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