Support NeoGAF

[Azih]

But thieving adoptive parents aren't exactly in the boy's best interests either.

And they're not in the best interests of American law either as an accepted precedent.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Remember when everyone thought the adoptive parents would be the best option for the child... lol. America!

 

[Big Baybee]

I'm glad this thread got overrun with people that have common sense and compassion. I was about to go crazy there for a second.:lol

 

[Hydranockz]

Remember when everyone thought the adoptive parents would be the best option for the child... lol. America!

:lol

I quoted the parents at the start by saying "God has given us a boy". I can't help but think now that that is the only reason they were ever given that child. With the history the adoptive parents, it really was a miracle they got him.

 

[Torquill]

If the mother can be found fit, child is hers. End of story.

 

[Zoe]

The mother of the child was wrongly punished- yes she deserved punishment for using a stolen identity- but no law supports permanently taken her child away from her. Why was the child not returned to the mother's sister and and siblings during her prison stay?

He was. Somehow another couple put up the kid for adoption.

 

[Lonely1]

If the mother can be found fit, child is hers. End of story.

But the mother is Guatemalan!

 

[VelvetMouth]

Only option is to give the child back to the stranger that birthed him, send them packing to Guatemala to go back to the woman's other kids she left behind where I'm sure they'll be joined by some more children she can't afford.

The Missouri couple need to be flagged so that they can never foster or adopt.

 

[Kittonwy]

Only option is to give the child back to the stranger that birthed him, send them packing to Guatemala to go back to the woman's other kids she left behind where I'm sure they'll be joined by some more children she can't afford.

The Missouri couple need to be flagged so that they can never foster or adopt.

I concur.

 

[Raist]

She forged papers to get a living. What do you think that living was for?

Buy drugs and a gun to kill honest americans, I'm sure.

This is BS. The social services or whatever it's called fucked up in the first place.

 

[Korey]

Who the fuck are the dumbass officials and state workers who are letting this happen?

 

[jett]

Reminds me of this:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/give-us-back-our-baby/story-e6frg8h6-1225945289205

I hope it doesn't come to that though.

My God that was a depressing read.

 

[Keru_Shiri]

I think everyone who has posted as such in this thread needs to ask themselves this question.

This is actually a pretty good point. It was implied as such when several folks had argued that staying with the adoptive parents was "what's best for the child." And I think several, or myself at the very least, latched on to that part.

 

[jajas2]

This thread is horrible, and makes me a little sad for GAF. There's a long, sad history of white folks stealing children from parents of other races in "the best interest" of the child, and it usually never ends well. Yet a lot of folks here seem to have no problem with history repeating itself, to what likely is gonna be a bad end. The child belongs to the mother, end of story... even without all the incredibly shady dealings and people who surround this case.

 

[JGS]

This is actually a pretty good point. It was implied as such when several folks had argued that staying with the adoptive parents was "what's best for the child." And I think several, or myself at the very least, latched on to that part.

To me, it doesn't matter how perfect that family is.
The kid has a Mom.
Her crime did not live up to no access with her kid.
They can't have him.
They need to return him immediately.

 

[Keru_Shiri]

To me, it doesn't matter how perfect that family is.
The kid has a Mom.
Her crime did not live up to no access with her kid.
They can't have him.
They need to return him immediately.

I agree 100%. This should have been an open-and-shut case. Mom's busted? Deported, along with the kid.

 

[Deku]

To me, it doesn't matter how perfect that family is.
The kid has a Mom.
Her crime did not live up to no access with her kid.
They can't have him.
They need to return him immediately.

So if I'm the child who is attached to my adoptive parents, who I obviously don't know were my adoptive parents, I'm better off being emotionally scarred to fullfill some cosmic justice decided by the internets?

I haven't followed this particular story, and it appears the adoptive parents did some shady things to try and keep the child, but I haven't seen anyone think about the interest of the child or their emotions.

 

[Zoe]

I haven't followed this particular story, and it appears the adoptive parents did some shady things to try and keep the child, but I haven't seen anyone think about the interest of the child or their emotions.

? I think there are a lot of people here thinking about the best interests of the child. They're just getting labeled as racist by others.

 

[JGS]

So if I'm the child who is attached to my adoptive parents, who I obviously don't know were my adoptive parents, I'm better off being emotionally scarred to fullfill some cosmic justice decided by the internets?

I haven't followed this particular story, and it appears the adoptive parents did some shady things to try and keep the child, but I haven't seen anyone think about the interest of the child or their emotions.

I think the case is all about the interest of the child. It is better for the kid to be with his mother unless she's a crackhead or something else detrimental to his well-being. Poverty does not count.

He is 4 and there will certainly be all kinds of distress at the time of transfer. However, he will get over it and just like he forgot his mom over the course of 2 years, his fake parents will fade into memory too.

I may have had a difference answer if this was a case about a 12 year old, but a 4 year old boy that is with adoptive parents because of a lapse in oversight needs something better than "Oops". He needs his mom more than his adoptive parents need him.

 

[numble]

So if I'm the child who is attached to my adoptive parents, who I obviously don't know were my adoptive parents, I'm better off being emotionally scarred to fullfill some cosmic justice decided by the internets?

I haven't followed this particular story, and it appears the adoptive parents did some shady things to try and keep the child, but I haven't seen anyone think about the interest of the child or their emotions.

Cosmic justice decided by the internets? The lower courts have already decided that the adoption was illegal. An unqualified clergy couple put the kid up for adoption, the adoptive parents hired their own lawyer to "represent" the mother, and the adoptive parents weren't even qualified to be foster parents, with histories of crime and abuse. The Missouri statutory standard for best interests includes ability to connect with biological parents and siblings. And whose to say he wouldn't be emotionally scarred in the future when he learns that lower courts ruled his adoption illegal, and his adoptive parents kept him away from his biological mother?

 

[Lonely1]

? I think there are a lot of people here thinking about the best interests of the child. They're just getting labeled as racist by others.

Well, classicist (or racist) since the main argument against the mother is that she is from Guatemala. 'Guatemala? Who want to live in Guatemala! The kids is better of with a (white?) American family!'.

 

[MindCollizion]

Regresenlo pinches cabrones.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Well, you know, she's brown and illegal, so fuck her.

 

[Ogrekiller]

? I think there are a lot of people here thinking about the best interests of the child. They're just getting labeled as racist by others.

Don't forget trash, scum and arrogant.

We're not talking about shipping this child back to some first world country where this kid can live a safe and happy life; we're shipping him back to Guatemala, one of the poorest countries in South America.

Oh and sure the mother made mistakes, but she deliberately endangered her child's welfare and future by bringing him into the USA without a permit. She could have left him in Guatemala, or get an abortion, because bringing a child to a country illegally without knowing the language, law or anything about the country for that matter is a pretty big breach of responsibility to me.

But no, let's place all the blame on the whites; obviously we're trying to steal away kids from immigrants who bring their children to our shores without permits. The mother has all the rights, let her take the child and ship em back to a country where he is almost certain to grow up poor. WE MUST OBEY THE RIGHT'S OF THE MOTHER!

God some of the self righteous left wing apologist posts here are so nauseating.

But nooooo, the this bail woman is innocent, lets give her the baby, which she can't care for and ship them back to Guatemala, where she'll leave him with relatives and sneak back in? And that's the best we can do?

Sure, the government fucked up, but the past is done and our priority is the future of the child, not some waffling about "rights of illegal immigrants."

 

[SouthernDragon]

And leave the child with a criminal and a child abuser?

Sure, why the fuck not.

 

[Ogrekiller]

And leave the child with a criminal and a child abuser?

Sure, why the fuck not.

Abuser is on family side, with no mention whether said woman is actually abuser

Criminal? Stolen property charges = bad parent? how?

 

[SouthernDragon]

Abuser is on family side, with no mention whether said woman is actually abuser

Criminal? Stolen property charges = bad parent? how?

Seems like a bad role model to me.

But, hey, the mother's a criminal, too! Let's draw equivalencies.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Seems like a bad role model to me.

But, hey, the mother's a criminal, too! Let's draw equivalencies.

Like bringing the child illegally into the US without any concern of the long term implications. Real family planning there. But the dad stole property! He MUST beat his kids! Oh and the mother's family abuses people! Surely she will starve and beat the kid!

 

[A Link to the Past]

On one hand, it is wrong philosophically to have taken him without any recourse for him to return to her ever. On the other hand, it's not fair to him to tell him that he doesn't belong with the people who raised him. At this point, it sounds like it's more for her than it is for him.

 

[numble]

Don't forget trash, scum and arrogant.

We're not talking about shipping this child back to some first world country where this kid can live a safe and happy life; we're shipping him back to Guatemala, one of the poorest countries in South America.

Oh and sure the mother made mistakes, but she deliberately endangered her child's welfare and future by bringing him into the USA without a permit. She could have left him in Guatemala, or get an abortion, because bringing a child to a country illegally without knowing the language, law or anything about the country for that matter is a pretty big breach of responsibility to me.

But no, let's place all the blame on the whites; obviously we're trying to steal away kids from immigrants who bring their children to our shores without permits. The mother has all the rights, let her take the child and ship em back to a country where he is almost certain to grow up poor. WE MUST OBEY THE RIGHT'S OF THE MOTHER!

God some of the self righteous left wing apologist posts here are so nauseating

But nooooo, the this bail woman is innocent, lets give her the baby, which she can't care for and ship them back to Guatemala, where she'll leave him with relatives and sneak back in? And that's the best we can do?

Sure, the government fucked up, but the past is done and our priority is the future of the child, not some waffling about "rights of illegal immigrants."

Like bringing the child illegally into the US without any concern of the long term implications. Real family planning there.

I'm almost certain the baby was born in the US, so all the endangering child welfare by bringing him to the US etc is superfluous fluff on your part.

 

[Lonely1]

Don't forget trash, scum and arrogant.

We're not talking about shipping this child back to some first world country where this kid can live a safe and happy life; we're shipping him back to Guatemala, one of the poorest countries in South America.

Oh and sure the mother made mistakes, but she deliberately endangered her child's welfare and future by bringing him into the USA without a permit. She could have left him in Guatemala, or get an abortion, because bringing a child to a country illegally without knowing the language, law or anything about the country for that matter is a pretty big breach of responsibility to me.

But no, let's place all the blame on the whites; obviously we're trying to steal away kids from immigrants who bring their children to our shores without permits. The mother has all the rights, let her take the child and ship em back to a country where he is almost certain to grow up poor. WE MUST OBEY THE RIGHT'S OF THE MOTHER!

God some of the self righteous left wing apologist posts here are so nauseating

But nooooo, the this bail woman is innocent, lets give her the baby, which she can't care for and ship them back to Guatemala, where she'll leave him with relatives and sneak back in? And that's the best we can do?

Sure, the government fucked up, but the past is done and our priority is the future of the child, not some waffling about "rights of illegal immigrants."

Ok, you officially don't know shiat.

Like bringing the child illegally into the US without any concern of the long term implications. Real family planning there.

And giving the child to a family that was deemed to be not fit for adoption and adopted a baby in shaky grounds is better? Do you have any other argument than "The mother is Guatemalan!".

 

[SouthernDragon]

Like bringing the child into the US without any concern of the long term implications. Real family planning there.

Like I said, let's draw equivalencies. But I'd be more than happy to play that game.

The mother probably saw a better chance for her and her child here than back in her home country. Sounds like something a decent parent would do.

---

At any rate, what frustrates me in these cases is the absolute laser-like focus of some people on the fact that the law is being broken rather than the fact that the law itself is broken, unpractical, and unjust. That these same laws that so many of you fervently defend cause the very problem that you hate, and most issues could be solved with real, comprehensive immigration reform.

But no, the solution is to obviously deport them all and raise a wall that stretches 5000 miles wide, 3 miles above the sea and 2 miles beneath it to stop those damn immigrants from getting in. Yeah, that'll fix the underlying core issues.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Ok, you officially don't know shiat.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Guatemala's GDP (PPP) per capita is US$5,000; however, this developing country still faces many social problems and is among the 10 poorest countries in Latin America.[34] The distribution of income remains highly unequal with more than half of the population below the national poverty line[35] and just over 400,000 (3.2%) unemployed. The CIA World Fact Book considers 56.2% of the population of Guatemala to be living in poverty.[36]

15 seconds of research.

I'm almost certain the baby was born in the US, so all the endangering child welfare by bringing him to the US etc is superfluous fluff on your part.

I will concede that point.

 

[numble]

15 seconds of research.



Ok, so if he did he isn't given US citizenship, which excludes him from basic services that could be beneficial to his health, and he is living as a criminal in the US. Still bad enough. But I will concede that point.

He has US Citizenship. And that can only come from being born here, as he hasn't met the time requirements for naturalization.

The boy, who is a citizen of both the U.S. and Guatemala, speaks only English.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_3e99fc06-5fe5-56a6-9826-47b140bc41d1.html

10 seconds of research.

 

[timetokill]

Can't they just do it like how they settle other disputes?

1. Put the adoptive parents on one side, and the biological mother on the other
2. Put the kid on the other side of the room
3. Whichever side the boy goes to, keeps the child

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Can't they just do it like how they settle other disputes?

1. Put the adoptive parents on one side, and the biological mother on the other
2. Put the kid on the other side of the room
3. Whichever side the boy goes to, keeps the child

I prefer the Solomon method.

 

[Ogrekiller]

He has US Citizenship. And that can only come from being born here, as he hasn't met the time requirements for naturalization.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_3e99fc06-5fe5-56a6-9826-47b140bc41d1.html

10 seconds of research.

Technically, that can be overturned.

Birth within the United States
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States of America
Main article: Jus soli

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[5] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[6] A birth certificate (a.k.a Certificate of Live Birth for children born in certain states) issued by a U.S. state or territorial government is evidence of citizenship, and is usually accepted as proof of citizenship.

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution, if that person is:

* Born in the United States
* Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
* Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
* Has parents that are in the United States for business

But I concede the point.

 

[Zeke]

some of the comments in this thread sicken me, I hope the woman gets her back.

 

[Lonely1]

15 seconds of research.



I will concede that point.

First, is not a South American country. And low 10, out of 19 countries isn't that low. Sure, Guatemala has a lot of social problems. But that alone doesn't disqualifies this woman for motherhood.

 

[Ogrekiller]

some of the comments in this thread sicken me, I hope the woman gets her back.

You know what, fuck this. The kid is none of my business anyway. Ship him back to whatever developing country his mother lives in and let them stay there.

 

[numble]

Technically, that can be overturned.



But I concede the point.

Technically, a lot of laws can be overturned. But I doubt birthright citizenship will ever go away; even Scalia and Thomas, two of the most conservative Supreme Court justices, recognize the authority of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark re: birthright citizenship in this 1998 case.

 

[nyong]

It's definitely not in the kid's best interest any way you want to look at it, but legally the child is probably the biological mother's property.

EDIT: Then again, is a legal adoption voided if the mother later pleads she didn't understand what she was signing off on? In fact, is any contract legally void if the person signing it later claims they didn't fully understand it?

 

[Big Baybee]

The "dad" is also a criminal, so the argument now turns to "but she's poor!".:lol

 

[Ogrekiller]

The "dad" is also a criminal, so the argument now turns to "but she's poor!".:lol

No, the argument turns to what bearing does that have on his capacity to care for a child.

Does stealing property affect his ability to protect and care for a child?
Will he repeat this offense?
Does leading police on a chase through 3 states guarantee that he will abuse a child?

Whereas compare:

Bail is given custody of child and is deported. She will:

Stay in Guatemala, and raise her children there, on w/e job she finds.
Leaves her children there and go back to the US, like she did before.

See the difference?

 

[numble]

No, the argument turns to what bearing does that have on his capacity to care for a child.

Does stealing property affect his ability to protect and care for a child?
Will he repeat this offense?
Does leading police on a chase through 3 states guarantee that he will abuse a child?

Whereas compare:

Bail is given custody of child and is deported. She will:

Stay in Guatemala, and raise her children there, on w/e job she finds.
Leaves her children there and go back to the US, like she did before.

See the difference?

The dad was also in jail for about a year. If you are making up hypotheticals about what the parent will do afterward based on the past, you might as well assume that he is going to be stealing cars and getting imprisoned again.

 

[Big Baybee]

Stop acting like she just abandoned her children. She came here to work and earn money for them. People do this all the time, rich or poor.

 

[Zoe]

The dad was also in jail for about a year. If you are making up hypotheticals about what the parent will do afterward based on the past, you might as well assume that he is going to be stealing cars and getting imprisoned again.

The biological mother has already proven to be a repeat offender within a short period of time. When did the adoptive father commit his crimes? He certainly hasn't repeated it since the boy was adopted.

 

[Hydranockz]

Simply saying that the government fucked up but that is in the past as an arguement to deny the mother her own child is possibly the saddest thing I have read from another user on Gaf.

 

[Big Baybee]

The biological mother has already proven to be a repeat offender within a short period of time. When did the adoptive father commit his crimes? He certainly hasn't repeated it since the boy was adopted.

But the dad is also a repeat offender. Why does it matter when he committed the crimes?

 

[Ogrekiller]

The dad was also in jail for about a year. If you are making up hypotheticals about what the parent will do afterward based on the past, you might as well assume that he is going to be stealing cars and getting imprisoned again.

Ok, then factor that in.

Male Moser gets arrested for committing GTA and possession of stolen property. Gets sent to jail for a year. Mother works and is able to provide for child.

OR

Male moser doesn't get into anymore trouble, raises child.

VS

Bail in Guatemala sells fruit as a single parent with 3 children in Guatemala, raises child.

OR

leaves 3 children behind and sneaks into US again.

I dunno, this is getting really gray for me.