A judge asked a good question in court about a wrongful adoption?

She asked the lawyer for a couple who will not give a baby back to the natural father. If some one kidnapped a baby and kept it for a year to you cont to let the child live with the kidnapper because the child bonded with them? What would your answer be? His was of course not that was illegal. But what is it called when a father from the beginning says he wants to raise his child and they take off with the child anyways.
Additional Details
After 3 years my son is still fighting to raise his son. Just waiting on the judges to give their ruling. I have called it a kidnapping from the begining and that up sets some people. Finally a judge understands that you can't use best interest just because the post adopting couple hids the child with help of the adoption agency. I'm telling you father's in jail have had more rights than what my son had.
No news story on this story because the father in this story has no drug charges, DWI or prison time. He's to clean no dirt.

Independ"ant"

Its legalized kidnapping.

What the heck is taking this judge so long to make his ruling.......does he/she need to experience having their own child kidnapped.

Sounds like the Aps fighting to hold your son's child hostage need to be locked up for a 30 day evaluation.

Gershom

kidnapping.

Thats simple to me. Calling it adoption doesn't take away the fact that the child was stolen and kept from his parents against the parents will.

*rolls eyes* when will people stop assuming legalized kidnapping is okay just because someone decides to call it adoption?

kitta

It is called kidnapping.

Corn is not dog food! No wheat!

Makes sense to me.

The father has just as much right to the child as the mother. Until and unless you can prove he is an unfit parent, the child is his.

This adoption should never have been finalized. It's irresponsible, and NOT in the best interest of the child.

If lawyers, case workers and everyone else had paid attention to details, and did their jobs, the baby wouldn't be suffering from being removed from the only parents he's ever known.

If those adoptive parents were thinking of anything else but getting their hands on a "womb wet" baby, they might have called the whole thing off and saved themselves this horror.

yeahright

What the natural mother did was incredibly wrong first...and the adoptive parents are just as wrong if not more wrong in continuation of the wrongs done to your son....I hope that it ends the RIGHT way.

tish_part deux

it is kidnapping...cloaked as desperation and ignorant bliss.

i'm not surprised that no media has covered this...don't want to make adoption seem...um, corrupt.

SJM

I recently read an article about kidnapping and the best interest of the child. The article served as further proof to me that psychology is devoid of all morals and ethics. I'm not a big fan of either psychology or the best interest dogma. It does directly address the judge's question. Actually, I think the 'best interest of the child' should be renamed, 'the best interest of psychological theory'. Unbelievably, this article suggests that the appropriate psychological position is to affirm that even if a child has been kidnapped, the best interest of the child may be to remain with the kidnappers. It's a crazy world we live in.

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/2/196.pdf

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: