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

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Answer is obvious, return the child to her biological parents and thus reinforce that not only is kidnapping not on, but receiving 'the proceeds' of crime is not on either, since it provides a motive for it to happen in the first place.

Let's face it, adoptive kids want to know their biological parents when they reach a certain age anyway.

I feel sympathetic for the adoptive parents, but they really need to demand the highest standards of proof and accountability, rather than give into desperation.

On a similar vein, the massive drug violence in Mexico, is being driven by consumer demand in the USA - that's what happens when there are massive economic disparities between nations, all sorts of injustices occur.

 

[dumbseizure]

Answer is obvious, return the child to her biological parents and thus reinforce that not only is kidnapping not on, but receiving 'the proceeds' of crime is not on either, since it provides a motive for it to happen in the first place.

Let's face it, adoptive kids want to know their biological parents when they reach a certain age anyway.

I feel sympathetic for the adoptive parents, but they really need to demand the highest standards of proof and accountability, rather than give into desperation.

On a similar vein, the massive drug violence in Mexico, is being driven by consumer demand in the USA - that's what happens when there are massive economic disparities between nations, all sorts of injustices occur.

Except the "proceeds" of the crime in this case is a child. One with feelings, thoughts, and everything else other humans have. This isn't a TV or a couch to just return to it's rightful owner. This decision needs to be thought out more carefully.

You can still reinforce that kidnapping is not right, without having to return the child as well by the way...

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Obviously it's a more complicated process, but I'm doubtful it'd really communicate that kidnapping's not cool, if the adoptive parents get to hold on to the child.

The best situation would be if the child returned to the biological parents, but the adoptive parents got to visit, if they were genuinely motivated to go to that trouble.. and best of all if the international community helped improve the poorer country so the morally bankrupt argument of the US being the best place for the child to be was no longer useable.

 

[kouriichi]

Its up to the child if you ask me. If shes happy where she is, theres no reason she should be ripped from her family.

I hate there society is so hung up on this "Genetic" bull. :/
I may have a father and mother, but my uncle is the one who raised me since i was 5. I will tell you right now, i look at my uncle as my father more then my actual "dad". So what if he spawned me. 400,000+ children are born everyday. Why do we place such a big deal on who they came from?

If the family raised her, shes happy, healthy, and enjoys her time with them, they are her family. Not someone she cant even remember. Even if she was kidnapped, im sorry but shes a completely different person from when you had her. 5 years in a completely different country does that. So unless they are the ones who kidnapped her, i see no reason for them to "return" her. I do feel bad for the parents, but i think they need to let it go. Shes probably better off where she is now so long as shes happy, and for that reason alone should end the discussion.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Yeah, but it still supports the kidnapping by rewarding the new parents (and punishes the biological parents for no good reason).. and think about it - when she was kidnapped that was also traumatic - but she got over it (admittedly, at that age it's easier). Five years from now, if returned to her original parents, she'll probably have a lot of friends at school and an established life, using your argument..

 

[Teshi]

Obviously the courts can't uphold an adoption that's the result of a kidnapping. It'd provide a precedent that would give carte blanche to human traffickers. She has to go back to her birth mother.

I believe there are special visas available for foreigners who are testifying in criminal cases. Perhaps if the mother wished to emigrate to the US, that would be extended to her, and she could have her citizenship proceedings expedited, and the pseudo-adoptive parents could then have visitation rights to the child...assuming it is shown that they were truly unaware of any criminal acts. Alternatively, if the adoptive parents are truly so devoted to the child, they can visit or establish a part-time residence in Guatemala - clearly they have significant financial means.

As far as the language issue goes, I'm not sure why everyone is assuming the birthmother knows no English and would be unable to communicate with an English-speaking child. And if comparative national standards of living are the deciding factor in where a child should be raised, then Norwegians ought to be allowed to abduct American children as they like, eh?

 

[Freechoice]

Snip

Well no, I'm not arguing that Guatemala has any remotely similar "quality" of life standards at all, just that it is wrong to assume that the child's life will be better in the US, or at least, to acknowledge that this is not the only factor that is in play.

I too believe that the press event will have made it much easier for paperwork (though I can't say with any expertise), but will have also led to increased pressure from he Guatemalan government and the international community. This will stem from from the fact that this double standard (that the US can keep kidnapped children from your country, even after only 2-3 years in the US, while they demand our kidnapped children back immediately (even through threatening military force)) will have incensed other governments, as it makes the US (and their citizens) look arrogant and that they have a superiority complex over the world.

I believe the situation would be best served by letting the biological family choose, after seeing her living conditions etc. in the US, the bio family have a right to have their child grow up in whatever way they choose (e.g. religion, culture - as long as it isn't an obvious negative detriment to the child)- keeping the child in the US sets a precedence that the US can just roll over other nations and their people because the American way of life is better.

In a way, a double standard seems like a logical thing when you look at the economic situation of most other countries. When you go from first world to third world, they may as well have just tattooed the word "fucked" onto your back and kicked you in the ass. That's not to say that third world countries suck, I'm just saying I wouldn't drink the water in them.

But yes, your idea sounds very reasonable.

And if comparative national standards of living are the deciding factor in where a child should be raised, then Norwegians ought to be allowed to abduct American children as they like, eh?

Iunno. I hear they eat rotten fish in Norway. [http://satwcomic.com/art/nordics-like-fish.jpg]

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Oh god that must suck for the kid. Imagine having to choose between your parents and birth parents. Nobody should have to make that decision.

 

[likalaruku]

I've always said that your parents aren't the people who brought you into the world, but the people who raise you. The kid is going to grow up with some serious issues if she's deported & will more likely than not grow up resenting her birth mother.

 

[Sixcess]

I've always said that your parents aren't the people who brought you into the world, but the people who raise you. The kid is going to grow up with some serious issues if she's deported & will more likely than not grow up resenting her birth mother.

The kid is going to have issues the first time she types her name into Google and finds this story splashed all over the internet. This has been running for quite a while now and has been extensively discussed.

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

As to 'letting the child decide', which some people are advocating - she's 7, and 7 year olds don't get to decide what time they go to bed, let alone this. This is a court case in two countries and the only place 7 year olds get to decide the verdict in court cases is in Disney movies.

 

[Korolev]

It would be nice to work something out between the adoptive parents and the biological parents. If push comes to shove, and only one set of parents gets custody, then yes, I'll lean on the side with the biological parents, and say that they should probably get custody back.

But it's not as black-and-white as "Stay or Go". We live in a world of international travel. Why can't she visit her adoptive parents from time to time, and when she's older let her make a decision.

 

[ArnRand]

snip

snip

edit/update: A few pages later, it seems there are a number of people who are using the "hey, the US is a first world country, so the child should live here, even if she wants to return to her real parents!" The Escapist has its share of shitty people, but I'm a little disappointed. I guess there was more truth to your assessment of the issue than I would have liked to acknowledge, though I still stand by my statement that there is a solid argument that staying with the adoptive parents is the right thing.

I don't really see what's so wrong with 'the US is a first world country' as an argument. They have better schools, better supply of food, better healthcare (just about, anyway.), better police force...the list goes on. If you're going to argue someone won't have a better quality of life in america than guatemala, well, you're just wrong.

However, it could be that quality of life shouldn't come into this debate. But I think it does, so...

 

[Mictarmite]

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.

 

[Thyunda]

If this were as simple as it was at the start of this thread, I'd have suggested the kid stay with the adopted parents. Not because of 'first world country American' and 'dirty foreign Guatemala' but for a couple of reasons - First I've always followed that the parents are they who raised you not whose blood you are. Five is more than two. Of course this is a conversation that should be had between the adoptive parents and the biological mother. If that's the line they choose to take, I would call that justified.
The other end of it being that the kid was taken in Guatemala. Wherever the biological mother lives, it's clearly not all that safe. Why was the kid stolen? Is there a trafficking business between certain adoption agencies in the United States and organisations in Guatemala? Was this woman targeted purposefully?
Now the first seems a little unlikely - I can't really see what benefit adoption agencies in the USA would gain from taking on little Guatemalan kids.
So is it the second? Was there friction between Loyda Hernandez and local thugs? Was the child taken as some kind of attack on her?

If the child is returned, is that likely to happen again? Or something worse?


Reading the page Sixcess posted puts a fraudulent Christian charitable adoption agency into the frame...though I still don't understand what there is to gain from these kidnappings.

Given that the Monahans were made aware of the circumstances surrounding this adoption BEFORE any of this happened - the suspicion being that they knew as soon as the deal was going on puts something else entirely into frame.

They should never have accepted. On this basis, and this basis alone, the girl belongs to Hernandez. It does raise further questions though. Adoption agencies are well-known to be overpopulated as a whole. There should not be any reason to look beyond your local area to adopt a child. There is no reason why an unfortunately barren couple should have to resort to criminal adoption to have a child.

Now that's what gets added. Why resort to such shady dealings?

Give the damn kid back and get it over with.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Oh wow, I guess I was right to suspect the adoptive parents afterall.

This case just became a whole lot easier to deal with, ethically anyway. I'm sure the US will drag its heels through the whole ordeal. Resolving this issue quickly is going to be the key thing now.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The child should be returned to her parents. This whole situation stinks and the adoptive parents seem to have knowingly become involved in an adoption that was sketchy from the beginning.