Unbelievable!

Because the foster parents decided they wanted to adopt her. Ive followed your story and dont believe it to be anywhere near the same as your birthfather simply made a statement and then did nothing more. The birthfather & birthmom in this case have been fighting the foster care system and foster parents all along to try and regain their child. Ultimately I think there needs to be a timeframe that serves the best interest of the child, I mean my son is only 3 and he would be devestated if they had to pry him from my arms... this poor little girl is 8 years old, how very sad for her. g.

Actually I was talking about there are cases where the birthparents come back after an adoption - I wasn't talking about this case, but I must not have made myself clear on that. I also went back and re-read the entire story - several versions of it. It seems we are missing quite a bit of information: In 2001 there was an argument, and four months later a motion filed - but not until 2004 was a decision rendered. So my question is what happened in the interim? Also, if they placed her in temporary foster care for 90 days, then why 2 years after her birth is she still there? I didn't see any mention of a court filing prior to 2001 (could be I missed it). It just seems like a lot is missing. I definitely agree that affluence should not be a mitigating factor. But the best interest of the child NEEDS to factored in. daddysangel - I, too, hope I would listen to her. And yes, it is a very different situation here with a specific temporary placement.

I would hope I would listen to her and allow her to choose, too. However, from what I've read, I believe the court is legally right, even if it seems devestating. It's all just very heartbreaking and I feel for this child, who will be stuck in the middle no matter what happens.This is a totally weird question, but if they do decide to move back to China, will they be able to keep all of their kids? They said she has a brother and a sister. Will they be allowed to have 3 kids?

Anna was not returned to her birthparents because, at the time, her birthfather had charges against him of a sexual nature. There is a lot more that went on with this than what it appears. The parents, the Bakers, were trying to keep Anna safe.

Do not pity the Bakers. They brought this on themselves. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/national/02CUST.html?ei=5007&en=65e8293b8f55a694&ex=1393563600&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=]Chinese and American Cultures Clash in Custody Battle for Girl[/url] This story from the NY Times, published in 2004 has a very detailed explanation as to how Anna Mae ended up with the Bakers and what they've done to try to get rid of Anna Mae's biological parents. This child should have been returned to her parents years ago. It is disgusting that this case has dragged on for so long. As for how returning to her parents will affect Anna Mae, the Bakers could have made that easier on her too by allowing her to have contact with the Hes during the custody fight.

My understanding is that yes, they will be allowed to keep all three children. Child abandonment is illegal in China. The government doesn't WANT you to abandon your kids. From what I've read, the one child policy is selectively enforced especially in areas where the gender imbalance is growing and a shortage of female is becoming more evident. In many areas, families are allowed to have more than one child if their first is a girl. If you aren't allowed to have a second or third child but do so anyway, the penalty for having additional children is usually a fine that must be paid. There are well-to-do families in China who just opt to pay the fine and have a larger family. Besides, after going through all of this to get their daughter back, I highly doubt the Hes would take Anna Mae home to China if they thought the government was going to come take away their children.

He was wrongly accused of sexual assault and was later found to be innocent. The Bakers KNEW about the allegations going into the agreement and were supposed to allow visits with the family REGARDLESS of this. There was never any indication that Anna Mae's father was a danger to her.

Stacy, These kinds of stories can bring up a lot of pain and fear. Please don't let it get you down. This case is vastly different than yours. I agree that letting these cases drag on and on is awful. I am intimately familiar with the pain and fear. I pray for all of us going through this. 21 months is far too long. I am here for you. Christie

My question is still the same though. Emotional upheaval to Anna was dismissed as grounds for the Bakers to keep her. Being taken away from the only family she has really known "does not constitute the substantial harm required to prevent the parents from regaining custody," the Supreme Court ruling said.

Regardless of who lied, or what was really meant, or who said what to whom the fact remains. For EIGHT YEARS this child has been a french-fry eating, Barbie-playing, Tennessee public school girl. Now, she is to go to live with strangers in China? And the court says this will not harm the child! I recall a case where a Muslim couple was accused of child abuse and their children were put in foster care. The couple, US citizens, fought the charges and were eventually (about 4 years later) found not guilty. However, their children were never returned because the court ruled that they had bonded with their foster parents and the youngest no longer even remembered her parents. The foster parents had also had them baptized and they were attending protestant services. The court said they were "culturally embedded" -- I remember that phrase. At what point does "what is best for the child" become more important than "which set of parents is 'right'"?

I totally agree with that, that the focus needs to be on the child now. I think the adults need to get over themselves, who was right or who was wrong and figure out a solution for this child... g.

In one of the articles I read it said they are thinking about staying in this country and would arrange visitation. It still is a very tough situation regardless of who is at fault, the girl has to suffer. It breaks my heart!

As an adoptee, older one at that, I tried to objectivily think about how I would have felt being removed from my home to go live with bio's. Going back there, I think I would have been so very frightened and vunerable. How sad she is being put in this position to begin with. With that being said, as a teen and as an adult I KNOW i would be very angry that my adoptive parents didn't do what was right for me, that really thought of there feelings for the child, their feelings of wanting to parent and totally disregarded the child need to know and embrace their own genes.again the child has become an object of parental needs..both bio and adoptive The possesion thing is so strong in this case, the subtle disregard for the child is huge..but the rally cry is "BUT what about the child...it really isn't at all about the child its about how some of you would feel in that position. If a loving, giving, bioparent can parent they should....This all could have been voided if she were returned as soon as the bio wanted her. So now she has to endure more confusion and pain because adoptive parents fought inappropriatly. I don't know what the answer is. We bring internation kids over here that are cuturelyembedded in their own countries and we think its a good thing but rerverse it and its considered bad. The ideal would be for both sets of parents to be able to come to some understanding for the child...maybe the chinese parents need to stay here and be allowed to stay here to be able to help bring up this poor little girl. Maybe adoptive parents need to give up total custody to allow her to know her biological family and respect that where she came from. they should both be made to pay for her therapy bills as she grows. The whole thing is a huge mess and again the true needs of the child are not being met....

I saw something about that story years ago on 20/20. That's horrible! As naiive as it may sound, couldn't there be some sort of balance? Some sort of gradual shift in helping the child to get to know her biological parents, visitation rights at first for a few hours, then leting the child stay with them overnight and get to know them again and her native language, then gradually letting her stay with the parents longer, visits over the summer, then longer visits, something that would take between 2-5 years to avoid more damage? But it seems like it never gets done like that in cases like this and situations where parents divorce. I can't really take sides, not knowing enough about the issue, but isn't htere some sort of way to make things easier on the child who will already have issues to deal with in terms of getting used to a language and culture she hasn't been exposed to in years? I just hope she will be ok...

MamaS, This is the sentence which terrifies me. While there are many mitigating factors in this case - I can not fathom why the Supreme Court said this. You are right: If this is not "substantial harm" then what is? Very scary. Christie

I guess it depends solely on the mindset of the judges. This was the ruling of a judge in Saskatchewan who refused to remove an infant from the adoptive parents."While blood ties are one factor, they must be considered from the point of view of the significance to the child, rather than the significance to the biological parent. Any factor, including kinship, must remain subject to the best interests of the child," the court said in its summary of the case.

I wish US judges thought more about the best interest of the child.