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

[Colour Scientist]

=/
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.

Or, alternatively, the adoptive parents could move to Guatemala, right?

 

[Dastardly]

Fun fact, considering that the child is A VICTIM OF KIDNAPPING they never had any right to raise her.

Her adoptive family didn't kidnap her. And they've been caring for her for most of her life so far.

You're approaching this case as though it were about property rights.

What should be done here? The only right answer is back to the mother, no if's and's or but's. Would that suck for the kid? Yes. Does it matter? No, not really.

And there's the problem -- what "sucks" for the kid is the only thing that matters. Now, it could be argued both ways, to be sure. But there's no getting around that this decision should be based on what's best for the child, not the pride or feelings of either set of parents. That's how custody cases work.

She's not a car or a television set.

 

[Dastardly]

=/
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.

Or, alternatively, the adoptive parents could move to Guatemala, right?

Doesn't make much sense. Most of the people involved in the case are US citizens, and the US legal system is the one sorting through all of this at the moment. Just speaking logistics, that puts the solution on this side of the border for now.

 

[Vivi22]

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..

This is incredibly naive. A 7 year old may not be able to articulate what a family is very well (then again, maybe she could), but they absolutely know what it is and to this girl, it will not be her mother back in Guatemala. Simply ripping her from the family she knows to give her back to the family she doesn't in another country, especially when she may not even speak the language at this point, would absolutely traumatize the kid. And regardless of who has legal right to the child, her welfare should absolutely be the top priority.

I agree with the person who said that a reasonable solution would be to leave her with the adoptive parents and allow the biological mother to have as much contact as possible. Is it an ideal solution? No. Is it a just solution? Certainly not. But nothing about the situation is ideal or just. The most important thing at this point is not causing further harm to the child, even unintentionally.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Doesn't make much sense. Most of the people involved in the case are US citizens, and the US legal system is the one sorting through all of this at the moment. Just speaking logistics, that puts the solution on this side of the border for now.

It seems pretty unfair to only expect the mother to pack up and leave her home though. I think the child should be returned to her biological mother even though it is a tricky situation and, if that were to happen, no one seems to be entertaining the possibility of the adoptive parents moving if some sort of visitation/joint custody situation was to arise.

 

[mirasiel]

Neither set of parents matter, not biological nor adoptive. Neither 'deserves' the child, like she's some kind of fancy electronic device to be bidded for on E-bay.


What matters is what is best for the welfare and development of the child in question, without a battery of child psych experts, medical professionals and possibly Super Nanny to give me information...I'll go with my own opinion which is that she should probably stay with her 'adoptive' family who she's known most of her life rather than putting *her* through the trauma of being kidnapped and forced to live in a forieng land...again.

Only this time she might actually remember it and understand whats been done to her, again.

Biological parents should have generous visitation rights, though that will need some serious support financially and legally to be feasible.

 

[michaelknives52]

Give the child back... enough said. She will get over it.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Fun fact, considering that the child is A VICTIM OF KIDNAPPING they never had any right to raise her.

The adoptive parents do not have any rights to the child, the adoption is null and void. The only person here having any rights is the biological mother.

What should be done here? The only right answer is back to the mother, no if's and's or but's. Would that suck for the kid? Yes. Does it matter? No, not really. There is no perfect solution here, but the only one that is even close to being right is sending her back.

From a legal standpoint, they had no right. Under CONTRACT law. That would work if she were a cow or a stolen lamp. She is a human child.
That means this an issue for children's court, which has the legal obligation to do what is best for the child. Which is most likely letting the adoptive parents keep her. The parents who raised her.

The best solution I can think of is basically the US giving her Mother citizenship and practically paying for her as a sign of goodwill, then have her live next door to the adopted parents so that the child can slowly warm up and ultimately live with her. This is the best solution I can think of for the child.

Not really a solution. For all we know, the child may never warm up to the birth mother. That's pretty likely, as the child
1. Won't remember her
2. Probably won't speak the same language
3. Is from a different culture and
4. Might even shun her on purpose to stay with her adopted parents.

she is really effected by "Stockholm Syndrom".

That only applies in situations where the captors put the victim in danger.
Saying that applies here is like saying ALL adoptions where the child likes the parents are actually Stockholm Syndrome cases (which only happens about 27% of the time), because the parents thought it was a legitimate adoption.

 

[michaelknives52]

But then again it depends on different factors... like did the original mother sell her child for money? Or was she duped into believing that the child was being sent to America for some program or something. Or was the kid just scooped up one day when she turned her back. International law is on the side of the mother regardless of whether she is rich or poor. :3 I mean seriously people... allow her to stay. Business would be booming and more people will be willing to go through the risks of gaining a legal adoption. Sorry it isn't finders keepers losers weapers guys. I your 2 year old was kidnapper and by the grace of god he/she wasn't sold to a pedifile... and the child was found a few years later in say France or Bulgaria... would you be like gee... he has been there for a while with an adopted legit family.... she can stay.... If you said YES you would give up your baby in this situation the you sir/ma'am are lying.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

If you said YES you would give up your baby in this situation the you sir/ma'am are lying.

Good point.
How about if I said "Hey, you know that child you adopted and raised for five years? Turns out, that was a load of bullshit. The birth mother wants her kid back. So go on. Give her up."
If you just said "Okay." you're lying just as much. And in fact, the birth mother of all people should know what it's like to lose a child you raised.
This is why this is an issue for a children's court, who do what is best for the child.

 

[Eamar]

Fantastic. I love how so many people are basically saying the birth mother should just suck it up and deal with it.

I KNOW this is going to cause problems for the kid, and I've said before that this is not clear-cut. Even the birth mother is asking for at least some contact, accepting that she's not going to get her daughter back straight away. I am NOT advocating suddenly ripping the child away from the life and family she has known for the last few years, obviously it needs to be done more sensitively than that.

But seriously, all of you being so dismissive of the birth mother, would you honestly take your own advice in this situation? Do you advocate this approach in every case of kidnapping? Does your parenthood "expire" after a certain period of not being with your child, even when, as here, this happens through no fault of your own? Because that's the sort of argument that seems to be treating the child as property to me, not the ones pointing out that, holy crap, the mother might be pretty upset about this as well.

Also, the poor kid has already been subject to plenty of upheaval: the article states that she was kidnapped in Nov. 2006 and not adopted until Dec. 2008. The life with her American family is not "the only life she has ever known."

Honestly though, I feel so sorry for everyone involved in this

 

[bliebblob]

Work out some way both families can be involved in her life. Kinda like a shared custody. What else are you gonna do? Give her to one family and have them keep it a secret forever? Yeah that always works out great...

I say just share custody and also let her know what exactly is going on. Like "so when you were still a baby, some bad men came and gave you to other parents. But those other parents turned out to be really nice! And now the bad men are gone and you have two families who love you! Isn't that great?" There, done.

 

[Eamar]

Work out some way both families can be involved in her life. Kinda like a shared custody. What else are you gonna do? Give her to one family and have them keep it a secret forever? Yeah that always works out great...

I say just share custody and also let her know what exactly is going on. Like "so when you were still a baby, some bad men came and gave you to other parents. But those other parents turned out to be really nice! And now the bad men are gone and you have two families who love you! Isn't that great?" There, done.

This would be the ideal situation (inasmuch as any solution can be "ideal" in this sort of case). The problem is the two families live in different countries...

 

[WanderingFool]

Hard choice, but I would let the child stay with the adoptive parents. This is simply because she was raised by them for 5 years. To make a transition from a family you've known for that long to another that you may have barely any memory of, would be traumatising for the child.

I would have the caveat that the mother gets to visit.

 

[Raven's Nest]

far as the little girl is concerned, you might as well be taking her away from her real parents.

As for the biological mother, however, well... sometimes we're dealt a sour hand. It's no one's fault, but the kid has already spent half her early childhood with the adopters, and can't tell her biological mother from a hole in the wall. It'd be selfish to take her away from that.

Certainly, though, she should be given regular contact with the child, as someone else suggested.

Point is, it's all not so black and white.

It's not black and white but I dare you to walk up to the biological mother and say "Sorry your daughter was kidnapped when she was a toddler but she's now been adopted to some foreigners. But you know, some times life just deals us a sour hand right? You should probably just forget about her because she probably doesn't remember you"...

Yeah excuse me for not taking you seriously when you say you should put the child's feelings first when you apparently don't understand adult emotions all that great.

Why should she "absolutely" have to go back to her biological mother?

What if this change of scenery causes the daughter concern? Mental stress? What if it affects her in a negative way?

How can you justify saying she "absolutely" has to go back with (from what I am reading, correct me if I am wrong) no concern for the child's mental health?

Basically, you and quite a few others don?t seem to understand the time scale of a scenario like this. The girl is 7 years old. It?d be fair to say that by the time she reaches 12 years old she?d have a pretty good grasp on how the internet works...
How would you feel if you found out that at a young age you were kidnapped and sold to an adoption agency then whisked away to a foreign country while all the while your real mother campaigned and fought to have you back? Now we can all sit back and say, well she must be having a sweet life in the states and everything is wonderful but nobody here knows that. She might hate it, she might grow up to resent them and vice versa. With all this media attention focused on her case do you really think she will never find out? Do you honestly think that she would turn around and say, you know what? Everything turned out for the best, If that happened to my kid and she was taken against her will to a foreign country, i?d just sit back and think sure that?s fine, the kid will never know and grow up to be smart, beautiful and rich just like me

No...
The best thing to happen is for mother to be reunited with her child and then given the support to help rebuild their lives together. There is no reason to suggest a bright future can?t come from this situation. It won?t be easy, but it?s the right thing to do.

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.

Absolutely this. Can you even imagine for a minute that if Madeline Mcann was found to have been adopted and living with a family in Romania that everyone would turn around and say ?Well she?s been with them as long as she knew her own parents, it?s probably best she stays there and is never told anything about it.
Get real!

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..

This is incredibly naive. A 7 year old may not be able to articulate what a family is very well (then again, maybe she could), but they absolutely know what it is and to this girl, it will not be her mother back in Guatemala. Simply ripping her from the family she knows to give her back to the family she doesn't in another country, especially when she may not even speak the language at this point, would absolutely traumatize the kid. And regardless of who has legal right to the child, her welfare should absolutely be the top priority.

I agree with the person who said that a reasonable solution would be to leave her with the adoptive parents and allow the biological mother to have as much contact as possible. Is it an ideal solution? No. Is it a just solution? Certainly not. But nothing about the situation is ideal or just. The most important thing at this point is not causing further harm to the child, even unintentionally.

I can only point you to the above conversation as my opinon is pretty much fully expressed there.
Allowing the biological mother ?visiting times? is frankly ridiculous. Either she is a part of her daughters life or she isn?t at least until the child is old enough to make that decision for herself. If the parent and child were separated by a bus journey then its something that might be considered. As it stands Guatemala is pretty far away and i?m prepared to bet the mother can?t afford to make that flight ?every other weekend or so?.

This kid is going to grow up having serious emotional problems over this issue because of all the media input and legal matters. There simply isn?t an easy path for anyone. It is my opinion that the mother being a victim of a crime which has emotional damage far exceeding something a child might experience at her age is entitled to be reunited with her daughter.

I think the best (or at least ideal) solution would be for the adoptive parents to slowly introduce the girl to her birth mother and allow them to rebuild their relationship before withdrawing from her life. This should be done in Guatemala so that the girl can begin to understand her true culture and come to terms with what has happened and what is about to happen at her own pace.

 

[bliebblob]

Work out some way both families can be involved in her life. Kinda like a shared custody. What else are you gonna do? Give her to one family and have them keep it a secret forever? Yeah that always works out great...

I say just share custody and also let her know what exactly is going on. Like "so when you were still a baby, some bad men came and gave you to other parents. But those other parents turned out to be really nice! And now the bad men are gone and you have two families who love you! Isn't that great?" There, done.

This would be the idea situation (inasmuch as any solution can be "ideal" in this sort of case). The problem is the two families live in different countries...

Yeah I'm still working on that part. Webcam/skype could be a start. She could also visit her biological family in the summer and attend school in the states the rest of the year.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Fun fact, considering that the child is A VICTIM OF KIDNAPPING they never had any right to raise her.

Her adoptive family didn't kidnap her. And they've been caring for her for most of her life so far.

You're approaching this case as though it were about property rights.

It is about property rights. A child is the property of their parent(s) until they either become adults or the parents do something to get their property confiscated. To claim that a child isn't the parent's property is absurd. Imagine that you gave birth to a child, only to be informed by the doctor that a very wealthy couple have taken in your baby as their own. Would you accept that? Would you be thrilled that your child is probably going to have a higher quality of life than they would with you? Or would you be angry because you had a child so that you could actually have a child.