adoption and child kidnapping

[Kayla]

there is a child custody case in the news about a girl who was adopted because her father was too busy serving serious time in a federal prison - and then the adoption was overturned on a technicality

so when the father got out of prison, the 9 yo girl was taken out of the only home she knew and handed over to her father because Tennessee child services are run by idiots (you can google Sonya McCaul for details)

but while in that case the child services and the courts clearly made a very bad decision, other cases following a roughly similar pattern are not as clear cut

a common argument in such cases is that the child should not be removed from the only loving, stable home they have ever known and placed with strangers - and this is not a bad argument at all


but it does bring point us to some difficult questions

suppose someone kidnaps a newborn and proceed to raise that child in a stable home with two loving parents . assume that the birth parents were not in any way unfit parents.

eventually - lets say nine years later - the police happen to locate the kidnappers and the parents of that child want her or him back

no evidence is found that apart from the initial kidnapping the child was in any way mistreated

could the kidnappers reasonably invoke the "the child should not be removed from the only loving home they have ever known and placed with strangers argument"?


how about this variant

the kidnappers drop dead a few weeks after the kidnapping - no one at this time ties the child with the missing newborn

the child gets placed for adoption because there are no other known relative and is placed in a loving stable family who adopt the child in good faith

nine years later the birth parents locate the child

[Skip]

....
suppose someone kidnaps a newborn .....
could the kidnappers reasonably invoke the "the child should not be removed from the only loving home they have ever known and placed with strangers argument"?

No, because they're going to jail. And they deserve to, not for harm done the child but for the anguish they caused the parents.
So, that's no different from children being placed in foster care if their natural parents are imprisoned for some crime.

... newborn the child gets placed for adoption because there are no other known relative and is placed in a loving stable family who adopt the child in good faith

nine years later the birth parents locate the child

This one is very difficult, and does actually happen, in various versions. Any judge would have a hard time with it, but would certainly give the child back to the natural parents (unless there was something drastically wrong with them). A compassionate one, probably with some kind of co-parenting or visitation arrangement and a gradual transition wherein the kid and both sets of parents participate.

Makes you realize how much better it is for children to belong to a tribe or the proverbial village, where all the adults care for and protect them and nobody "owns" them.

Made a mess of the quotes, first time; was in a hurry.

[Sappho de Miranda]

there is a child custody case in the news about a girl who was adopted because her father was too busy serving serious time in a federal prison - and then the adoption was overturned on a technicality

so when the father got out of prison, the 9 yo girl was taken out of the only home she knew and handed over to her father because Tennessee child services are run by idiots (you can google Sonya McCaul for details)

I read the article which claims that the child was not adopted. She was in foster care only. That means that the birth parents had not consented to adoption. That also means that the birth parents have a right to their child.

but while in that case the child services and the courts clearly made a very bad decision, other cases following a roughly similar pattern are not as clear cut

The only bad decision made, that I can see, was that the reuniting of the child with her father was not done in a way that respects the child, the foster parents and the father.

The child should have remained with the foster parents, ensuring visitation with the father as he worked to grow a relationship with his child and worked with 'child services' to learn the skills of parenthood.... something not taught in jail as I understand it.

I'm rather surprised that the foster parents were not required to ensure some kind of visitation with the child's father whilst he was still in jail since the child and father have a right to see each other.

suppose someone kidnaps a newborn and proceed to raise that child in a stable home with two loving parents . assume that the birth parents were not in any way unfit parents.

Motive matters Kayla... so we need to know why people such as you describe kidnapped the child.

how about this variant

the kidnappers drop dead a few weeks after the kidnapping - no one at this time ties the child with the missing newborn

the child gets placed for adoption because there are no other known relative and is placed in a loving stable family who adopt the child in good faith

nine years later the birth parents locate the child

Again, the child has a right to know their parents and the parents have a right to parent their child if that is what they want. The In this case however... the child is blessed with two sets of parents. Everything should be done to ensure that the child grows a loving relationship with her natural parents and her birth parents with a view to a shared care arrangement in the future.

[Kayla]

No, because they're going to jail. And they deserve to, not for harm done the child but for the anguish they caused the parents.
So, that's no different from children being placed in foster care if their natural parents are imprisoned for some crime.

that may well be

but if someone commits a crime, to what extend does the fact hat punishing them will also punish their children an issue? I know this is not legally an issue, but philosophy is more about what should be rather than what is.

This one is very difficult, and does actually happen, in various versions. Any judge would have a hard time with it, but would certainly give the child back to the natural parents (unless there was something drastically wrong with them).

that, as i understand it, is the law.

but what would be the benefit to the child in being given back to the natural parents? (for the purposes of this discussion we have to assume that neither set of parents is significantly 'better' or 'worse' as parents)

A compassionate one, probably with some kind of co-parenting or visitation arrangement and a gradual transition wherein the kid and both sets of parents participate.

that would make things less difficult for the child, but again, what would be the benefit to the child? if the transition is even slightly traumatic, you are imposing trauma on the child for reasons that have nothing to do with the child, that are not the child's problem

i understand adopted children do generally want to know about their biological parents - so it would make sense - even from best interests of the child perspective - to introduce the bio parents into the child's life to some extent or another - and it might even make sense to have laws dealing with that - but it is far from clear that handing over custody would actually benefit the child in any way

[Skip]

Kids live in the world: they can't escape the risk of illness or injury or bad luck. They live in a society and can't escape the risks associated with interdependence. Some societies are very concerned with and protective of children, while others seem to care very little about them. There isn't an ideal situation.

Ideally, there would be no loss or hurt: everyone in the community would share child-rearing responsibilities and chores, as well as the satisfaction and joy of having children. But we're not ideal people: we are possessive and fervently want what we want. What we have in a complex modern society is an n-dimensional rope-pull, where everybody involved wants a different outcome, and the law has to try to serve both the various individuals' and the community's interest. No decision can be altogether satisfactory.

Even in the what-if realm of speculation, I can't ignore the rights and needs of four adults in order to optimize one child's experience.
The loss of their baby is a terrible ordeal for parents: they're deeply invested in making offspring, while their newborn has contributed nothing and formed no bonds, as yet. The adults have suffered and need restitution. It may not benefit the child, to have two sets of caring adults in his life, but it's unlikely to harm him. He's not the only one who deserves consideration.
If he is the only one whose welfare is considered, at whatever cost to the adults, and he takes that state of affairs as the norm, he'll grow up to be a self-centered, unlovable snot, and that will harm him in the long term.

The kids just have to take their lumps like the rest of us.

[Kayla]

The kids just have to take their lumps like the rest of us.

at the risk of pointing out the obvious, kids are in an inferior position to deal with the lumps that come their way

in a situation I describe - a child would not be harmed if they are introduced to the newly discovered biological parents - if the newly discovered parents respected the fact that for all of the child life, the adoptive parents where their only parents - assuming that everyone acted reasonably and in good faith

but if that were the case, there would no need for the courts - or even this discussion