[jra]

For the ignorant (albeit well-meaninged, I’m sure) people who’ve been on this thread, here’s the Reader’s Digest version of this story:

Baby was born.

Child’s parent(s) felt they were unable to adequately care for said baby, and baby was sent to live with the Bakers.

At some point, the Bakers had a conflict with the Hes, followed by a ruling by judge childers (rightly or wrongly) for the Hes to stay away from the Bakers, which the Hes complied with.

Because they COMPLIED to the order, they weren’t allowed to visit Anna for a period of time. Then, and only then, came the BOGUS abandonment charge.

Since then, the Hes have been trying to get THEIR child back, and if it weren’t for the Tennessee Supreme Court, they would never have been able to get THEIR child back.

The Hes have done the right thing top to bottom, period.

Idiots.

[Yaelle]

Since then, the Hes have been trying to get THEIR child back, and if it weren’t for the Tennessee Supreme Court, they would never have been able to get THEIR child back.

Tell me please how, today, this girl is THEIR child??

How?

Because she shares their genes?

Parenting is a verb. They who parent are the parents.

[Eaker]

I have no dog in this fight but when you posted:

here’s the Reader’s Digest version of this story:

I consider your "Reader’s Digest version" of this story just your opinion and nothing else. I am sure everyone else here sees it in the same light.