I'm doing an article about the Tennesse girl that has been the center of a custody battle between her biological and foster parents for six years. She'll be turning 8 next week and will also be returned to her biologicla parents. I just wanted people's opinion on who do you think morally, not legally, should have custody of her.
Here's an article about it
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=2818818&page=1
Also please specify if you're a parent or not.
2007-01-24 06:43:19 · 22 answers · asked by christigmc 5 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
I think that foster parents are not adoptive parents. They know they will have to give up these children eventually. She should have been given back when she was two instead of dragging that poor child through a court battle. She wasnt taken from her parents because they were abusive in any way.
2007-02-01 00:33:28 · answer #1 · answered by Crystal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very sad situation. From my understanding the fostercare situation was supposed to be temporary.The foster parents became emotionally attached and when the biological parents sought to be reunited with their daughter a legal tug of war ensued.I think the biggest loser in this situation is the little girl. I don't know what the situation was that the birth parents felt that fostercare was their only option They must have loved their daughter so much to want to ensure she would be well cared for when they couldn't provide it.How many people do not seek this help when they clearly should have known they could not adequately provide for their children. The forster parents have probably kept this legal tug of war going on for tooo long. It would have been better for the young girl to be slowly reunited with her parents 6 years ago.How sad that this situation has dragged on so long. Her parents have lost all those years with their daughter growing up which they will never get back.The foster parents were in fact the temporary caregivers.The article did not mention if they petitioned to legally adopt her.I think that as difficult as it may be that the young girl should be reunited with her biological parents.This transition would have been so much easier if it had been settled 6 years ago.All parties knew from the beginning that the situation was only temporary. If the fosterparents felt they were getting too emotionally attached they should have asked to be removed from the young girls care.Perhaps the both families can make arrangements so the young girl can keep in contact with the foster parents.The only people who benefitted in this situation dragging on for 6 years were the lawyers.
2007-01-24 11:15:01 · answer #2 · answered by gussie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I feel that the child should have stayed with her foster parents. Having a child should be a job for 18 years. NOT just when you are ready to take on the responsibility. The foster parents made little Annie Mae their priority and responsibility for eight years. I'm sure they'd commit to another ten! They must love this little girl very much to have taken her into their home.
I hated the end of the article when it said; "When she wakes up every morning and sees all the faces surrounding her just like her own face, mom and dad, I think she will have a permanent, peaceful mind," he said." Parenting isn't about who looks like who. It's not about being biological or not. It's about creating a loving, caring, and stable environment. Her foster parents tired very hard to maintain that!
Either way, I feel so sorry for the little girl. She's got some rough times ahead and I hope her biological parents will understand what she's going through! Good question!
2007-01-24 07:22:34 · answer #3 · answered by .vato. 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think the foster parents should have custody of the child. The natural parents already gave her up once. I wonder what will happen if they can't afford her any more? I think the bio parents should have visits with the child and when the child is in her teens she can help make her choice. By then she'd know both families well and would be able to choose.
I am a parent but I was also adopted as a baby and as a teen was in foster homes.
2007-01-24 07:09:46 · answer #4 · answered by musicpanther67 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I will be a parent in 6 months. I don't really know the story, but I believe that if her biological parents gave her up, they should not have custody. If her foster parents raised her as a baby til now, then they are her parents. I don't understand how parents can give up their child and then 8 years later want her back. Obviously they shouldn't have given her up in the first place. I don't think it's very good for the child's mental health.
2007-01-24 06:50:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not a parent.
But I believe the judge should take Anna mae aside and ask her which family does she want to live with. I can pretty much guarantee she will say the her foster parents.
I letting her live with her foster parents will be painful for her biological parents but shouldn't her parents choose to suffer rather than letting her suffer. Isn't that want part of being a parent is about. You'd be willing to sacrifice yourself for your children.
whenever I hear a story like this it make me think of of the story of King Solomon. Two women were arguing over the same baby so he said that he had no choice but to slice the baby in half. The woman holding the baby was fine with it while the other woman said she'd rather give the baby up than see it hurt. if the biological parents relaly do love Anna Mae, they will be the other woman and give her up rather than see her hurt.
2007-01-25 07:54:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't have children. I suggested everybody who want to make comments read the ruling first. It documents all the facts. Bakers should return Anna Mae to her biological parents, period. They said they loved Anna Mae, but did whatever they could to prevent her parents to visit her. Can we call this "love"? The supreme court found no evidence whatsoever Hes are not good parents. In fact, they have two children after Anna and they are just fine. If anyone's daughter is kidnapped but has developed a so-called "bond" with the kidnapper, should we give the custody to the kidnapper? It's just this simple. Plus, Hes have been fighting for Anna Mae's returen for 6 years when she was only 2 years old.
2007-01-30 19:22:56 · answer #7 · answered by TWH 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a parent of one spoiled rotten 3.5 year old girl.
It is important to note that the foster parents are FOSTER parents, not adoptive. Going into it, they knew there was a chance that the child would not remain in their custody. That said-love can't really be legislated. These parents took her in, raised her as their own, supported her, etc. If the child is happy & well adjusted with her foster family, then let her stay. The birth parents should be given visitation, but I feel that custody should be granted to the foster family.
2007-01-24 07:52:27 · answer #8 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Her natural parents without a doubt. I have sole custody of my two children since there birth, but I will always allow there mother an opportunity to be in there lives. Foster care was never meant to be a permanent solution for a families situation. I know of children given back for a whole lot less. BOO to the family court system for allowing this to go on so long.
2007-01-31 06:59:41 · answer #9 · answered by diamondbullet66 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The little girl should remain with her foster family. I don't think that returning her to her biologically family is in the best interest of the child. The child will have to undergo years of therapy and will likely have trust issues. Our justice system fails children time and time again. They wonder why are society is the way it is.
I am a parent to a 9, 4, and 2 year old.
2007-01-24 07:12:31 · answer #10 · answered by Aumatra 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋