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

[Jarek Mace]

Why is the biological mother any better of a parent?

 

[Maze1125]

Oh really? I though You had a regular adoption instead of being kidnapped from a Latin American country and adopted using fake credentials. Using the story of "my bio mother tried to take me awayyyyyyy" doesn't fucking work. We are talking about HER case, not YOURS.

There is a reason your problems are called YOUR problems. There is a fine line between your case and hers, and any problems you have in your case should not effect hers. They shouldn't have to effect anyone else or effect any decisions for anyone else. Period. Logic can not be tainted by emotion or its not logic. Its simply bias created by personal trauma.

At no point have I claimed that I have pertinent experience of this case.
There are two possible situations.

a) I am just as in the dark as everyone else. In which case my opinion is just as valid as everyone else's.
b) I have some level of experience that can validly relate to this case. If that's true, then it should be a good thing, as a page ago everyone was going "No-one understands this case properly, none of us have valid opinions on how they feel." so any level of experience is better than none.

I was then pointing out how everyone suddenly changed their tunes to "Well you're just biased" as soon as they thought someone might have a better experience with situations like this than them. (Which, again, I never once claimed to.)

Fact is, you know fuck all about these people. All you actually know is that they CLAIM to have not known that she was kidnapped. That's it. You don't even know if they really didn't buy a kidnapped child because it was the path of least resistance. Nothing in the article gives any real reason to believe that these are wonderful people that she should be staying with. In fact, a few things in the article could be claimed cause for suspicion.

And we don't know anything about the biological mother either, for all we know she sold her daughter to the traffickers for a quick buck.

We don't know anything about either side, so we have give them both the benefit of the doubt.

Okay now you are just grasping at straws, saying nothing but conjecture. They CAUGHT the kidnappers, and NEVER in that case did the kidnappers say the mom sold the kid to them. WHY would they keep that secret in court? They would have gotten off scott free. Again, you fail to research the case and limit your own emotions to demonize the biological mother.

Better yet, WHY would the mother search for five years, using her own time and money I might add? Why?

Did you read the post I was quoting?
Yes, conjecture about the people involved is bad, that was the exact point I was making.

 

[invadergir]

It's very clear by reading this thread that most of the posters don't have children. They are looking at the problem from the perspective of a child, rather then a legal or parental stand-point.

 

[Maze1125]

So are you suggesting that if she sold her child it would have been a good idea to immediantly call attention to her being gone? Do you even think for a split second before you post your nonsense?

It's fairly obvious that you are EXTREMLY biased. You know fuck all and are outright claiming:

"I AM RIGHT! SHE BELONGS WITH THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS WHO COULD HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN PART OF THE KIDNAPPING AND I TOTALLY HAVE REASONS OTHER THEN MY OBVIOUS MENTAL PROBLEM BECAUSE MY MOTHER TRIED TO TAKE ME AWAY FROM MY ADOPTIVE PARENTS I AM SIMPLY NOT NAMING THESE REASONS!!!"

You are projecting and if you can't stop you need to get out of the thread and take a walk until you've cleared your mind.

You're just randomly insulting me now.
I'm not projecting, this is a completely different situation than mine.

I have given reasons on the previous pages. This particular part of the discussion didn't seem to benefit from me repeating them, so I didn't.

It seems like you're just posting for the sake of flaming people. To the point of making stuff up to attack me with.

I am not trying to insult you, I am telling you that it is plain as day that you need to take a step back and chill out, otherwise nobody can take you seriously. You may think that you aren't projecting, but you are.

I have not noticed any reason of yours that hasn't been emotional. Even if you did, the moment you started claiming that you are right because you say so, you lost any credibility whatsoever. So, once more, take a step back and cool off, then you might be worth hearing out.

Well, in that case go back and read them again.
And I never once said that I was right "just because".
So, yeah, you're just making stuff up.

1. How do you mistakenly hire a PR firm? That is a whole new level of stupid.

What? The mistake was adopting a kidnapped child.
I explicitly said that hiring the PR firm was a sensible move.

Are you even bothering to read posts before responding?

2. How do you mistakenly not research adoptions? Do they even KNOW how adoptions are legal mazes? If not, they are still idiots.

Being ignorant is not the same as being an idiot.

3. You don't suddenly "get" 10K from nowhere.

Uhhh, yes you can.
My wife's grandmother died and she got exactly 10K in the will.
So, yeah, you can just come into money.

The courts may order something, but other courts may strike it down. Its the same way the supreme court can strike down decisions made in smaller courts. Anyone who knows law knows this.

Yes, they can, but why would they?
Further, once she has the documents, courts become pretty much irrelevant, she'll still be able to do all the things you said she couldn't. Getting into university and driving-licences don't require court cases last I checked.

I have PROVEN my points, yet you refuse to acknowledge it and fall back on your own personal experience.

The only thing you've proven is that the law is not in their favour, which I agree with.
My argument is that the law should be in their favour.

In other words, you use anecdotal evidence and circular logic that "you're right because you say so."

Give me an example of where I've done any one of those things.

Where is your external sources? Where?

What external sources could I give to the argument "I think this is the morally right thing to do."?

Mine is backed up with the Hagues abduction law, US law, Guatemalan Law,

Which I recognised. I just disagree with them as absolute moral imperatives.

and the facts made clear in the case.

What facts? That they "totally seem suspicious"? If so, I think you need to look up what the word "fact" means.

 

[SilverApple]

What is "real"? Biological=/= real. For the record, I wouldn't like to have to be someone who had to make a decision over it, because it's a hell of a lot more complicated than "biological parents are real parents" or "it's the law".

We have laws about child abduction, because it's generally in children's best interests not to be abducted, and we want to prevent that kind of thing.

That doesn't mean that the fairest solution of all, after it already happened is necessarily to return the child. The adoptive parents presumably love this child. The biological mother presumably loves this child. Both are parents to her. Love isn't made more valid by DNA.

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.

Without permission from the parents, they can't. Guatemala won't allow it, and refuse to send her the paperwork. The biological parents and national authority trumped the adoption, so they have no case.

The Hague abduction convention clearly lies all this out. Its the US government that refuses to send her back because the treaty wasn't "retroactive" despite it containing wording that it is.

Its the US dragging its heels on an treaty they have a legal obligation to fulfill.

Are you implying that they are intentionally breaking an international treaty? If they are willing to do that, I expect they'll follow through, and find loopholes within their own legal system and bureaucracy, to give her all the documentation she'll need in later life. Comparatively simple.

 

[Sixcess]

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.

Absolute rubbish.

The average standard of living is statistically higher, but that's not to say the US parents don't lose their jobs due to an economic downturn, get their house repossessed, and spend the next decade on welfare.

There's a perception running rampant in this thread that the US family is living the american dream in some ideal Norman Rockwell small town, whilst the Guatamalan mother is living in some crime ridden shanty town. Do I even need to begin to say how likely it is that perception is utter nonsense?

This is about the third time I've been responded to with this argument and it's not getting any less ridiculous. If anyone else would like to repeat it do me a favour and just write "America: FUCK YEAH!" It'll get your viewpoint across in less words but just as accurately.

 

[Hectix777]

Fuck...

I don't know the answer to that one, but it definitely involves several tons of bricks coming down on various people and organisations involved.

Dude, c'mon! It's the simplest riddle in the book, it's the trial before King Solomon! Remeber from Sunday school, if you don't or are not Christian here's the long and skinny of it:

Ancient Egypt: Pharaoh is told a newborn baby boy will be his downfall, has all the first born sons of his subjects fed to alligators. One lady sends her baby to safety in a basket down the Nile. Another lady finds the kid and raises it. The original mother finds her son after the Pharaoh died or something (still fuzzy on the details) and demands him back, the new momma says no. So they take this little custody hearing to the wisest man in the land, King Solomon. Solomon holds a little trial, has both mothers plea their case, and their both equally valid. So Solomon says,"Let's chop the baby in half and give a piece to each mother." RIGHT as he pulled his sword out to cut the baby in half, the birth mother said,"No! She can keep him, let my child live!" Solomon than put the sword away and gave the baby back to the birth mother.

Not really sure if this relates to this, or if they're totally the same, but I think it relates to this. A little bit at least. I dunno.

Oh, and before someone shatters my childhood, I'm aware that the real reason had something to do with cannibalism, so lil' too late to that party.

 

[Freechoice]

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.

Absolute rubbish.

The average standard of living is statistically higher, but that's not to say the US parents don't lose their jobs due to an economic downturn, get their house repossessed, and spend the next decade on welfare.

There's a perception running rampant in this thread that the US family is living the american dream in some ideal Norman Rockwell small town, whilst the Guatamalan mother is living in some crime ridden shanty town. Do I even need to begin to say how likely it is that perception is utter nonsense?

This is about the third time I've been responded to with this argument and it's not getting any less ridiculous. If anyone else would like to repeat it do me a favour and just write "America: FUCK YEAH!" It'll get your viewpoint across in less words but just as accurately.

It's the third time you're responding to it because your argument is stupid. You're equivocating the United States with Guatemala and trying to come up with some bullshit hypothetical in which a couple in the United States is at risk to become poor and yet still took in a child while simultaneously exaggerating the statistical improbability of the biological parents as being greater than the Guatemalan middle class the report says they are. The per capita GDP is 5k USD. There are 16 total universities in Guatemala and over half the country is living in poverty.

The United States is a better place to live.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Why are people saying the daughter shouldn't be able to choose? It's ultimately her life that's going to be altered by this so it should be her choice. Having someone else decide who she should live with is treating her more like a lost possession than a person. She's not a stolen object that was sold illegally. She's 7 years old, that's more than old enough to understand what's going on. If I was in her position and someone tore me away from the people I considered my parents to live with a complete stranger in a foreign country I would have a massive issue with it. Or maybe she hates her current parents and finds out that she prefers the other ones, either way it should be her decision

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Why are people saying the daughter shouldn't be able to choose? It's ultimately her life that's going to be altered by this so it should be her choice. Having someone else decide who she should live with is treating her more like a lost possession than a person. She's not a stolen object that was sold illegally. She's 7 years old, that's more than old enough to understand what's going on. If I was in her position and someone tore me away from the people I considered my parents to live with a complete stranger in a foreign country I would have a massive issue with it. Or maybe she hates her current parents and finds out that she prefers the other ones, either way it should be her decision

Because legally, she is an illegal immigrant who is in America illegally. She cant be returned because there is a loophole in the treaty, and the parents are throwing a fit.

However, if she stays she CANNOT get citizenship or enjoy any service. She cant even enter school. America trying to get her documentation would nullify an international treaty and cause a huge international backlash. The same backlash Brazil suffered when they tried to break the treaty. Consequently, after non compliance the UN took away Brazil's legal weight. Their courts mean absolutely nothing on the international stage now.

Not to mention giving her citizenship would mean all the kidnapped American children cannot be returned to America. They wont sacrifice that much for a little girl.

Ah, I didn't know that part of it. It's really unfortunate that she needs to be a victim of all of this.

Not to be a dick or anything, but the kid's probably far better off being raised in the U.S. than in Guatemala.

From a moral standpoint, however, it's pretty clear (for me at least) that the biological parents deserve their child back.

From a moral standpoint why should she be given back to her biological parents? As I mentioned before it's not like she's an object to be returned to its original owner. If I had to say who has more of a right to her (Although I very much believe that no one should have one) I'd say it would be the adopted parents. They're much more her parents than her biological ones, she has emotional ties with them whereas she only has blood to connect her to her biological parents

 

[MyFooThurTS]

Back to the mother. What does the legal institution of parenthood mean if it can be overturned on a point of sentiment?

 

[Mictarmite]

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.

 

[Insanely Asinine]

I see it like this. Were will she be better off? In the household of the Guatemala woman or the adoptive family. Which one has the better ability to support her well being? Just the questions that need to be answered for this situation.