Back to bashing the Catholic Church...

So does this mean that one should feel lucky if they limit themselves to raping one's child? I can't believe how ungrateful all these victims of molestation by priests are.
I mean, they still got to go home (albeit slowly and maybe bleeding from their anus or vagina) and sleep in their own beds.

Catholic parents, it's a fine, fine institution you are raising your children in.
I am absolutely horrified.

Anonymous wrote:Saddens me that people automatically think that even a victim of a violent crime is not entitled to get her child back.
After all, the adoptive parents must be morally superior, more intelligent, and of course American. So how could a woman from a third world country dare to think she could care for her own child.

We all know this is a case of child trafficking, not a switched at birth. Switched at birth are switched at birth. This baby grew with her family, was abducted and sold to an orphanage that kept her until the she could be fraudulent sold

If the child only remembers one mommy or daddy, then how can you rip her from the only parents she has ever known?

Saddens me that people automatically think that even a victim of a violent crime is not entitled to get her child back.
After all, the adoptive parents must be morally superior, more intelligent, and of course American. So how could a woman from a third world country dare to think she could care for her own child.

We all know this is a case of child trafficking, not a switched at birth. Switched at birth are switched at birth. This baby grew with her family, was abducted and sold to an orphanage that kept her until the she could be fraudulent sold

Anonymous wrote:Children belong to their parents, always and under any given condition.

Guess we can shut down Child Protective Services then.

Anonymous wrote:A chid mixed at birth is totally different. This is not a switched baby case

Thanks. In what relevant way is it different? In both cases, it was neither side’s fault, and there’s obviously no different to the child.

Anonymous wrote:The adoptive parents could have saved the child some trauma by co-operating and returning it 2 years ago.
They must have paid a lot of money, they could have questioned where the money goes

So what? None of that changes anything from the child’s perspective.

Anonymous wrote:The courts should do more than automatically side with the family that has the child on the pretense of what is in the childs best interest.

Straw man.

Anonymous wrote: I think we can all agree that the childs best interest is a variable that can be thrown one way or another.

Therefore it’s meaningless? So in divorce, custody should always be 50/50, and no court should ever determine that a home is unsafe for a child.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That story was newsworthy? Really?

Catholic Charities has and still does the same thing in the US. They have been forcing women to surrender babies for years because they do not deem them fit to raise babies.

You have a cite for that?

Are you actually surprised that we're surprised? Do you understand it to be common knowledge/belief that this kind of widespread conspiracy occurs? I've never heard a word about it.

For evidence google away, its not that hard.

It wasn't really any kind of conspiracy. It just happened less and less as years went by so less people were aware of it but it wasn't something happening that no one was aware of. Shady dealings in adoption are plentiful here in the US (again, google away and you will find them) and I am sure other countries have their fair share.

So it's my job to back up your very serious accusation? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you talk about as if it's common knowledge. The first few pages of my search gave me nothing on Catholic Charities doing this in the U.S. There's a youtube video of a guy talking about it happening in Ireland, but I didn't watch much of that.

And if it wasn't a conspiracy, you probably shouldn't attribute it to the organization overall.

I think it is a greater tragedy if the child is not returned.
The adoptive parents could have saved the child some trauma by co-operating and returning it 2 years ago.
They must have paid a lot of money, they could have questioned where the money goes
Adoptive parents are just people with faults as well. I cannot say a child is always better in an adoptive home.

The courts should do more than automatically side with the family that has the child on the pretense of what is in the childs best interest. I think we can all agree that the childs best interest is a variable that can be thrown one way or another. Let the kid go home to her own country and her people

I can't understand how any of you can be comfortable saying that a parent should lose a child. No matter which side you come down on, that will happen, whether it's adoptive parents losing the daughter they have loved for five years, or the birth mother losing her again after believing she was finally coming home.

Either way, it's a tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:As screwed up as it seems, the court does not look upon a child as a possession. And therefore the child's interests come first. Since uprooting a child from their lifelong family is almost certainly traumatic, it is hard to argue that the trauma is outweighed by being reassigned to a genetic parent.

Think about it this way. What if someone from child protective services came to you, said "The hospital made a terrible mixup. Your baby was switched with another mother's baby in the nursery, and we need to fix that". And then they proceed to take your eight year old away. How do you think the child that you raised from birth would feel?

exactly
An international has to be legal. And to be so it first needs to be legal at the home country. It is no longer legal at the home country. So the child is not theirs.
US should do its share in fighting human trafficing. The mother is the mother and technically should be allowed to show up at the doorstep and take her child home with her.
And let us not forget, it is not in the childs interest to prolong this. Let her go to her home now. The adoptive parents have known for 2 years that the mother is searching for her child.

A chid mixed at birth is totally different. This is not a switched baby case

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:If my two-year-old were abducted and taken to, say, Norway (top standard of living in the world) and raised by a decent family (something unclear in the original story) to age six, I would seriously consider leaving her there, as difficult as that would be, rather than traumatizing her that way. Sometimes love requires sacrifice.

I don't think there's an easy answer here. I don't think it's crazy to return the child. Maybe you should similarly consider the nuances and competing interests here.

you are not a mother
Lets tell the adoptive parents that love requires sacrifice

In the US, this situation happens with some frequency. For example, a mother gives up a baby for adoption against the wishes of the biological father. This is illegal, but she runs off to another state to have the baby, does not put down the father on the birth certificate, and then finalizes the adoption. The father tracks down the child and goes to court to gain custodial rights and is denied because too much time has passed. The courts are required to do what is in the best interest of the child. And they almost always keep the child with the adoptive parents. Even judges who are mothers.

All of this is so screwed up. Children belong to their parents, always and under any given condition. If the mother didn't want the child, but the father did, he should have rights over any adoptive parents. The same applies to the Guatemala case. If the real parents want the child, that's where she should go.

As screwed up as it seems, the court does not look upon a child as a possession. And therefore the child's interests come first. Since uprooting a child from their lifelong family is almost certainly traumatic, it is hard to argue that the trauma is outweighed by being reassigned to a genetic parent.

Think about it this way. What if someone from child protective services came to you, said "The hospital made a terrible mixup. Your baby was switched with another mother's baby in the nursery, and we need to fix that". And then they proceed to take your eight year old away. How do you think the child that you raised from birth would feel?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:If my two-year-old were abducted and taken to, say, Norway (top standard of living in the world) and raised by a decent family (something unclear in the original story) to age six, I would seriously consider leaving her there, as difficult as that would be, rather than traumatizing her that way. Sometimes love requires sacrifice.

I don't think there's an easy answer here. I don't think it's crazy to return the child. Maybe you should similarly consider the nuances and competing interests here.

you are not a mother
Lets tell the adoptive parents that love requires sacrifice

In the US, this situation happens with some frequency. For example, a mother gives up a baby for adoption against the wishes of the biological father. This is illegal, but she runs off to another state to have the baby, does not put down the father on the birth certificate, and then finalizes the adoption. The father tracks down the child and goes to court to gain custodial rights and is denied because too much time has passed. The courts are required to do what is in the best interest of the child. And they almost always keep the child with the adoptive parents. Even judges who are mothers.

All of this is so screwed up. Children belong to their parents, always and under any given condition. If the mother didn't want the child, but the father did, he should have rights over any adoptive parents. The same applies to the Guatemala case. If the real parents want the child, that's where she should go.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That story was newsworthy? Really?

Catholic Charities has and still does the same thing in the US. They have been forcing women to surrender babies for years because they do not deem them fit to raise babies.

You have a cite for that?

Are you actually surprised that we're surprised? Do you understand it to be common knowledge/belief that this kind of widespread conspiracy occurs? I've never heard a word about it.

google Magdalene laundries Ireland

well, children are taken out of their homes and put into foster care all the time
and then the family is reunited. Happens all the time.
The childs best interest is always skewed to be the adoptive parents best interests.
And face it, adoptive parents are not automatically better. They are also just human.
Someone is going to suffer. That is why crime is called crime. The crooks are already in prison. It should be a simple thing to reunite the family.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That story was newsworthy? Really?

Catholic Charities has and still does the same thing in the US. They have been forcing women to surrender babies for years because they do not deem them fit to raise babies.

You have a cite for that?

Are you actually surprised that we're surprised? Do you understand it to be common knowledge/belief that this kind of widespread conspiracy occurs? I've never heard a word about it.

For evidence google away, its not that hard.

It wasn't really any kind of conspiracy. It just happened less and less as years went by so less people were aware of it but it wasn't something happening that no one was aware of. Shady dealings in adoption are plentiful here in the US (again, google away and you will find them) and I am sure other countries have their fair share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know the details of these two families, but I do know that the standard of living is so much better here that as a child you'd be crazy to pick an average family here over one there. If you knew nothing other than the country you'd be born into, which of these two would you pick?

I would pick the one I was born into

right, a 6 year old is really going to be able to intelectualize this.

You actually think she has a memory of when she was two? My 4 yr old cannot even remember his babysitter that he had from birth to 3.5. He would be devestated and crying hysterically if I were to give him to another family in a different country with NOTHING familiar.

Maybe your kid would go off to a perfect strange, but that is more a testament to your parenting and your child's ability to intellectualize the fairness and rights of their birth mother.

What does it feel like to live in such a black in white world and not see shades of grey? It must be quite easy not to have to actually think.

Anonymous wrote:That story was newsworthy? Really?

Catholic Charities has and still does the same thing in the US. They have been forcing women to surrender babies for years because they do not deem them fit to raise babies.

You have a cite for that?

Are you actually surprised that we're surprised? Do you understand it to be common knowledge/belief that this kind of widespread conspiracy occurs? I've never heard a word about it.