Posted on 05/13/2004 8:27:44 PM PDT by Fishing-guy
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - An American couple has won custody of a 5-year-old Chinese girl who became the subject of a tug-of-war between her foster and biological parents, ending a four-year fight that drew international attention.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What part of his reasoning do you object to? Just curious.
Here is a link to his decision: http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=1863039&nav=3HvDN4ah
It seems like Chinese parents can easily lose their parental rights in this case, unless they are perfect and without sins. They also seem to need to have money, so they can buy alot of gifts, to be good parents.
I read the story earlier. Considering that the precedent established about 10 years ago in two adoption cases that made headlines--one girl and one boy--the most public was the little girl, the judges ruled that the biological parent(s) custody each time, even if the children were legally adopted. I'm surprised that the judge ruled against the biological parents.
Well, I read the whole thing and think the judge's decision is well reasoned and based on factual evidence. The record does not paint a pretty picture of these two selfish and manipulative people.
Applying the factors in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i)(1-9) for determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the minor child, the Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the Hes’ parental rights is in the best interest of AMH because:
(1) the Hes have failed to make such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, and conditions as to make it safe and in AMH’s best interest to be in the Hes’ home;
(2) the Hes have failed to maintain regular, meaningful visitation and contact with AMH;
(3) the Hes have failed to establish a meaningful relationship with AMH due to the Hes neglect and inattentiveness;
(4) the effect of a change of caretakers and physical environment will have a negative and detrimental impact on AMH’s emotional and psychological well-being;
(5) the physical environment of the Hes’ home is unhealthy and unsafe;
(6) Mrs. Hes’ emotional instability would be detrimental to AMH; and
(7) the Hes’ have failed to provide anything more than token support for AMH, despite the Hes’ ability to pay such support.
Based on all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court finds that the petition to terminate the parental rights of Shaio-Qiang (Jack) He and Qin (Casey) Luo (He) is well taken and should be granted
That statement is taken out of context. The judge was pointing out that sending the child back to China would not be in the child's best interest as the mortality rate for female children is 50%.
The parent's did in fact sign their child over to the Bakers. Read the entire decision.
Where does it say that the biological parents signed permanent custody to them. Can they show the paperwork? I doubt it.
Normally, don't you have to show abuse and refusal to change to lose parental right (at least in my State). Where is the evidence for that? Most Courts I know of prefer family reunification as soon as possible. Why was this not done in this case?
"the mortality rate for female children is 50%."
Where is your evidence? I find this statement very suspicious.
"The record does not paint a pretty picture of these two selfish and manipulative people."
Are you saying that biological parents who want to be reunited with their child selfish and manipulative? Yikes.
I wonder if in the next two decades, the little girl will feel she missed out on her Chinese family and heritage....
No, she'll be grateful she was spared being forced back to China.
If you read the entire decision, the judge was really clear that the bio parents entire purpose in sueing the Bakers was in order to stay in the U.S. and that in spite of every opportunity to do so, they had formed no relationship with this child.
They started looking for adoptive parents before this child was born, complained none of the prospective parents were rich enough and a long list of behaving like people who wanted to sell their child for the right price.
The little girl has lived with the Bakers since she was 27 days old. She's safe where she is and the bio parents can no longer milk the adoptive parents because now its final.
What a difference four years makes. I'm glad the Bakers don't have to worry about Reno's armed goons crashing in to their house to send the child back to his "workers paradise".
Um yes, the signed papers were presented in court. It was in the findings of facts in the middle beginning (it is a long read). It was also a finding of fact that the bio parents knew and understood what they were doing and that they did it voluntarily and without coercion. They sought the Bakers out and asked them to assume custody and that all subsequent behavior by them indicated that it was their intent and purpose to give up custody.
Until the INS came knocking to send them back to China. Then they file suit and the INS drops proceedings against them pending outcome. This happened not once, but twice. The second time the custodial family countersued to sever the parental rights to protect the child.
As for refusal to change - that was the judge's first point in his decision agains the bio parents.
It was entered into the record at trial and Mr. He admitted it in his testimony.
It's in the transcript.
Also, China's human rights abuses against female children are well known and documented.
Now you are comparing cultures. Are you saying that American culture is superior to that of Chinese culture (like we don't have abortion, child abuse, or crimes here)?
I still cannot find what you are talking about in the paper. Concerning the immigration issue, I find the argument that this entire case is an elaborate ploy to stay in the US hard to believe.
Anyway, if you read the newspapers in Memphis, you will see that legal experts are starting to question the judge's reasoning for terminating the biological parents' parental rights.
I am happy to report that I consider traditional Judeo-Christian culture to be superior to absolutely every other culture that has ever existed.
To the extent that America has strayed from that cultural ideal is our shame and I spend my time and money fighting that battle.
Simply put, I read the judge's entire finding of facts and decision and find no fault with his reasons.
I too thought the Elian Gonzales' case was handled poorly, when armed agents were used to kick down people's door.
However, I do believe that biological parents' parental rights need to be protected, even if they are poor, non-Americans, from communist country, etc..
Otherwise, our values and laws are no different from some of those dictator countries.
The biological parents are christians too. So, what is your point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.