Wednesday, January 24, 2007
VICTORY for Anna ae
.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled that it was clear that the parents of a little girl, Mr and Mrs Hes, gave up Anna Mae "as a temporary measure to provide health insurance" for her, "with the full intent that custody would be returned." The Bakers, however refused to return her and the case dragged on for seven years, leaving the press to drag out it's standard retort that the child was now "seprated from the only parents she has ever known."
Why did we not hear such a refrain when Shawn Hornbeck was returned after 4 years with his captor? Even when children are kidnapped as infants, with no prior connection to their rightful family, you would never hear such a "complaint."
When will they start to charge people who defy court orders to return a child with kidnapping? Why is it that once there is any assumption of "adoption" it turns a kidnapping - a hostage taking - an abduction - into something much less devious and sympathy turns to the wrong-doers? Even Joel Steinberg - the monster - was never charged with kidnapping. Instead it was called an "illegal adoption." That's an oxymoron. An adoption is a legal arrangement, nothing more. If not done legally then it is not an adoption - it's a kidnapping.
Why is it that in MANY cases, even when it is determined that the adoption WAS illegal, i.e. fraud was committed, those who "illegally adopted' get tot keep the spoils of their crime?
Clearly the Bakers knew what the court knew. They have other children. Why couldn't they simply return the child as they had originally agreed to? Isn't not returning her the same as stealing her? Why are these cases allowed to drag on for so long making this child's transfer back to her parents a terrible situation?
I hope that this case gets lots of publicity and helps continue the downturn in international adoptions. Maybe this will make people think twice about the 'safety" and protection from natural parents that adopting internationally allegedly brings.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled that it was clear that the parents of a little girl, Mr and Mrs Hes, gave up Anna Mae "as a temporary measure to provide health insurance" for her, "with the full intent that custody would be returned." The Bakers, however refused to return her and the case dragged on for seven years, leaving the press to drag out it's standard retort that the child was now "seprated from the only parents she has ever known."
Why did we not hear such a refrain when Shawn Hornbeck was returned after 4 years with his captor? Even when children are kidnapped as infants, with no prior connection to their rightful family, you would never hear such a "complaint."
When will they start to charge people who defy court orders to return a child with kidnapping? Why is it that once there is any assumption of "adoption" it turns a kidnapping - a hostage taking - an abduction - into something much less devious and sympathy turns to the wrong-doers? Even Joel Steinberg - the monster - was never charged with kidnapping. Instead it was called an "illegal adoption." That's an oxymoron. An adoption is a legal arrangement, nothing more. If not done legally then it is not an adoption - it's a kidnapping.
Why is it that in MANY cases, even when it is determined that the adoption WAS illegal, i.e. fraud was committed, those who "illegally adopted' get tot keep the spoils of their crime?
Clearly the Bakers knew what the court knew. They have other children. Why couldn't they simply return the child as they had originally agreed to? Isn't not returning her the same as stealing her? Why are these cases allowed to drag on for so long making this child's transfer back to her parents a terrible situation?
I hope that this case gets lots of publicity and helps continue the downturn in international adoptions. Maybe this will make people think twice about the 'safety" and protection from natural parents that adopting internationally allegedly brings.
# posted by Senior Mom @ 8:39 AM 
