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

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/05/16/guatemalan-mother-to-ask-us-court-to-return-adopted-daughter/

The long and short of it is that the baby daughter of a Guatemalan woman was kidnapped 5 years ago when the girl was only 2 years old. Ultimately this girl ended up getting adopted by a family in Liberty, Missouri, and has lived with them for the past 5 years. The adoptive family had absolutely no idea that the girl had originally been kidnapped...as far as they knew, the adoption was 100% legitimate. DNA testing has confirmed that the girl in question is indeed the daughter of the Guatemalan woman.

Evidently due to technicalities with legislature (as described in the article), it wasn't as simple as "Well we'll just give her right back then."

Soooooooo who does the girl go to? Her biological mother who she has absolutely no memory of (given that she was only 2 years old the last time she saw her mother)? Or the adoptive family she's been living with for the past 5 years who, for all intents and purposes, went through the proper processes to legally adopt her, not knowing she had originally been kidnapped?

Captcha: Market Forces....jumping up and down within the captcha box. o.o

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.

RJ 17:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/05/16/guatemalan-mother-to-ask-us-court-to-return-adopted-daughter/

The long and short of it is that a Guatemalan woman had her baby girl kidnapped 5 years ago when the girl was only 2 years old. Ultimately this girl ended up getting adopted by a family in Liberty, Missouri, and has lived with them for the past 5 years. The adoptive family had absolutely no idea that the girl had originally been kidnapped...as far as they knew, the adoption was 100% legitimate. DNA testing has confirmed that the girl in question is indeed the daughter of the Guatemalan woman.

Evidently due to technicalities with legislature (as described in the article), it wasn't as simple as "Well we'll just give her right back then."

Soooooooo who does the girl go to? Her biological mother who she has absolutely no memory of (given that she was only 2 years old the last time she saw her mother)? Or the adoptive family she's been living with for the past 5 years who, for all intents and purposes, went through the proper processes to legally adopt her, not knowing she had originally been kidnapped?

Captcha: Market Forces....jumping up and down within the captcha box. o.o

Morally, that's quite a difficult one!
The biological parents have every right to want her back. The fact that the adopting parents thought they'd done everything legally is of no consequence imo.
But what most definitely is of consequence is the fact that it's going to be really distressing for the child to have to adapt to a new set of parents - and hopefully that will be taken into account.

I think the best solution (for the child at least) would be to grant the adopting parents (the missouri lot) custody, with the caveat that they give the biological parents regular contact and tell the child the truth about the whole thing from the start, with the aim of them becoming as close as extended family members or something. It's a real dilemma though!

Back to the mother, no question about that whatsoever in my mind. Unless she was somehow unfit to raise a child then the child goes back. Sad for the people who raised her in between but much worse to have your biological child taken from you illegally and raised by someone else.

Guys its not that difficult, the girl was freaking kidnapped, and at two years old its certainly something the mother will remember. It's not like the mum put her up for adoption and now all of a sudden wants her child back. The kid absolutely has to go back to her true biological mother without question.

Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. 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.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

I'm frankly more concerned about how she came to be put up for adoption after being kidnapped and that what ever legal system that was taking care of the adoption clearly missed something pretty fucking important...

RJ 17:
The long and short of it is that a Guatemalan woman had her baby girl kidnapped 5 years ago when the girl was only 2 years old.

This sentence is a little awkward. There is a world of difference between a woman's child being kidnapped, and a woman having her child kidnapped. So which is it? I would assume the former, otherwise asking for the child back is essentially a confession of kidnapping, but this is a strange world we live in.

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.

Lilani:

RJ 17:
The long and short of it is that a Guatemalan woman had her baby girl kidnapped 5 years ago when the girl was only 2 years old.

This sentence is a little awkward. There is a world of difference between a woman's child being kidnapped, and a woman having her child kidnapped. So which is it? I would assume the former, otherwise asking for the child back is essentially a confession of kidnapping, but this is a strange world we live in.

Good lord, really? Grammar nazis still exist? Verywell Lilani the Literal, I shall edit my OP to make it clear that the biological mother did not hire some goons to kidnap her own child.

Of course if you read the article you would have known that as well. :P

Lilani:

This sentence is a little awkward. There is a world of difference between a woman's child being kidnapped, and a woman having her child kidnapped. So which is it? I would assume the former, otherwise asking for the child back is essentially a confession of kidnapping, but this is a strange world we live in.

The link makes the answer pretty clear.

EDIT: Well ninjad good sir, well ninjad.

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.

They'd be sending in Denzel Washington (spelling). :P

I don't know. You can't let the girl decide, because she's five, but obviously the mothers will just be all like "He's mine, no he's mine, no he's mine," so letting them decide won't work. I'd say let her go back. At least that way she'll be raised by the woman she should have been raised with, though it'll be tough no matter what you do.

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.

This is so very true. US Foreign policy has basically become Do exactly what we want and we might let you have some of the goodies in our picnic basket, don't and we'll make you do it anyway

But that's besides the point, This is a really difficult case, especially since, because of the geographical distance between them you can't realistically split time or give visiting rights. I would say that the biological mother has the final say though, let her come to Missouri, see the life her child has and the people who have raised her, and let her decide what is best. There really is no answer that will solve all problems.

That kinda sucks. I'd say best case scenario would be (assuming the adopting parents were good parents) that the kid stays with the adopting parents, but gets regular contact with the biological mother. Or the other way around. Let them sort it out, I guess.

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.

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).

Should go back to the biological mother, it her child she was stolen from her and she wants her own offspring back the adoptive family can visit if they choice so. What I'd do anyoo'

Well, which would she be better off with? Can her biological mother actually take care of the child? Does she have a criminal record? Does she have a decent income? The adoptive parents should at least have decent income, having been able to adopt a child. As said above, the mother should go to her home in Missouri to see how the conditions there are, and then the adults try to decide which would be better for the child. Both choices would have negative effects on the child, and considering she's seven, i doubt it'd be a good idea to let her decide, as she might regret her choice later in life. Her voice should be heard, but in no way should she be the final deciding voice.

dyre:
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.

hm, well i guess the moral thing would be to let the bio mother take her.

But would the daughters quality of life be better in Quatamala than america? A puzzle indeed.

Queen Michael:
I don't know. You can't let the girl decide, because she's five

She's seven. Doesn't change anything you said, just a minor correction.

Well, the way I see it, the biological mother should get the girl back. Well, I suppose the kid can also spend time with her adoptive parents every summer (or whatever seems fair), but still - she was fucking kidnapped. It's not like the mother would just go "meh, keep her" - she has been looking for her kid, in order to get her back. It may not sound fair to the adoptive parents but it's fairer than getting your child stolen with the possibility to never see them again.

Biological mother should get the kid back.

The adoptive parents should have been smarter than to blindly give money to adoptive services. They are notoriously shoddy and are a laughingstock.

Here's the kicker.

The agency used to adopt the child from Guatemala was convicted of child trafficking. All of her papers were forgeries, and the entire ring was arrested. Basically, the entire batch and her American citizenship is null and void.

Source:
ABC news

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/guatemala-mom-us-court-adopted-girl-16354939#.T7RaRsVK-Uk

Sixcess:

dyre:
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.

It's arguable that the girl spent a good portion of her childhood with her adoptive parents, and taking her away from that to a mother she doesn't even remember could be traumatic. I'm not a child psychologist though, so I wouldn't know, but there's certainly a debate to be had on which people are more your parents: the ones who gave birth to you or the ones who raised you. Frankly, if I found out today that my parents were actually foster parents and mistakenly adopted me from child traffickers, I'd want to stay with them anyway. And I think I'd have said the same thing at any stage of my life.

I think it's absolutely absurd to even think the debate could be centered around racism and "first world nations" being a better place to raise a child than "third world nations." You're looking for racism where none exists (well, I'm sure there are extremists in every controversy, but I find it highly doubtful the majority of people supporting the adoptive parents believe what you think they do). No sane person would suggest that a child should leave the better parents (whoever they may be) just to live in a wealthier nation.

Though, one interesting point to be made is that had the CIA not supported a coup to overthrow Guatemala's democratically elected president in the 50s, perhaps Guatemala would be a much wealthier and more stable nation than it is now.

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.

Back to the biological mother. In an ideal world, both sets of parents could figure out a situation that would allow them all to stay in the girl's life and have a part in her upbringing. But not returning the child to the biological mother she was kidnapped from only five years ago? That would be ludicrous.

How about the mother come and live with them? Lord knows I wouldn't want to raise my child in San Miguel Petapa, and Liberty Missouri obviously has a better safety record.

dyre:
Though, one interesting point to be made is that had the CIA not supported a coup to overthrow Guatemala's democratically elected president in the 50s, perhaps Guatemala would be a much wealthier and more stable nation than it is now.

Yeah people tend to forget how badly Eisenhower screwed us over, even before he became president. He screwed-up Sicily AND the Battle of the Bulge, then Fucked Iran by re-installing the Shah (all to kiss Britain's ass) and set us on the road to the disaster of Vietnam. Of course the coward waited until his fair-well speech to tell us 'hey you the military industrial complex? The thing I've done everything in my power to cater to and pretty much been the face of my entire career? Turns out they're not very nice people. But that your problem now.'

Raven's Nest:
Guys its not that difficult, the girl was freaking kidnapped, and at two years old its certainly something the mother will remember. It's not like the mum put her up for adoption and now all of a sudden wants her child back. The kid absolutely has to go back to her true biological mother without question.

Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. 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.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

I'm frankly more concerned about how she came to be put up for adoption after being kidnapped and that what ever legal system that was taking care of the adoption clearly missed something pretty fucking important...

Well, if we're going by the daughter's feelings, which you believe should come before the adoptive parents, at least, we'll almost certainly have her go back to her adoptive parents.

After all, the girl has spent approximately 70% of her life with the adoptive parents, and has no memory of her biological family. As 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.

DVS BSTrD:
Yeah people tend to forget how badly Eisenhower screwed us over, even before he became president. He screwed-up Sicily AND the Battle of the Bulge, then Fucked Iran by re-installing the Shah (all to kiss Britain's ass) and set us on the road to the disaster of Vietnam. Of course the coward waited until his fair-well speech to tell us 'hey you the military industrial complex? The thing I've done everything in my power to cater to and pretty much been the face of my entire career? Turns out they're not very nice people. But that your problem now.'

Yup, the guy was a total dick. I can't think of anything important besides the Suez Crisis that he actually handled well.

Plus from living in a first-world country and then being taken to live in a third-world country would be pretty hard. In fact it would suck, hard :/

Spooky, this was on Law and Order SVU just yesterday...

Being moved to a new country the child knows nothing about to live with a new family the child knows nothing about?

That would generate quite the shock for the child.

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.

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?

Not only is Guatemala one of the poorest countries in Latin America (with over half the population living in poverty), the little girl doesn't speak the language at all, and won't be able to communicate with her mother for at least a year while she's learning the language, which would be an extremely traumatic experience.

I remember being seven. If you had told me that my parents weren't really my parents and I had to go live with someone else I'd never met, I would have freaked out. The girl should stay in the only home she's ever known.

On the one hand, the biological mother deserves to have her kid back, but on the other, the kid would likely suffer quite a bit of trauma, as she doesn't even remember her biological family and would have to adjust to living in a country with a completely different language. I think that the child should remain with her adoptive family for her own sake, but the biological mother should be given regular contact with her child. Of course, that course of action carries its own set of unfortunate consequences (not the least of which being foreign affairs), but as no solution solves everything, I think it's the best.

The girl has been living with her adopted family for I am guessing the last four or five years. She knows them better than she knows her biological mother. She may want to get to know her biological mother as well. I am curious to know how the adoptive family treats her/cares for her and how her biological mother would treat her/care for her.

Obviously she should be give back to her biological parents. She was kidnapped and they've been looking for her for the past 5 years. Hell her biological mother at the very least wants to be able to have contact with her. Seriously these adoptive parents have no right to keep the child from her real parents. The whole adoption thing wasn't actually official anyway.

Let the kid stay where she is and let the real mother have visitation.

Just giving her right back to the original parent is really foolish because, for all purposes, the adoptive family is her family now. Taking her and placing her in a house with a woman she doesnt know is just not a smart move.

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.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked