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

[Guffe]

This is a tricky one.
Because she knows the parents she has got now and has friends etc.
Besides she doesn't know her "real mom" so maybe she could visit her once in a while and maybe as the kid gets older they could start wondering more about it.
So let her stay were she is, she most likely gets good education etc and start meeting with her mom, but staying were she has lived the past 5 years.

 

[Eamar]

Well, obviously it's going to be uncomfortable for everyone involved whatever happens, but she HAS to end up back with the biological mother, surely? Not immediately, but in the end that's how it has to be.

Can you imagine being the parent of a child who was stolen, spending five years searching for her, finally finding the kid, only to have the courts decide to effectively uphold the kidnapping? That's the stuff of nightmares, right there.

Also, I'm trying really, really hard not to judge but... if you're going to adopt a child from a foreign country SURELY you'd do a fucktonne of research into how adoption works legally there and who you have to go through? I have no idea how convincing the traffickers were, but I can't help but feel the adoptive parents should have done some more digging :/

 

[dumbseizure]

Well, obviously it's going to be uncomfortable for everyone involved whatever happens, but she HAS to end up back with the biological mother, surely? Not immediately, but in the end that's how it has to be.

I asked again earlier, but I will ask again now.

Why does she HAVE to end up back with the biological mother? How will being with a woman she does not effectively know be more beneficial for her mental health than being with a family she has known for the last 5 years?

If it does not benefit the child in the slightest and instead causes mental stress and other issues, what then?

 

[manic_depressive13]

Well, obviously it's going to be uncomfortable for everyone involved whatever happens, but she HAS to end up back with the biological mother, surely? Not immediately, but in the end that's how it has to be.

I asked again earlier, but I will ask again now.

Why does she HAVE to end up back with the biological mother? How will being with a woman she does not effectively know be more beneficial for her mental health than being with a family she has known for the last 5 years?

If it does not benefit the child in the slightest and instead causes mental stress and other issues, what then?

I believe the idea is that the biological mother is 'owed' something considering she was the one who carried the daughter around for nine months, went through the pain of childbirth and cared for the baby for two years. Someone then stole the child and presumably made a profit by selling her without any consent from the mother. To have the courts rule that she cannot have the child back seems extremely unfair given that she has done nothing wrong.

I do think it is in the child's best interest to stay with the adoptive family and hopefully the biological mother will acknowledge this. However, if she insists on having her child back I think it is absolutely unacceptable to use the law to essentially sanction a kidnapping.

 

[Kenkurogue]

Here's what we do.
We cut the child straight down the middle and give half to each family.
I think there was supposed to be another step to this plan but I'm sure I'll remember it... eventually.

Lol. This reminded me of an old SNL bit called Samurai Divorce Court. Anyway, I think the biological mother should be the one to decide. The birth mother has the rights here, but forcing the child back may or may not be the best thing for her. At least give the mother the option.

 

[SillyBear]

I feel for the child's mother. This is her little girl - her hopes, her dreams and her child. She has been fighting tooth and nail to find her for years and now there is a chance all she will get is: "sorry. New family now. You can't have her".

There isn't a right answer to this. I think the best solution would be to allow both families to be involved in her life - but that is hard considering one is from Guatemala and one is from the States.

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?

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Nouw]

Spoiler: Spoilers for a certain WH40K series

Sounds like a real life example of what happened to Gol Kolea. I haven't finished Straight Silver so no spoilers on how the issue gets resolved!

 

[MorganL4]

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 7, she is too young to make such a call

 

[Nouw]

Snipped for Teh Emprah!

Close but no dice .

 

[Hattingston]

=/
Shitty situation.
If the mother gets her child back, she basically takes her into a completely alien world and situation, while taking away her means of communication, her friends, and her caretakers, and likely a good portion of the opportunities she would have had, and lives with a woman she doesn't remember. On the other hand, I see the argument that the mother would want her back because it IS her child.
Note that this is all based completely on the "right" thing to do. Legally, she should have to go back to her biological parents. Honestly though, if I was in this position, I would do everything I could to move to the US and attempt to have a joint-parentage type situation. Full disclaimer, I have no idea how difficult it would/would not be to move to the US.

 

[llubtoille]

Definitely a double standard, but that doesn't necessarily mean giving the kid back is right or wrong. It could be wrong (with the US just being bullies) or it could be right (with the US pursuing the right thing when it benefits a US citizen, but refusing to do so when it benefits a foreigner).

By what possible definition is that 'right'?

I danced around using the R word in my first post, because once it comes up in these kind of discussions it never ends well, but I feel this debate is fuelled by an assumption that the child is better off because she's now in a prosperous 1st world nation rather than a 3rd world nation full of 'foreigners', and that is racism.

probably more wealthism imo,
be funny if it turned out the mother was obscenely rich, while the adopters destitute XD

regarding the topic, I'd base it on who's had her for longest, in this case being the adopters.
Most people don't remember their pre 3 years, but your 4 - 10 years can really define who you are.

 

[Ickorus]

Morally it would be best to give her back to her biological mother because she had the child taken away from her without her consent and it seems only right that she should get her back even if the adoptive parents raised her for longer, however, if you choose based on what's best for the child's it would be best to let the adoptive parents keep her because they live in a far richer and more stable country.

So, the question really is this:

What is best for the child or what is morally right.

I think I'd personally have to pick what's best for the child here.

 

[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.

 

[Ickorus]

I feel for the child's mother. This is her little girl - her hopes, her dreams and her child. She has been fighting tooth and nail to find her for years and now there is a chance all she will get is: "sorry. New family now. You can't have her".

There isn't a right answer to this. I think the best solution would be to allow both families to be involved in her life - but that is hard considering one is from Guatemala and one is from the States.

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?

That doesn't make sense.

It does really, whilst it is getting better Guatemala still isn't a the most stable of countries and crime is still extremely high; not the best country to raise a child, she'd have a much better life in America.

 

[Woodsey]

Ask the girl.

And yeah, we probably all know who the girl's going to pick, and that doesn't exactly leave a happy ending, but it should be up to the girl.

For all intents and purposes, the girl has lived in America as an American with her American family her whole life. You can't ship her back to Guatemala to live with a woman she doesn't know.