Adopted child discovered to have been abducted as baby. Who should get custody?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

See, the thing is, I know that if I have legal custody, I will do whatever it takes to create a fair and supportive relationship between my child and all their parents. I don't know that they will do the same. So either way, I am going to fight to be the one with the power, and then graciously share it. Because that's what is in the best interests of my child.

Are you answering from the point of view of the adoptive parent, or of the bio parent?

If the latter -- what if the kid asks you to stop fighting for custody? I can easily imagine a kid being absolutely fucking terrified by such a custody fight, and I can't see how subjecting the child to that is in her or his best interest (unless the adoptive parents were abusive or some such).

[Anaamika]

"I don't believe you. I am the adoptive parent and I don't believe you are going to fairly share the child for a moment. Why would I believe you? Why should I believe you?"

That is how the parents are going to think. And speaking as an adoptee, I most certainly would not appreciate being yanked out of my home by my biological mother. I don't really care if she spent ten years searching for me or never cared a whit until she showed up. She is no longer my mother except in blood. And yes, my real mother took care of me until I was four, and then she gave me up - because she knew it was in my best interests.

I don't think yanking the kid out of the family they are happy in is in any way in their best interests. Child support is not about punishing the absentee parent; it's about making sure the child is taken care of. This is the same. Adults can live with heartache. Children don't have the resources yet.

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

I guess I just don't understand having feelings of love for someone you haven't seen since they were 3. I get loving the child that they were...but someone tells you, "This is your kid" and you suddenly feel emotions for them?

Not "suddenly", no. I don't know how many 3-year-olds you've been around, but they're the same person they'll always be. You make it sound like you'd just have to take someone's word for it that it's your kid. If I hadn't seen my kid since she was 3 and then saw her again at 15, I'd recognize her in a second. At 12 she looks just like she did at 3 and she has the same personality. I'm not saying I'd just yank her away from the people she knew as her parents, but I'd have extremely strong emotions for her. It would be incredibly strange for any parent not to.

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

Not "suddenly", no. I don't know how many 3-year-olds you've been around, but they're the same person they'll always be. You make it sound like you'd just have to take someone's word for it that it's your kid. If I hadn't seen my kid since she was 3 and then saw her again at 15, I'd recognize her in a second. At 12 she looks just like she did at 3 and she has the same personality. I'm not saying I'd just yank her away from the people she knew as her parents, but I'd have extremely strong emotions for her. It would be incredibly strange for any parent not to.

In a lot of cases, though, people do look different. I really doubt my parents would be able to recognize me if they hadn't seen me in twelve years since I was three. If you can't recognize your kid after that much time has passed, are you really going to be able to emotionally pick up where you left off? And they might have the same personality, but in twelve years they're not the same person they were. They've had so many experiences that have shaped them.

[delphica]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

I do understand wanting your child back, but at that point, the kid isn't really your kid anymore. I mean, isn't your only attachment the fact that someone tells you that they were once yours? If a lawyer/doctor/whoever suddenly said, "Oops--we made a mistake, that fifteen year old you thought was yours actually isn't," would the parents have switched their feelings off? I guess I just don't understand having feelings of love for someone you haven't seen since they were 3. I get loving the child that they were...but someone tells you, "This is your kid" and you suddenly feel emotions for them?

Not exactly, because I would never STOPPED feeling emotions for my child so no, it wouldn't be "sudden."

The mistake switch reminds me of that real news story a while back about the little girls switched at the hospital, I believe the switch was an innocent (if horrific) mistake. The one girl turned out to have a genetic heart condition which is what led to the eventual discovery of the switch, I think she was about 10 at the time. As you say, it's really a sad case for everyone involved, I'm not at all claiming that it's easy on anyone and I agree the adoptive parents are in a bad position too.

[delphica]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

So let's switch it around. YOU are now the adoptive parents. You've had this baby since he was eight months old. He is now fifteen. He is your kid and you love him to death and you've done everything you can for him.

Along comes a woman who has a rightful biological claim to the baby - can prove it. She demands you give the baby back RIGHT FUCK NOW. Your son clings to you and says "Momma, I don't want to leave. You're my momma. I don't know her."

Will you give up that child just because bio momma showed up?

I wouldn't want to, but I would have to if the bio mother took it to the courts and was able to demonstrate she was in fact the mother, and that the child was removed from her illegally. Which is why I would be sure to take every legal route available to me if I was a bio mother in this situation. To protect myself and ensure that I ultimately gained legal custody of my child.

[perfectparanoia]

Originally Posted by delphica

I wouldn't want to, but I would have to if the bio mother took it to the courts and was able to demonstrate she was in fact the mother, and that the child was removed from her illegally. Which is why I would be sure to take every legal route available to me if I was a bio mother in this situation. To protect myself and ensure that I ultimately gained legal custody of my child.

So, you would look after your best interests before that of your child? Because that's what you would be doing.

If one presumes for a moment that the child has normal adoptive parents (not abusive or the like) they are just a normal kid like everybody else right now (except that they are adopted which probably doesn't matter a whit to them). They go to school, come home to their family, have friends, yadda yadda.

You are saying that it would be in the best interest of the child that they be removed from that home and given over to the custody of a perfect stranger than to be left in their comfortable, loving home?

I will grant you that if by some sort of time-shift or dimensional event occurred and I had a biological child out there, I would want to find them and I would want to encourage that child's parents to help me have a relationship with that child. A non-parental relationship. If they didn't want to do so, I am pretty sure I would give it up. And it would devastate me. But disrupting the child's life would be the wrong thing to do.

[raspberry hunter]

Originally Posted by Nava

FTR, I know a somewhat similar situation (the youngest daughter of four turned out to be the bio-daughter of her father and of her mother's sister); the girl went with her suddenly-maternal bio-mom but left that house on the day she turned 18 and appeared at her bio-aunt's footsteps as soon as she could get on and off a plane, daddy dearest and bio-aunt having since divorced.

...Wow. That sounds like a very awkward situation. (And geez, the poor bio-aunt, who -- obviously I don't know the whole story, but man, from what you've said, seems to have gotten really shafted with the whole thing...)

[Rucksinator]

IANAL. I think that the adoptive parents should keep the child, but that the biological father and grandparents should get visitation. I think that the biological father's rights are about equal or slightly more than someone who donated sperm to a sperm bank.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

Are you answering from the point of view of the adoptive parent, or of the bio parent?

Both. Either way, I'd be my kid's parent and I'd want the legal right to them. I wouldn't have to be the only parent--I could accept that my kid has more parents than me, but I could never accept that I wasn't on the list. Joint legal custody would be fine. Me moving across the country so as not to disrupt schools and such would be fine. Moving in next door, having the kid live with his other parents 50% of the time, all that would be fine. But being just a semi-relative that doesn't really matter and has no legal claim? Not going to settle for that.

If the latter -- what if the kid asks you to stop fighting for custody? I can easily imagine a kid being absolutely fucking terrified by such a custody fight, and I can't see how subjecting the child to that is in her or his best interest (unless the adoptive parents were abusive or some such).

I would almost certainly still fight. It might be miserable, but it wouldn't be forever. Not having any rights would be forever if they felt threatened by me (as many adoptive parents do towards bioparents) and cut off all contact. What if the kid turns out to be gay, and they send him to a pray-away-the-gay camp and tell me they will cut off contact if I don't condemn him with them? That's not legally abusive. What if he gets cancer, and they don't let me know any details of his care, let alone join in the decision making process?

Again, I could accept reality, that my kid had additional parents besides me. But not that I wasn't still his parent, too.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

In a lot of cases, though, people do look different. I really doubt my parents would be able to recognize me if they hadn't seen me in twelve years since I was three. If you can't recognize your kid after that much time has passed, are you really going to be able to emotionally pick up where you left off? And they might have the same personality, but in twelve years they're not the same person they were. They've had so many experiences that have shaped them.

How long would you have to be involuntarily separated from your own mother before she would have changed to the point that you didn't feel like you had a unique connection to her?

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

I will grant you that if by some sort of time-shift or dimensional event occurred and I had a biological child out there, I would want to find them and I would want to encourage that child's parents to help me have a relationship with that child. A non-parental relationship. If they didn't want to do so, I am pretty sure I would give it up. And it would devastate me. But disrupting the child's life would be the wrong thing to do.

What if someone kidnapped your kids you actually have right now? They are young-school-age, right? They could quite conceivably settle very tightly into a new family, to where while they remembered you, they didn't feel like you were their real mom any more. Would you be content to have a "non-parental relationship" with them? Could you do that?

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

How long would you have to be involuntarily separated from your own mother before she would have changed to the point that you didn't feel like you had a unique connection to her?

Well, if I were only 3 or 4, probably not that long. As a older child/teen, I don't think it could happen. But you can't put a set of parents in front of a fifteen year old who hasn't known them since she was three and expect her to care about them more than the parents who have raised her most of her life -- which is why I thought the bio parents in the Face on the Milk Carton books were so creepy. They kept thinking that their daughter was going to one day suddenly act like her bio parents were the parents she loved most and that was never going to happen.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

Well, if I were only 3 or 4, probably not that long. As a older child/teen, I don't think it could happen. But you can't put a set of parents in front of a fifteen year old who hasn't known them since she was three and expect her to care about them more than the parents who have raised her most of her life -- which is why I thought the bio parents in the Face on the Milk Carton books were so creepy. They kept thinking that their daughter was going to one day suddenly act like her bio parents were the parents she loved most and that was never going to happen.

No, I mean now. If you were involuntarily separated tomorrow. The way you feel connected to your mom. How long would it take before you felt like you didn't have much of a connection to her because she'd been away for so long? Before you'd grown apart so irrevocably that it wasn't really a mother/child relationship any more?

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

In a lot of cases, though, people do look different. I really doubt my parents would be able to recognize me if they hadn't seen me in twelve years since I was three. If you can't recognize your kid after that much time has passed, are you really going to be able to emotionally pick up where you left off? And they might have the same personality, but in twelve years they're not the same person they were. They've had so many experiences that have shaped them.

Of course a lot of things would be very different, but I don't see how you could think that parents would not even feel strong emotions for their kid. And even if they weren't easily recognizable to the casual observer, I think any parent would be able to see how it was still their same kid. But no, you wouldn't be able to just pick up where you left off, of course. You'd love your kid as much as ever though.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by PandaBear77

They managed to cough up 2 years' salary to adopt the child; I'm sure they can figure out a way to come up with a few grand for plane tickets in an emergency.

'Course the rich bio dad has enough money to chase them -- that part kinda sucks.

Going on the run indefinitely takes a lot more than a few grand for plane tickets.

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

No, I mean now. If you were involuntarily separated tomorrow. The way you feel connected to your mom. How long would it take before you felt like you didn't have much of a connection to her because she'd been away for so long? Before you'd grown apart so irrevocably that it wasn't really a mother/child relationship any more?

Now? I don't think it would ever change. But that's because I'm old that memory isn't going to be an issue as it would be for a small kid.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

Now? I don't think it would ever change. But that's because I'm old that memory isn't going to be an issue as it would be for a small kid.

Right, but your mom was "old" when you were born. The way your feelings towards her would never change--even if she changed/matured/had a ton of experiences without you--is how she felt towards you when you were an infant/toddler/small child.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

I think the problem people have with this dilemma is wanting a just solution. There isn't one. No matter what you do, you violate someone's rights; no matter what you do, you harm someone who doesn't deserve it. The choice you are making is whom to harm.

That's why I agree with Mika et al. Even if you decide to consider the adoptive parents as a unit rather than two persons, you are doing less harm overall by allowing the child to stay with them than by awarding him to either the grandparents or the biological father.

Let's just say I'd feel very, very different about the situation if the kid had been adopted through legitimate means like a state orphanage or the foster system or something. As it is, I'm sorry, but the fact that these people bought their baby kind of renders them "not good people" somehow in my eyes. So I'm not convinced they're the best parents for the kid, even if they love him. It's like, I'm reasonably sure Jefferson had love of sorts for Sally Hemings, but he still viewed her (and other slaves) as his property, and because of that, wasn't a good person. Same-same here.

[perfectparanoia]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

What if someone kidnapped your kids you actually have right now? They are young-school-age, right? They could quite conceivably settle very tightly into a new family, to where while they remembered you, they didn't feel like you were their real mom any more. Would you be content to have a "non-parental relationship" with them? Could you do that?

Sorry, I was away. There are a lot of caveats in that situation:

1. One presumes that their current parents are not the ones who kidnapped them (since if they were, going to jail might impede on their ability to continue to parent them).
2. They have been their parents for a long time and have formed a strong attachment relationship with the children.

Would I be 'content' to have a non-parental relationship? Hell, no! Would I do it if it seemed like the best thing for the kids? Hell, yes.

Could I do it? Yeah, I think I could. It would be painful and heart-wrenching. It would probably require counselling for myself and my husband.

I would, literally, die for my children. This sacrifice would be far short of that.

[delphica]

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

So, you would look after your best interests before that of your child? Because that's what you would be doing.

This is hard to respond to because I don't agree. I don't think it's a binary situation. It can be in my best interests AND the child's best interests, so one is not trumping the other.

Really out of curiosity (because overall here, I think we fundamentally disagree but I'm enjoying the conversation and don't want you think I'm targeting you in an aggressive way), would your opinion change at all if:

1. The adopted parents were even a little bit directly culpable, let's say they had knowingly used a shady private adoption broker because they were heartbroken and desperate after not being successful with pursuing a legal adoption. Other than this, they are loving parents and the kid loves them and is happy and thriving. Should custody be given to the birth parents?

2. The adopted parents acted in good faith, but shortly after the adopting their child, learned that who they believed to be a reputable private adoption broker had been involved in other illegal adoptions in the past. Fearful of losing their child, they decide not to come forward to authorities, but rather wait until the investigators contact them. The investigation is slow-moving, they are not contacted for several years. Again, the kid is happy and thriving.

[perfectparanoia]

Originally Posted by delphica

This is hard to respond to because I don't agree. I don't think it's a binary situation. It can be in my best interests AND the child's best interests, so one is not trumping the other.

Really out of curiosity (because overall here, I think we fundamentally disagree but I'm enjoying the conversation and don't want you think I'm targeting you in an aggressive way), would your opinion change at all if:

1. The adopted parents were even a little bit directly culpable, let's say they had knowingly used a shady private adoption broker because they were heartbroken and desperate after not being successful with pursuing a legal adoption. Other than this, they are loving parents and the kid loves them and is happy and thriving. Should custody be given to the birth parents?

2. The adopted parents acted in good faith, but shortly after the adopting their child, learned that who they believed to be a reputable private adoption broker had been involved in other illegal adoptions in the past. Fearful of losing their child, they decide not to come forward to authorities, but rather wait until the investigators contact them. The investigation is slow-moving, they are not contacted for several years. Again, the kid is happy and thriving.

The kid is happy and thriving is really enough for me. I think the kid has a right to enjoy their life and not have it disrupted any more than it has already been. I have seen the damage this disruption can do first hand. I see all the pain that my kids went through (and are still going through) because of it. I couldn't cause that kind of pain for them again. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

Of course, in both cases, I would work to develop a continuing relationship with the child (if they wanted one, of course). I would sincerely hope that the adoptive parents would be willing to work with me on it. If they weren't, I *might* pursue legal action so I could get some kind of visitation but only if the child would not be negatively affected by it.

ETA: I don't mind all the questions at all or that you likely think I am nuts. I am happy to clarify my position.

[sugaree]

Nothing short of abuse, neglect, or free will should sever the natural ties of a parent or child (by free will, I mean in the case that the parent willingly and without coercions surrenders the child).

Originally Posted by delphica

This is hard to respond to because I don't agree. I don't think it's a binary situation. It can be in my best interests AND the child's best interests, so one is not trumping the other.

Really out of curiosity (because overall here, I think we fundamentally disagree but I'm enjoying the conversation and don't want you think I'm targeting you in an aggressive way), would your opinion change at all if:

1. The adopted parents were even a little bit directly culpable, let's say they had knowingly used a shady private adoption broker because they were heartbroken and desperate after not being successful with pursuing a legal adoption. Other than this, they are loving parents and the kid loves them and is happy and thriving. Should custody be given to the birth parents?

2. The adopted parents acted in good faith, but shortly after the adopting their child, learned that who they believed to be a reputable private adoption broker had been involved in other illegal adoptions in the past. Fearful of losing their child, they decide not to come forward to authorities, but rather wait until the investigators contact them. The investigation is slow-moving, they are not contacted for several years. Again, the kid is happy and thriving.

Well, in those cases, the adoptive parents knew someone was wrong, so they are accessories to kidnapping, pure and simple. Now, if the natural family pursues custody here, allowing the adoptive parents to keep the child sets a pretty terrifying legal precedent: that all kidnappers have to do is get away with it just long enough for the child to bond with them, and they're set.

It's a sad situation, and ideally all the adults would work together somehow, but the idea that a bio family whose child has been kidnapped should do this Stella Dallas martyr thing and withdraw themselves is a little bizarro to me.

[Anaamika]

I admit, I come at it prejudiced because half my life was ruined because my biological mom showed up when I was 14 and tried to assert her "rights". All she did is drive a huge wedge between my adoptive mom and me that was never repaired (mom died two years ago so it never will be) and for a long time I hated my biological mother. Now I just feel completely neutral and a little bit of disgust for her.

Of course she gave me up more or less willingly in the first place. The scenarios were the adoptive parents were more or less a little bit culpable are of course different. But I still don't agree biological parents automatically hold the trump cards. I think these need to be decided on a case by case basis. And if it's a case where the parents just shut their eyes and didn't ask any questions, it's not going to be an easy sell to the kid, either.

Difficult situations all around.

[Manda JO]

I hope I am not coming across as too aggressive: like delphica, I am enjoying the conversation.

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

Would I be 'content' to have a non-parental relationship? Hell, no! Would I do it if it seemed like the best thing for the kids? Hell, yes.

I can't see how it would seem like the best thing for my kid. Unless there was a good reason why I wouldn't be a good parent--a reason that would have compelled me to seek out and vet adoptive parents on my own--I just don't see myself able to take it on faith that strangers would make the best choices for my kid. What if they bully him? What if they smoke dope with him? What if they are racist or sexist? What if they push him too hard to get into Harvard? To not have any input, any right to even communicate with him--that wouldn't be best for him, even if it were easiest.

Could I do it? Yeah, I think I could. It would be painful and heart-wrenching. It would probably require counselling for myself and my husband.

I would, literally, die for my children. This sacrifice would be far short of that.

I think dying to save my son would be easy. I wouldn't even have to think about it. This would be harder, because there is a lot more gray.

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

The kid is happy and thriving is really enough for me. I think the kid has a right to enjoy their life and not have it disrupted any more than it has already been. I have seen the damage this disruption can do first hand. I see all the pain that my kids went through (and are still going through) because of it. I couldn't cause that kind of pain for them again. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

I guess I would feel I couldn't be sure he'd keep being happy and thriving, and couldn't stand to lose the right to monitor that. I would do everything in my power to minimize the disruption--not move them or anything--but I couldn't just slink off in the night and hope it all worked out.

Of course, in both cases, I would work to develop a continuing relationship with the child (if they wanted one, of course).

I really disagree with this. I had a friend in high school who had the pretty standard Sundays/2 weeks in the summer visitation schedule with her Dad. Once she hit 12 or so, she started skipping some of those visits and her dad didn't push the issue. What arose was a situation where her mom felt emotionally involved with whether or not her daughter "chose" to go see her dad, and there really arose a lot of pressure to chose not to see her father, and a lot of guilt when she did. Had they all stuck to the visitation schedule, they all would have been happier: the mom wouldn't have felt like her daughter was rejecting her when she went to her dad, the dad would have had a better relationship with his daughter, and my friend wouldn't have felt that relationship with one parent meant rejecting the other. A 12 year old who suddenly discovers he has more parents than he knew can't be expected to decide then if he wants a relationship with all of them, and it's unfair to put him in the position where he has to choose. Better to let the courts create opportunities for a relationship to grow or not over time.

I would sincerely hope that the adoptive parents would be willing to work with me on it. If they weren't, I *might* pursue legal action so I could get some kind of visitation but only if the child would not be negatively affected by it.

And I guess I think that no matter what, the child is going to be negatively affected: the potential negative effect of not knowing me and his first father has to be weighed against the potential negative effect of a court battle. The potential negative effect of a disrupted life has to be weighed against the potential negative effect of his second parents making mistakes, and, honestly, the potential negative effect of knowing his first parents did not fight to know him--which I think would feel like an abandonment or a rejection.

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

I hope I am not coming across as too aggressive: like delphica, I am enjoying the conversation.

Me too. It's a fascinating topic and I hope it's OK that I am interjecting some of my personal experience from the point of view of an adoptee.

Now, off to read your post properly.

[sugaree]

I think your situation was very very different from any of the hypotheticals here, Anaamika. In these situations, I do think that the bio family (or the legal adoptive family, for they can lose a child by kidnapping as well), holds the trump card. If another Aaliyah Hernandez/Delimar Vera is discovered, I don't think a moment's time should be wasted determining how content the child is. That wasn't the kidnapper's kid.

Originally Posted by Anaamika

The scenarios were the adoptive parents were more or less a little bit culpable are of course different. But I still don't agree biological parents automatically hold the trump cards. I think these need to be decided on a case by case basis. And if it's a case where the parents just shut their eyes and didn't ask any questions, it's not going to be an easy sell to the kid, either.

Difficult situations all around.

That's actually what Argentina did, a case-by-case analysis. http://www.enotes.com/disappeared-ch...dren-argentina

In all cases where identity of adoptive children was established, the courts considered the best interest of the child. In some cases, children remained with their adopted families; in others they returned to live with their grandparents, and in some cases the biological family was integrated into the life of the adopted family. By 2002, genetic tests proved the identities of 59 children who had been kidnapped and adopted during the military rule; 31 of the children were returned to their biological families.

I believe that in most of these cases the biological parents were murdered, so the children would have been returned to extended biological family.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by sugaree

I think your situation was very very different from any of the hypotheticals here, Anaamika. In these situations, I do think that the bio family (or the legal adoptive family, for they can lose a child by kidnapping as well), holds the trump card. If another Aaliyah Hernandez/Delimar Vera is discovered, I don't think a moment's time should be wasted determining how content the child is. That wasn't the kidnapper's kid.

I am not Mika, so I shouldn't speak for her. Fortunately I am kind of a dick..

I took her point to be that the biological parent is likely to ruin any chance of having a healthy, fulfilling, good relationship with the kid by pursuing legal custody. Yes, the bio-father probably has the legal right to custody, but what he hopefully desires -- to be the kid's dad, not just his sperm donor -- isn't open to him anymore. Through no fault of the kid or the bio-father's, it's too late. The kid is going to perceive the bio-dad as a stranger who is ripping him away from his real parents, and always resent him.

I also take issue with the notion that the child's contentment is irrelevant. Possessive case aside, one's children are not one's property; they are persons. A father's job is to do what is in his children's best interest, not what the parent wants. Yes, that can sometime involve taking the kid out of a situation the kid prefers -- say requiring a kid to move with you when you change jobs and cities. But in this case, there's no good to be done by taking custody, because the parent-child relationship between the bio-dad and the kid is chimerical. It could only be restored with a time machine, and this ain't that kind of thread.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

Possessive case aside, one's children are not one's property; they are persons.

Agreed. But they are not adults, and they don't know what's in their own best interests. Well, of course, that varies - if the kid was 6, I'd say "Definitely to the bio-dad", if the kid was 16, I'd say "Definitely with the adoptives". You hit on the nebulous age where I think there's still a chance for recovery of the dad-son relationship. And since the adoptive parents aren't special snowflakes IMO, I don't hesitate in saying he should have that chance.

[sugaree]

Not that the child is a person instead of a possession, but that familial ties are not essential to the child's well-being. And that it's impossible to cultivate a father-son relationship past the age of 10.

And also, that if you look at these cases in real life, like Aaliyah Hernandez, it tends to not bode well for the child's bond with the kidnappers or accidental kidnappers.

But I have to run now, so I'll be back to argue later tonight.

[Anaamika]

Now we're getting into actual kidnappers which is a whole different kettle of fish, isn't it? I don't think the OP started out with actual kidnappers, just people who might have gone a step or two too far to get the child they really wanted. Ergo, people who actually love the child they did get.

I don't know. It's not so cut-and-dried as the biological parents coming storming in and whisking the child away. From the article sugaree linked to:

In all cases where identity of adoptive children was established, the courts considered the best interest of the child. In some cases, children remained with their adopted families; in others they returned to live with their grandparents, and in some cases the biological family was integrated into the life of the adopted family. By 2002, genetic tests proved the identities of 59 children who had been kidnapped and adopted during the military rule; 31 of the children were returned to their biological families.

The best interests of the CHILD. Not of the biological parents. And these kids were actually stolen.

[delphica]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

The best interests of the CHILD. Not of the biological parents. And these kids were actually stolen.

I'm all for the best interests of the child. I would be interested in more context from the Argentinian case - because the situation in many cases involved the death of the bio parents, and not everyone has living grandparents (or grandparents in good health), one of my questions is how many of the 31 who remained with their adoptive families did so even when the bio parents were still living? What I'm wondering is if the courts would have mandated more returns to bio families if more of the bio parents were alive.

Despite my strong feelings about the return of kidnapped children to their biological parents, I don't have particularly strong feelings about returning them to, say, biological cousins.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

I took her point to be that the biological parent is likely to ruin any chance of having a healthy, fulfilling, good relationship with the kid by pursuing legal custody. Yes, the bio-father probably has the legal right to custody, but what he hopefully desires -- to be the kid's dad, not just his sperm donor -- isn't open to him anymore. Through no fault of the kid or the bio-father's, it's too late. The kid is going to perceive the bio-dad as a stranger who is ripping him away from his real parents, and always resent him.

I also take issue with the notion that the child's contentment is irrelevant. Possessive case aside, one's children are not one's property; they are persons. A father's job is to do what is in his children's best interest, not what the parent wants. Yes, that can sometime involve taking the kid out of a situation the kid prefers -- say requiring a kid to move with you when you change jobs and cities. But in this case, there's no good to be done by taking custody, because the parent-child relationship between the bio-dad and the kid is chimerical. It could only be restored with a time machine, and this ain't that kind of thread.

How are the adoptive parents not also being dicks? I mean, how does this conversation make them look:

"Well, son. Today you are 18. There's something we need to tell you. You know you were adopted? Well, when you were 12 we found out that you had been stolen. You biological father found out about you, and was desperate to form a relationship with you. But you were 12, and we thought it would be stressful for you to deal with having more than just us as parents. So when he approached us and asked if we would work with him to establish some sort of joint custody, we made it really clear that if he did that, we'd fight him tooth and nail: you're our boy, and no one else gets a share in that. We made sure he understood that if he tried to have a relationship with you, we'd resist it and the whole thing would be traumatic and painful for you. Because he loved you, he agreed to leave without ever talking to you."

Does that situation really seem like it is resolved in the best interest of the child? Having lost the chance to have a relationship in the first decade of his life, is denying him the chance to have a relationship in the second half of his life really the best choice? It'd be easier, yes, but is it better? Why is the biological parent the bad guy for wanting custody, but the adoptive parents aren't bad guys for not wanting to share it?

I have a friend with a younger half sister she'd never met, and never will. Her parents decided it would be less disruptive, less confusing, less complicated, not to tell her about the girl. And all that is true. But to me it never seemed like a choice made in her best interest.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

Now we're getting into actual kidnappers which is a whole different kettle of fish, isn't it? I don't think the OP started out with actual kidnappers,.

Nope, just fencers of kidnapped goods.

[perfectparanoia]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

How are the adoptive parents not also being dicks? I mean, how does this conversation make them look:

"Well, son. Today you are 18. There's something we need to tell you. You know you were adopted? Well, when you were 12 we found out that you had been stolen. You biological father found out about you, and was desperate to form a relationship with you. But you were 12, and we thought it would be stressful for you to deal with having more than just us as parents. So when he approached us and asked if we would work with him to establish some sort of joint custody, we made it really clear that if he did that, we'd fight him tooth and nail: you're our boy, and no one else gets a share in that. We made sure he understood that if he tried to have a relationship with you, we'd resist it and the whole thing would be traumatic and painful for you. Because he loved you, he agreed to leave without ever talking to you."

Does that situation really seem like it is resolved in the best interest of the child? Having lost the chance to have a relationship in the first decade of his life, is denying him the chance to have a relationship in the second half of his life really the best choice? It'd be easier, yes, but is it better? Why is the biological parent the bad guy for wanting custody, but the adoptive parents aren't bad guys for not wanting to share it?

I have a friend with a younger half sister she'd never met, and never will. Her parents decided it would be less disruptive, less confusing, less complicated, not to tell her about the girl. And all that is true. But to me it never seemed like a choice made in her best interest.

Whoa-whoa! I was thinking of the typical adoptive situation today. Where (even if it were shady) you have to go through training, etc. If they were at all halfway decent parents, the kid would already know he was adopted. This should never come as a surprise. It is basically considered to be emotionally abusive these days not to tell your kid.

As to the other stuff. I wll respond shortly. Need time to type a proper post.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

Whoa-whoa! I was thinking of the typical adoptive situation today. Where (even if it were shady) you have to go through training, etc. If they were at all halfway decent parents, the kid would already know he was adopted. This should never come as a surprise. It is basically considered to be emotionally abusive these days not to tell your kid.

As to the other stuff. I wll respond shortly. Need time to type a proper post.

Not that they keep the adoption secret (look at the first line), but the fact that the child was kidnapped and that his biological family did want a relationship when they discovered him. Denying a kid a relationship with their biological family and holding the kid's happiness and stability as a hostage ("pursue this and we will fight it and he will suffer") is a thousand times worse, IMHO, than wanting to share custody of your own child.

[perfectparanoia]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

I hope I am not coming across as too aggressive: like delphica, I am enjoying the conversation.

I can't see how it would seem like the best thing for my kid. Unless there was a good reason why I wouldn't be a good parent--a reason that would have compelled me to seek out and vet adoptive parents on my own--I just don't see myself able to take it on faith that strangers would make the best choices for my kid. What if they bully him? What if they smoke dope with him? What if they are racist or sexist? What if they push him too hard to get into Harvard? To not have any input, any right to even communicate with him--that wouldn't be best for him, even if it were easiest.

I guess I would feel I couldn't be sure he'd keep being happy and thriving, and couldn't stand to lose the right to monitor that. I would do everything in my power to minimize the disruption--not move them or anything--but I couldn't just slink off in the night and hope it all worked out.

I think it's just because I have had so much training, counselling and experience with attachment disorders. Even if a child is in a somewhat screwed up situation, if they are attached (in the clinical sense, not that they like them) to their caregivers, removing from that situation WILL have detrimental effects on them. Sometimes, these are minor (especially if they are younger) but sometimes it means they are NEVER able to form attachments to ANYONE. Even later in life.

So, even though I am a pretty good parent (or at least I try to be), I know that it would have to be pretty bad in their existing situation for me to possibly even begin to make up for the psychological pain that disruption would cause them.

Again, I would really, REALLY want to form an attachment with the child. However, unless I saw significant evidence that the child was being mistreated, I would have to give the final say to the adoptive parents.

I really disagree with this. I had a friend in high school who had the pretty standard Sundays/2 weeks in the summer visitation schedule with her Dad. Once she hit 12 or so, she started skipping some of those visits and her dad didn't push the issue. What arose was a situation where her mom felt emotionally involved with whether or not her daughter "chose" to go see her dad, and there really arose a lot of pressure to chose not to see her father, and a lot of guilt when she did. Had they all stuck to the visitation schedule, they all would have been happier: the mom wouldn't have felt like her daughter was rejecting her when she went to her dad, the dad would have had a better relationship with his daughter, and my friend wouldn't have felt that relationship with one parent meant rejecting the other. A 12 year old who suddenly discovers he has more parents than he knew can't be expected to decide then if he wants a relationship with all of them, and it's unfair to put him in the position where he has to choose. Better to let the courts create opportunities for a relationship to grow or not over time.

Maybe I just don't trust the courts at this stage? I guess if the adoptive parents were complete, unyielding jerks (in which case, I would be concerned about the child anyway) they should provide their child with the ability to see/have a relationship with their bio-parent.

If they didn't, I wouldn't have faith that the child was 'happy' and 'thriving.' Then I would probably pursue something with Chilren's Aid and possibly get the courts involved.

And I guess I think that no matter what, the child is going to be negatively affected: the potential negative effect of not knowing me and his first father has to be weighed against the potential negative effect of a court battle. The potential negative effect of a disrupted life has to be weighed against the potential negative effect of his second parents making mistakes, and, honestly, the potential negative effect of knowing his first parents did not fight to know him--which I think would feel like an abandonment or a rejection.

For the child, there is very little negative effect from them not knowing the birth parents. As long as they know their story (and what happened), kids seem to be able to deal with it okay.

I guess I just see a utopian situation where the adopted parents would work with the bio-parents. I know that if my kids dad showed up on my front porch tomorrow that I would try to find a way to include him in their lives. (Their mom, not so much but keep in mind that they were removed from her custody for some pretty solid reasons).

We have just learned to be really open when it comes to our kids. They were in a foster home for 2 1/2 years and they formed a very strong bond with their foster mom. She couldn't adopt them (already had four kids) which was sad for all involved. We still talk to her and so do the kids. We go for visits. They have come here for visits. None of this was anything we were REQUIRED to do, it was all in the best interest of our kids.

Granted, it is really hard. Especially when they had only been with us for a short while. They obviously had a stronger bond with foster mom than with either of us. It hurt. But it was the RIGHT thing to do. So, we did it.

[perfectparanoia]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Not that they keep the adoption secret (look at the first line), but the fact that the child was kidnapped and that his biological family did want a relationship when they discovered him. Denying a kid a relationship with their biological family and holding the kid's happiness and stability as a hostage ("pursue this and we will fight it and he will suffer") is a thousand times worse, IMHO, than wanting to share custody of your own child.

See post above. I just can't see anyone who gave two shits about their kid doing this.

[YogSosoth]

Pat and Shawn should retain custody but Scott should have visitation rights.

Unlike typical stolen goods, a stolen baby has a mind of its own, and as much as I hate the common retort that we need to do what's best for the child, in this case the child is old enough to be severely affected if he's removed from the only parents he's ever known.

If he was younger, say, 5 or under, I'd say the kid can be taken away from Pat and Shawn with little damage. Pat and Shawn needs to be compensated though, and maybe skipped to the head of the adoption line if such a thing exists.

Ideally, they can try working out a solution involving California's proposed bill that allows kids to have 3 parents.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

So let's switch it around. YOU are now the adoptive parents. You've had this baby since he was eight months old. He is now fifteen. He is your kid and you love him to death and you've done everything you can for him.

Along comes a woman who has a rightful biological claim to the baby - can prove it. She demands you give the baby back RIGHT FUCK NOW. Your son clings to you and says "Momma, I don't want to leave. You're my momma. I don't know her."

Will you give up that child just because bio momma showed up?

I would spend every cent I had, every penny I could borrow, go anywhere, do almost literally anything, to keep my son safe by my side.

I think I would feel better about myself if I could say "except murder". But I wouldn't mean it.

Anyone who wants to take my children away from me is Enemy. Go away, now, and don't come back.

Or I will hurt you.

[perfectparanoia]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

If he was younger, say, 5 or under, I'd say the kid can be taken away from Pat and Shawn with little damage. Pat and Shawn needs to be compensated though, and maybe skipped to the head of the adoption line if such a thing exists.

How do you get compensated for losing your kid? Just get another? They aren't interchangeable, you know.

Pat and Shawn would not be in a position to get a new child. They would grieve the loss of the child they had.

Heck, I have only been with my kids for two and a half years and if they were suddenly not there...I can't even think about it.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Nope, just fencers of kidnapped goods.

A fence is a person who buys stolen items to sell to others. That doesn't apply here.

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I would spend every cent I had, every penny I could borrow, go anywhere, do almost literally anything, to keep my son safe by my side.

I think I would feel better about myself if I could say "except murder". But I wouldn't mean it.

Anyone who wants to take my children away from me is Enemy. Go away, now, and don't come back.

Or I will hurt you.

I guess I'm not sure whether you're talking to the adoptive parents or the putative biological parents or both, here.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

How do you get compensated for losing your kid? Just get another? They aren't interchangeable, you know.

Pat and Shawn would not be in a position to get a new child. They would grieve the loss of the child they had.

Heck, I have only been with my kids for two and a half years and if they were suddenly not there...I can't even think about it.

You're right. I'm just trying to think of the least bad scenario though. It would really really suck for Pat and Shawn, but people who mistakenly buy stolen goods usually have to return the goods even if they bought it thinking it was legitimate.

With a child, both adoptive and biological parents have a claim. Our country prizes biological over non-biological, and sometimes I think that's wrong, but in this case, I can't help feeling that Simon is harmed even more than Pat/Shawn

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

You're right. I'm just trying to think of the least bad scenario though. It would really really suck for Pat and Shawn, but people who mistakenly buy stolen goods usually have to return the goods even if they bought it thinking it was legitimate.

With a child, both adoptive and biological parents have a claim. Our country prizes biological over non-biological, and sometimes I think that's wrong, but in this case, I can't help feeling that Simon is harmed even more than Pat/Shawn

I don't think you can draw that conclusion, but I also don't think it matters. It's impossible to resolve the situation without hurting one or the other, and they're adults. I'd say they balance each other out. (Well, yeah, there's two persons on one side, but I'm willing to count Pat & Shawn as a unit.) But the kid is another matter. It's possible to resolve the situation without doing harm to him, and that is what should matter.

[ZPG Zealot]

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

See post above. I just can't see anyone who gave two shits about their kid doing this.

There's a lot of people who don't give two shits about a kid, particular individuals that feel they have the right to buy children and have their birth certificates altered. I disagree heavily with your assumption that "there is very little negative effect from them not knowing the birth parents". I have known far too many suicidal former adoptees.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

I don't think you can draw that conclusion, but I also don't think it matters. It's impossible to resolve the situation without hurting one or the other, and they're adults. I'd say they balance each other out. (Well, yeah, there's two persons on one side, but I'm willing to count Pat & Shawn as a unit.) But the kid is another matter. It's possible to resolve the situation without doing harm to him, and that is what should matter.

Is it? How is denying a kid knowledge of or access to some of his family not doing him harm? Look at the example I gave above: my friend's parents decided to never tell her that she had a younger half-sister because they thought it was "resolv[ing] the situation without doing harm to [her]." Would you agree with that choice? How is denying knowledge of an additional parent not the same thing?

perfect paranoia, I am not ignoring you, just still thinking.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Is it? How is denying a kid knowledge of or access to some of his family not doing him harm? Look at the example I gave above: my friend's parents decided to never tell her that she had a younger half-sister because they thought it was "resolv[ing] the situation without doing harm to [her]." Would you agree with that choice? How is denying knowledge of an additional parent not the same thing?

perfect paranoia, I am not ignoring you, just still thinking.

You are right to call me out on writing "no harm." I should have written "minimal harm." And by that I don't mean "very little harm," but "as little harm as possible."

I think that the least harm will be done to the child by leaving him with the parents who have raised him since infancy. Ripping a ten-year-old from his parents is going to be very traumatic, and I see very little upside to it.

Giving the bio-dad visitation? Sure. Sole custody? No effing way.

[sugaree]

I gotta say that even though it is the scenario laid out in the OP, the biological vs. adopted issue is a little bit of a red herring. I think everyone would have the same opinion (all our different opinions) if, instead of the pregnant mother being murdered, a legally-adopted baby was kidnapped from his adoptive parents, sold to a shady lawyer, illegally adopted out to a loving family, then found years later.

Now, my question about the bio-dad in the OP--if, instead of not knowing he was going to be a father, bio-dad had known and was happy and looking forward to it, had been heartbroken by the murder and was in agony about the kidnapping, and had spent the last ten years searching ceaselessly for his son, would anyone's opinion on custody change?

[Manda JO]

perfectparanoia, I think we basically agree on the extremes:

1. If the second parents are totally willing to help build a relationship, and offer unfettered access. basically do nothing legally but start attending a lot of school events and hanging out and see what develops.

2. If the second parents go absolutely apeshit and say "stay away from our son. Don't ever try to contact him. He must never know that he wasn't voluntarily surrendered. If you ever approach him in any way we will do everything in our power to legally destroy you", then it's appropriate to take some sort of legal steps. It's never best for the child for the first parents to "slink away in the night".

Is that a fair characterization? I do think the second scenario would be more common than you think: I have known more than a couple adoptive parents who were absolutely determined that their adoption be closed, and in fact considered it a deal breaker. No matter what the circumstances, I really think some otherwise decent people would feel very threatened by a "real" parent showing up, even if that "real" parent was prepared to be reasonable.

I think where we disagree may be all the cases in the middle: a set of second parents that say they will allow visitation, but exert a lot of pressure on the kid not to bond, or who restrict important information about the kid, or who allow only very limited, highly supervised visitation (like "you can come to our house for dinner 4 times a year"), or who engage in parenting practices that while not technically abusive are highly problematic. In these sorts of cases I can see pursuing legal remedies simply insure I continue to have meaningful access. But again, I think we largely agree on what's absolutely optimum (the first case), we just differ on how common we think it would be.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

You are right to call me out on writing "no harm." I should have written "minimal harm." And by that I don't mean "very little harm," but "as little harm as possible."

I think that the least harm will be done to the child by leaving him with the parents who have raised him since infancy. Ripping a ten-year-old from his parents is going to be very traumatic, and I see very little upside to it.

Giving the bio-dad visitation? Sure. Sole custody? No effing way.

But what if the adoptive parents make that the only possible option--they refuse to work with the first dad. THEY are the ones holding the kid's happiness hostage. Isn't willfully separating the child from his other parent (once they know he exist) as wrong as the original kidnapping? And once they show they are willing to maintain the kidnapping, is the dad really the bad guy for calling their bluff?