Virginia couple sued by Afghan refugees of crazy scheme to kidnap their baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story makes me very sad for the child. I know the Masts think they are doing the right thing, but I hope the courts get it straightened out and return the child to the relatives.

I’m sure the Masts believe they are, because they’re white, American, evangelical Christians who have claimed that the baby would be in inherent danger to be raised by Muslim Afghani relatives who would likely make her “a child soldier or sex slave”. The xenophobia, among other things, is incredible.

MHiw did the court approve this? Trump-appointed?

Yes, international adoption requires state dept involvement, visas, etc.

Very fishy.

And the marine probably thought he would be portrayed as some savior. If he really cared about the baby, he would have brought her and her new (afghan) parents here, and helped settle them as an intact family.

This is what I don’t get. The NYTimes article was annoyingly impressionistic about the legal aspects of the case. I don’t understand how a court could issue an adoption decree with minimal objective evidence that the child even existed, much less any biological relatives who could care for her. And the court apparently accepted the verbal testimony that the Afghan government would waive jurisdiction. It all seems totally insane - anyone could do this an effectively steal a child from any jurisdiction. As long as you get the child present in a county where CPS will take possession of them for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story makes me very sad for the child. I know the Masts think they are doing the right thing, but I hope the courts get it straightened out and return the child to the relatives.

I’m sure the Masts believe they are, because they’re white, American, evangelical Christians who have claimed that the baby would be in inherent danger to be raised by Muslim Afghani relatives who would likely make her “a child soldier or sex slave”. The xenophobia, among other things, is incredible.

MHiw did the court approve this? Trump-appointed?

Yes, international adoption requires state dept involvement, visas, etc.

Very fishy.

And the marine probably thought he would be portrayed as some savior. If he really cared about the baby, he would have brought her and her new (afghan) parents here, and helped settle them as an intact family.

This is what I don’t get. The NYTimes article was annoyingly impressionistic about the legal aspects of the case. I don’t understand how a court could issue an adoption decree with minimal objective evidence that the child even existed, much less any biological relatives who could care for her. And the court apparently accepted the verbal testimony that the Afghan government would waive jurisdiction. It all seems totally insane - anyone could do this an effectively steal a child from any jurisdiction. As long as you get the child present in a county where CPS will take possession of them for you.

That's because you are assuming that the court is not biased, is honest, and follows all procedures. The court that gave this couple custody is in rural VA, probably 100% white, evangelicals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story makes me very sad for the child. I know the Masts think they are doing the right thing, but I hope the courts get it straightened out and return the child to the relatives.

I see it, I like it, I want it, I got it.

Yes, reminds me of the Mandy Patinkin number in the Elmo movie- I see it, take it and I make it mine!

[Anonymous]

I am fascinated by this case and hope this little girl goes back with the Does.

I couldn’t even finish the nytimes article though because I was so angry at the Masts and everybody enabling them. Just thinking about it angers me…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story makes me very sad for the child. I know the Masts think they are doing the right thing, but I hope the courts get it straightened out and return the child to the relatives.

I’m sure the Masts believe they are, because they’re white, American, evangelical Christians who have claimed that the baby would be in inherent danger to be raised by Muslim Afghani relatives who would likely make her “a child soldier or sex slave”. The xenophobia, among other things, is incredible.

MHiw did the court approve this? Trump-appointed?

Yes, international adoption requires state dept involvement, visas, etc.

Very fishy.

And the marine probably thought he would be portrayed as some savior. If he really cared about the baby, he would have brought her and her new (afghan) parents here, and helped settle them as an intact family.

This is what I don’t get. The NYTimes article was annoyingly impressionistic about the legal aspects of the case. I don’t understand how a court could issue an adoption decree with minimal objective evidence that the child even existed, much less any biological relatives who could care for her. And the court apparently accepted the verbal testimony that the Afghan government would waive jurisdiction. It all seems totally insane - anyone could do this an effectively steal a child from any jurisdiction. As long as you get the child present in a county where CPS will take possession of them for you.

Corruption. Of a sort, anyway. Small town, the petitioners know the judge. Anti-Muslim bias. And it's not like there was anyone in court to object.

But your point is true- it's seemingly easy to do this under the right circumstances.

I think eventually the legal process will play out here, but this NY Times story puts egg on the face of DOD and, to a lesser extent, the State Department. I find it conceivable that there are behind the scenes talks from high levels going on. I also predict the Masts try to go loud and public and try to co-opt the right wing media to their cause. I'm not sure if it will work, but it will be attempted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story makes me very sad for the child. I know the Masts think they are doing the right thing, but I hope the courts get it straightened out and return the child to the relatives.

I’m sure the Masts believe they are, because they’re white, American, evangelical Christians who have claimed that the baby would be in inherent danger to be raised by Muslim Afghani relatives who would likely make her “a child soldier or sex slave”. The xenophobia, among other things, is incredible.

MHiw did the court approve this? Trump-appointed?

Yes, international adoption requires state dept involvement, visas, etc.

Very fishy.

And the marine probably thought he would be portrayed as some savior. If he really cared about the baby, he would have brought her and her new (afghan) parents here, and helped settle them as an intact family.

This is what I don’t get. The NYTimes article was annoyingly impressionistic about the legal aspects of the case. I don’t understand how a court could issue an adoption decree with minimal objective evidence that the child even existed, much less any biological relatives who could care for her. And the court apparently accepted the verbal testimony that the Afghan government would waive jurisdiction. It all seems totally insane - anyone could do this an effectively steal a child from any jurisdiction. As long as you get the child present in a county where CPS will take possession of them for you.

Corruption. Of a sort, anyway. Small town, the petitioners know the judge. Anti-Muslim bias. And it's not like there was anyone in court to object.

But your point is true- it's seemingly easy to do this under the right circumstances.

I think eventually the legal process will play out here, but this NY Times story puts egg on the face of DOD and, to a lesser extent, the State Department. I find it conceivable that there are behind the scenes talks from high levels going on. I also predict the Masts try to go loud and public and try to co-opt the right wing media to their cause. I'm not sure if it will work, but it will be attempted.

I worry that the legal process won’t play out. Even if the adoption is reversed due to fraud or legal insufficiency, the Virginia court could still determine it’s in the best interests of the child to stay with the Masts. Especially the longer she stays with them. I fear the best we can hope for is criminal consequences for Mast.

[Anonymous]

So just spitballing here … could the resolution be through immigration courts? Baby’s immigration status as naturalized through adoption was obtained by fraud and should be reversed, putting her in custody of US immigration, which can parole her into the custody of the Afghan family. The question is whether federal immigration proceedings will disturb the adoption decree of the state court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just spitballing here … could the resolution be through immigration courts? Baby’s immigration status as naturalized through adoption was obtained by fraud and should be reversed, putting her in custody of US immigration, which can parole her into the custody of the Afghan family. The question is whether federal immigration proceedings will disturb the adoption decree of the state court.

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/971036/download

[Anonymous]

$100 bucks says they prayed to Jesus for a baby girl & got nowhere. Then when the bombs exploded and only an infant girl survived Mast took it as a sign that Jesus did answer their prayers, and dropped her right there, just for him. A thousand percent this child theft/trafficking was celebrated & rejoiced (in secret apparently) with their church people. International adoption is so incredibly controlled with checks and approvals every step of the way. Stunned that some backwater small town American judge thought they got to decide. And did.

[Anonymous]

I hope R’s parents get some high powered pro bono counsel. Mast seems like a real snake.

[Anonymous]

I still cannot understand how a STATE judge can issue an adoption decree for a child not on US soil. How is that even legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope R’s parents get some high powered pro bono counsel. Mast seems like a real snake.

They do. I believe McGuire Woods DC and NYC offices are representing them. They’re originally a Richmond firm which IMO is smart to be dealing with Fluvanna County courts.

BUT the Masts I believe are represented by Hunton (their lawyer lives in Alexandria), which is also an older Richmond firm so seems they both had same strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story makes me very sad for the child. I know the Masts think they are doing the right thing, but I hope the courts get it straightened out and return the child to the relatives.

Do they really think that? It's hard to imagine

Well, if you think Americans are superior . Christianity is the only true religion. Etc etc

The guy should be in jail. Instead, it sounds like he is in our payroll

FYI, Muslims believe that, it's why non-Muslims are not allowed to adopt Muslim babies. It's not a strange or terrible belief. These people are the problem. Focus on them.

Muslims didn't steal a Christian baby and try to raise it as Muslim, did they? No, they did not. They merely wanted the child to be raised by relatives of her parents, who by all accounts love her deeply. Meanwhile, this white Christian savior type stole her. He deserves to rot in jail for torturing this child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still cannot understand how a STATE judge can issue an adoption decree for a child not on US soil. How is that even legal?

I'll tell you how with three symbols and three letters. $$$ KKK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story makes me very sad for the child. I know the Masts think they are doing the right thing, but I hope the courts get it straightened out and return the child to the relatives.

Do they really think that? It's hard to imagine

Well, I assume they are focused on the fact that the alternative is growing up female under the Taliban - no education, no freedom, no rights. I imagine they desperately want the baby and have used this to convince themselves that they are justified. To be clear, I think it's terrible, I'm just saying that I can imagine that they might be deeply misguided rather than evil.

But regardless of their intentions, they have inflicted a terrible trauma on this poor girl and her family and I hope it's over soon.

You really ought to read the two articles. The baby was not going to grow up under the Taliban.