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

[Eamar]

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?

This, pretty much:

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.

I can't believe how some people are completely ignoring the rights of the poor birth mother. From the story, it would seem she has done absolutely nothing wrong, to deny her her own child, who she's spent 5 years searching for, is morally abhorrent.

HOWEVER, the child obviously needs to be taken into account too, which makes it a million times more complicated.

 

[Dryk]

In an ideal situation the mother would do what's best for her child and give up... but if she really wants it back then... I dunno. I'd still probably leave her with the people that raised her, in the environment she was raised in. If she was a few years younger, or a few more years older... but seven... I'm just not comfortable with tearing her away.

 

[Woodsey]

I can't believe how some people are completely ignoring the rights of the poor birth mother. From the story, it would seem she has done absolutely nothing wrong, to deny her her own child, who she's spent 5 years searching for, is morally abhorrent.

HOWEVER, the child obviously needs to be taken into account too, which makes it a million times more complicated.

'Morally abhorrent' is attaching the theory of property ownership to a child and then valuing that above their mental health and safety.

No one's accusing the mother of anything; you have a shit situation in which the crux of the problem rests with what is best for the child.

You'd hope that there'd be a way to get the mother living in the States to make visitation practical, and from there they can build something again, but if not, then what's important is the girl.

 

[Signa]

Seriously these adoptive parents have no right to keep the child from her real parents. The whole adoption thing wasn't actually official anyway.

So the parents aren't allowed to love her like their own daughter because the paperwork was a fake? Sound logic.

 

[dumbseizure]

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?

This, pretty much:

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.

I can't believe how some people are completely ignoring the rights of the poor birth mother. From the story, it would seem she has done absolutely nothing wrong, to deny her her own child, who she's spent 5 years searching for, is morally abhorrent.

HOWEVER, the child obviously needs to be taken into account too, which makes it a million times more complicated.

Poor birth mother?

What about the rights of the child? If this goes through, she is effectively being taken away from the only family she has known, to go and live with a stranger, no matter what the original relationship would have been.

Would you have any idea how that would effect a child? Cause I can take a guess and say it would not be a positive reaction.

 

[Fuhrlock]

Everyone in this circumstance is clearly a victim and of course sympathy extends to all parties. However if the child is genuinely happy with her adoptive parents and wouldn't want to leave them (something that should be assessed and concluded by a neutral third party), the Mother should consider the child's happiness and wellbeing above her own. She should take solace in the fact that despite upsetting her personally she did what was best for the child and if theres some-way she can have contact with the child the adoptive family should try their best to allow it to happen.

The situation can't have a happy resolution but at the very least the child is made top priority, which in my mind is the only way this can be handled

 

[SillyBear]

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.

What sort of life you have isn't solely dependant on what sort of country you live in. Nor is there a direct link between happiness and what country you live in.

Just because the parents who adopted her live in the USA doesn't necessarily mean she will have a better life there than in Guatemala. It is also a horrible argument to use because it is essentially saying "These people can have her because they are American. Sorry, you don't get to have your child anymore".

 

[ShindoL Shill]

A lot of people are saying that she should go back to her biological mother, because she has more right to raise the child because she's biologically related.
Which is basically like saying the people who raised her for five years have no right to continue doing so.
Just playing devil's advocate here, folks.
What I said there could also be interpreted as saying the mother has no right to raise her child. Which I sort of am.
But think about it. We don't know if she's fit to raise this child. She has no idea what her daughter is like.
The daughter probably knows nothing about living in Guatemala, will probably have different religious beliefs etc and has a different cultural background now which her biological mother probably knows very little about (just like how the adoptive parents know very little about Guatemalan culture).

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

Leave the creature with her adoptive parents. She doesn't know her birth mother. She doesn't remember her birth mother. To plunge a child into a new culture in the the cqare of a stranger, removing her from any family and friends she has ever known cannot be considered 'The moral choice.'

 

[Bertylicious]

It isn't that tough a question to be honest. The girl has grown up with her adoptive parents and taking her away now would do more harm than good. I'm no expert but I think if a child is placed with a new family for more than 2 years then the amount of bonding means that seperating the child from their new family becomes very destructive in 100% of cases. The adoptive parents should tell the child either now or in the future, but when they do it is up to them.

It sucks for the biological mum but at the end of the day she knows that her daughter is alive, well cared for and will one day see her again.

 

[Bertylicious]

*reads comments*

Right. Well. Okay. Here's the thing:

In these situations you have to consider the welfare of the child to be paramount because the child is the most vulnerable person in this situation. The child is in a loving home, presumably, and disrupting that and using her as a token in some sort of weird game of moral brinksmanship is going to do nobody any favours.

I can appreciate the sentiment, truly, and also agree that sending the child back to her biological mother seems like the common sense approach but common sense isn't always right. Afterall, common sense would tell us that the world is flat.

 

[Ickorus]

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.

What sort of life you have isn't solely dependant on what sort of country you live in. Nor is there a direct link between happiness and what country you live in.

Just because the parents who adopted her live in the USA doesn't necessarily mean she will have a better life there than in Guatemala. It is also a horrible argument to use because it is essentially saying "These people can have her because they are American. Sorry, you don't get to have your child anymore".

That is NOT what I'm saying.

Think about it, why did she get kidnapped? most likely because she lived in a country with an extremely high crime rate.

There are over twenty five murders a day in Guatemala city alone and that's completely discounting all other crimes violent or otherwise.

When it comes down to it I don't care about which parents she gets, they both clearly love her dearly if neither party is willing to give her up but I'm thinking about what is best for the child here and it's absolute fact that she would live a far better life in America than in Guatemala so that is where I believe she should remain.

See: The comment above me, he knows what I mean.

 

[karloss01]

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.

If i was the adoptive parent i would let the kid decide but not matter the decision i would want to be part of her life. if she chose me then i wouldn't stop the biological parents from having some part in her life. it would be the best choice to make, stopping either side from seeing/being with the kid would be a bad move.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

This is... dicey. Because, while there is no way to say this in a way which doesn't sound horrible or cruel, the child was kidnapped while with her biological parents. That... does not make me, personally, think it's a safe place for her to be.

On the other hand, she's the second child as they already had another so at the very least they are capable enough parents given the first child was presumably not kidnapped. Really, it's a shitty situation as the adoptive parents haven't done anything wrong except spend large amounts of money caring for a child who they didn't know was kidnapped and will likely be returned to Guatamala but resents her birth mother as I doubt a Brick-Layer's salary will give them enough money to keep her in the manner she's accustomed to... everyone's going to end up miserable, I think.

And I have NO idea what the right moral choice is. Huh.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

This is probably a really cruel thing to point out; but if the family in the US adopted her, there's a good chance the reason is they cannot have children. Her birth-mother, probably still can.

Madam, you were dealt the shittiest hand I can imagine a parent being dealt. You searched, tirelessly for five years to find a most precious part of you that was snatched away from you by a cold hearted bastard who I hope rots on a roadside as we speak. Unfortunately, your child does not remember you. Mummy, to her, is the woman of Missouri who raised, loved and appreciated her in your stead (through NO fault of your own).

I could agonise over this for days, I could yell, run, hit a bag, talk to everyone from The Pope to Richard Dawkins and everyone inbetween. In the end though, I'd have to admit that when compared to the nation of her birth, the social stability, educational benefits, and quality of living would be far greater in the United States. This doesn't mean the people of Guatamala are lesser than the people of the US. I just couldn't bring myself to deprive her of that.

She could take heart in knowing, that her family may well have just gotten bigger than it was before. In the US, she could go to school, learn the language of her mother and they could talk over the internet or phone.


I'd suggest as a gesture they give the biological mother American citizenship so she can at least stay close to her daughter but I'm sure I'd be yelled at for letting another wellfare queen or something like that into the country.

 

[SorrySight]

Why does the child's opinion matter?

A 7 year old doesn't have a say in where they live and they can't choose what to do with the majority of their day (mandatory schooling, bedtime, grounding). Parents/guardians are the ones that decide if and when children of that age interact with their friends and extended family, what they eat and what they can and can't do with the spare time they're given.

Why should the adopting parents keep the child?

The child is stolen property. That they've had her for some time and bought her in ignorance doesn't entitle them to keep her. If the child were American or the parents the kidnappers this would be a non-issue.

 

[PhantomEcho]

Boo-hoo, my kid was kidnapped and adopted and has been gone for five years now but I want her back.

The kid is my PROPERTY! I -deserve- it back!

Preposterous.

Biology doesn't mean shit, when it comes to a child identifying with their parents. We've shown that time and time again, with adoption and adopted families. What matters is trust and emotional attachment. The girl has no memory at all of her biological family.

The idea of 'justice' being to rip the child from the family she DOES know, throw her into a 'foreign' (that's to HER, as well, folks) country, and tell her that her NEW family is actually these OTHER people? It's ridiculous.

It's more than ridiculous. IT'S BLATANTLY STUPID.


I get it. We're all materialistic and greedy, even about our offspring. Nevermind that we can always make more, we're possessive of the ones we have. It's a genetic thing, really. Ensures the species survives.

But what I don't get is that anyone actually has the gall to act like this is SENSIBLE.

You want to fuck up a kid for life? Take them from their parents. Give them new parents. Then take them from their parents again. If you're lucky, they learn how to cope with change... and then have difficulties maintaining a stable lifestyle with any kind of emotional attachments to anybody.

"Congratulations! It's a Sociopath!"

The girl belongs with the parents she knows. And as long as she knows that they aren't her biological parents, which ought to be REQUIRED, she ought to be given the choice to maintain contact with said biological parents if she so chooses. She's seven. That's old enough to know whether or not you want to talk to somebody. And that gives her plenty of time to get to know her biological family and reform all those severed attachments.

But she's already got one to the family she has now. Legal or not. And severing her familial bonds AGAIN is just asking for all kinds of trouble.

 

[Zhadramekel]

It's tough to say. On the one hand, the kid has grown up with her adoptive parents so if she went back to her biological mother it'd be tough at first. But if she was kidnapped when she'd had 2 years with her birth mother then, somewhere deep down, the kid is gonna have those memories. It's not like she was kidnapped when she was a couple of days old.

As for the mother, that kind of wound never would have and never will heal. She might have given up on seeing her baby ever again but that doesn't mean it doesn't still hurt.