one of the two options will be locked up.

This case is unique as the adoptive parents never actually committed the crime themselves. It's not going to set any precedents about any other kidnapping cases at all.

No this is exactly what it means...

The girl has been abducted and illegally taken out of Guatemala and illegally brought to the US and illegally adopted to a bunch of foreigners.

The Guatemalan government are demanding its citizen back. If the US wants to continue to play accessory to child abduction then by all means it should continue to hold the girl hostage.

Now I am fully aware the girl is not being treated like a hostage so don't wet yourself again. You obviously don't understand the legal issues of this case at all so invite you to read the posts by ultratwinkie in this thread so it can be spelled out for you.

If the US decides to make this girl a legal US citizen it is going to require some heavy duty legal work. No it might not be insurmountable but it will certainly have repercussions such as making the US less trustworthy in the eyes of its peers.

Oh, and this:

"The child may recognise her adoptive parents as her true parents but this would be a lie. They aren't her true parents and she'll find that out within the next ten years"

Is total bollocks. Adoptive parents are just as real as biological parents. DNA doesn't mean squat and, as someone who was adopted and had to deal with my biological mother trying to "reclaim" me, I can say safely that anyone who thinks DNA means anything is a total fucking moron and it is an extremely offensive statement make.

No it is not complete bollocks. DNA is how the law defines parenthood. Since this girl has a family who did not give her up legally, she is legally entitled to a family life with her biological parents. The paperwork signed by the adoptive parents is illegal and illegitimate. Not to mention there are some worrying unknowns concerning how the adoption was even set up but that is pure speculation.

I understand the notion of home is where the heart is. I understand that this 7 year old girl may think that the adoptive parents are her real family. I understand that if given the cold choice she would want to stay with them.

But this issue isn't about just the feelings of a young girl. It is about much much more than that. A legal case involving a serious criminal investigation, an illegal migration, a highly questionable adoption service, a potential major change in foreign policy and at the heart of it, a parental custody issue spanning two countries. This is not something that is going to be decided based on one factor - the feelings of a seven year old girl. This is how the real world works I'm afraid.

My real parents are my adoptive parents, pure and simple.

I have said absolutely nothing to the contrary where it concerns your situation.

 

[PatrickXD]

This really isn't about the parents, it's about the child. The best environment for the child to grow up in at this juncture would be with the adoptive parents. I'd say the child stays with them, and the real (in the strictly biological sense) parents get as much contact as is reasonably possible. I also feel that the child should be kept in full understanding of the situation (in case she chooses to go with her real parents).
But then again, I'm not the expert in these matters.

 

[doomspore98]

Does the Bio mother live in Guatemala. If so, this totally screws up my plan. If she lives in the states, couldn't she get a bit of funding to move to the place where the adopted parents live, or vive versa.

 

[Maze1125]

snip

"Blah blah blah, law this, law that. Blah blah blah, repercussions, blah."

None of that matters in the slightest as to what is morally right.

Yeah, the law isn't designed to deal with a case like this, no shit, yeah people might view it badly (or they might not, or people from other countries really might not care that much at all, you don't know any better than me) but none of that matters.

What matters is that the right thing to do is leave the child with her current parents.

The right thing can be an uphill struggle, but that doesn't change the fact that it's right.

 

[Maze1125]

snip

That makes absolutely no sense.

She's never going to stay in America without a court case, and if the judge decides she can stay she'll get legally adopted and get all that stuff.

 

[Raven's Nest]

snip

"Blah blah blah, law this, law that. Blah blah blah, repercussions, blah."

None of that matters in the slightest as to what is morally right.

Yeah, the law isn't designed to deal with a case like this, no shit, yeah people might view it badly (or they might not, or people from other countries really might not care that much at all, you don't know any better than me) but none of that matters.

What matters is that the right thing to do is leave the child with her current parents.

The right thing can be an uphill struggle, but that doesn't change the fact that it's right.

My apologies I seem to have momentarily forgotten that law doesn't matter. In that moment of madness I must have forgotten all about the magical fairy godmother who waves her wand and makes everything better by spreading love and compassion throughout the world...

No wait... No I didn't.. Laws and ethics still govern our daily lives like it or not. Its cases like these have absolutely no use for people who do not understand the realities of living in a society built upon laws and justice.

You say you have no wish to return to your biological mother, well the law has clearly ruled in your favour so don't pick and choose when you want to accept the laws of society.

 

[dcdude171]

If this was reversed - a US born child kidnapped and now being raised in Guatemala the US State Department would be sending in the FBI, or the Marines.

That this is even being debated is double standards and nothing else.

Well it isn't a double standard because the standarad of leaving is a lot less in guatemala then the US. There life would improve going from Guatemala to the US not the other way around.