MO - Carlitos, or Jamison? Is undocumented immigrant's son's adoption legal?

[wfgodot]

Heart-wrenching fight for immigrant's son

(CNN) -- The boy has two names.

His biological mother calls him Carlitos, but he's Jamison to the couple that adopted him.

The two sides are locked in a heart-wrenching legal fight over custody of the 4-year-old boy. He's caught between federal immigration and state adoption laws -- and between two families. But the Missouri Supreme Court will soon decide his fate.

The court could keep him with his adoptive parents, Seth and Melinda Moser, a couple from Carthage, Missouri, who have raised the boy since shortly before his second birthday. The Mosers say they played by the rules in adopting the boy and have provided him with a loving, stable home.

Or the court could return the boy to his biological mother, a native of Guatemala who says she never agreed to her son's adoption. She was separated from her son when he was about 6 months old after federal agents imprisoned her as an illegal immigrant who used a stolen Social Security number to work at a poultry processing plant.
---
The couple asked to adopt the boy, but [Encarnacion] Bail Romero said no, Riojas says. Rebuffed, the couple introduced the boy to the Mosers. The clergy couple eventually put the boy up for adoption -- something the boy's biological mother says they lacked the legal ability to do.

The Mosers soon asked a judge for temporary custody, says their lawyer, Richard Schnake. Bail Romero -- in prison at the time -- did not contact the Mosers or their attorney or object to them having custody, he says.

"I didn't know who that family was," she says.

Bail Romero says she did not fully understand what was going on and certainly did not give her blessing for them to adopt her son.
---
much more, at
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/20/missouri.immigrant.child/index.html?hpt=C1

So, what should the court's decision be? Thoughts?

 

[jjenny]

My guess is the court will return the child to the bio-mom. If it were up to me, however, I'd let the child to stay with adoptive parents considering that's the only life he knows.

 

[WmHersey]

The child should go back to the bio mom. Adoptions are always a tricky thing and some children never really feel like they belong with the family. Genetics are stronger than than we are made to believe. People do feel more comfortable with real family because they have many of the same traits, likes and dislikes.

 

[twinkiesmom]

The child should go back to the bio mom. Adoptions are always a tricky thing and some children never really feel like they belong with the family. Genetics are stronger than than we are made to believe. People do feel more comfortable with real family because they have many of the same traits, likes and dislikes.

The term "real family" is offensive to those of us who have adopted. I am the only real family my children have known. Genetics mean nothing when you're starving in an orphanage.

That being said, I think the child in this case should go back to the biomom because it sounds like she never consented to this adoption.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Wow how awful! My first thought is he should go back to the bio mom but then I think about him and how it will effect him being taken from the only parents he has ever known. At 4 he won't understand why mommy and daddy are giving him away to a stranger. He will lose the only parents he has ever known. Technically and probably legally she should get him back but I can't help but to think about what it will do to that poor baby. I think they need to put his, not his mothers, best interest first..

 

[wfgodot]

A lengthy, earlier article on the case, from an area paper
Carthage couple battle for their adopted child

CARTHAGE, Mo. — Her voice and her heart breaking, Melinda Moser said last week that she can’t imagine being able to find the words she’ll need if she and her husband lose an adoption battle that has drawn national attention.

“How do you tell a child they may have to go away with someone they don’t even know?” she asked. “We’ve tried to explain he has two mommies. He says, ‘OK, but you’ll come get me when I call, right Mommy?’”
---

much more at
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x666130743/Carthage-couple-battle-for-their-adopted-child

 

[kgeaux]

The term "real family" is offensive to those of us who have adopted. I am the only real family my children have known. Genetics mean nothing when you're starving in an orphanage.

That being said, I think the child in this case should go back to the biomom because it sounds like she never consented to this adoption.

Adoption works for many people, including some birth parents, adoptive parents and adopted children. I am happy that you and your children are a success story!

There is another side to the story, however, and I've lived it, and so has one of my sons.

I am a birth mother who was forced to give my oldest son up for adoption, and I spent 38 years in hell, suffering from the separation from my son.

My adopted son had a very happy childhood and was raised by loving parents who doted on him. He always knew he was adopted, because his parents read him little children's books like "The Chosen Child" from the time before he could even understand! He loves his family very, very much. But after our reunion, I learned how happy and relieved he was to finally know his "real family" (those are his words) and how wonderful it is to see people who act like him, talk like him and look like him.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't be too hard on WmHersy! We don't know how he/she has been affected by adoption.

I know how hard it must be to hear someone use the term real family, and I have prayed HOURS hoping my son never tells his adoptive parents anything like he told me! Because they are a real family! But even for him, there is a distinct difference. There just doesn't seem to be a "proper" vocabulary term to cover what he feels.

I totally agree with you that in this case, the child should be reunited with his mother. It HAS to be an illegal adoption if the mother never gave her child up for adoption!

 

[jjenny]

The term "real family" is offensive to those of us who have adopted. I am the only real family my children have known. Genetics mean nothing when you're starving in an orphanage.

That being said, I think the child in this case should go back to the biomom because it sounds like she never consented to this adoption.

And what is going to happen to the child if he is given back to the bio-mom? At this time it's unlikely he even remembers her.
Since she is in the US illegally, she could be deported back to Guatemala. Does she have a job or a suitable place to live down there?
Sounds like this child had medical issues. What kind of medical care is he going to get if the mother is deported and he goes with her? The bio-mom also has two other kids back in Guatemala. Shouldn't the court consider what is in the best interest of the child?

 

[jjenny]

By the way, this is some information about conditions in Guatemala, where bio-mom could be deported, since she is in the US illegally, and where this child could go if he is given back to her, which I am guessing he will be. But is this really in the best interests of the child?
"In fact, Guatemala has the highest rate of malnutrition in the Western Hemisphere: 50 percent of the population is stunted and, in rural Mayan villages, that figure gets as high as 80 percent."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/malnutrition-severe-stunting-guatemalan-children/story?id=12381731

 

[RLynne]

I don't really have enough info on this case to have an opinion one way or another. But, I will respectfully say--whether the child would have a 'better' life here or in Guatemala shouldn't really weigh into the decision.

Here is why I say that: parents have a right to raise their kids, unless there are some serious reasons that the parent is unfit. It is easy to look at a child who has seriously abusive parents and say "This kid would be better off with a different family." We read about lots of cases like that on this board every day.

But--just because a parent can't provide the absolute best possible life doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to raise their children. For example--you could have a single parent who works two jobs to pay the bills and lives in a run-down apartment in a bad school district. You could compare that life to a two-parent household where one parent doesn't work outside the home; there is lots of money for things like private schools, tutors, sports, dance lessons, expensive private colleges, etc., and say "Living with this family would be better for this child." But that wouldn't be right, would it?

I feel bad for everyone involved in this case. I used to work in family law, and sometimes dealt with terminating parental rights (voluntary and involuntary), and adoptions. I always felt a very urgent need to make sure it was done right up front, because when you get situations like this--there is never a good outcome. Ugh.

 

[LadyL]

wait, so she stole a social security # to work illegally

and from the age of 6 months to four years old, she has not seen her son

during those three and a half years ... what was she doing to ensure the safety and care of her son?

from the article:

After a judge granted the Mosers temporary custody, they waited a year -- rather than the six-month minimum stipulated by Missouri law -- before asking to adopt the boy, Schnake says.

In October 2008, a judge approved the adoption, ruling that Bail Romero had abandoned her child by not trying to contact the Mosers for a year. Bail Romero says that's because she doesn't speak English and was left with no way to ask for help to plead her side.

I call BS.

I want to see evidence that she attempted to locate her child - I want to see evidence that she cared - in those 3 1/2 years, did she do anything at all to remedy her situation?

just because one gives birth to a child doesn't automatically make them the best parent, esp. when they haven't seen their child for 3 1/2 years b/c of something they did illegally

what is best for this child? IMO, he must stay with the only parents he knows and be allowed to contact his birth mother and siblings if he so chooses

it is his best interests that matter, not his birth mother who is regretting her choices now

 

[Nova]

My guess is the court will return the child to the bio-mom. If it were up to me, however, I'd let the child to stay with adoptive parents considering that's the only life he knows.

So would I, albeit with great sadness. I think "status quo" is always best for a child, absent evidence of abuse. And I think our system should privilege a child's well-being over parental rights. (That is NOT how it usually works, however.)

But everyone who carries on about illegal immigrants and their "anchor babies" should be forced to read this case.

 

[wfgodot]

A thoughtful look at the matter, from the Kansas City Star:

In Missouri, a case that would stump Solomon