Would you consider an AP to be "pro kidnapping" if they refuse...

Question

to return an adopted child to their NMother (who proved to the authorities that the child was kidnapped) and fight her to keep her child with them despite the illegal act committed on their behalf.

Answer 1

It is a very complicated question and Im not sure if I get it right.. you say the alleged bio-mom gave a kid up for a doption that wasnt even hers?? Then that adoption is void and that child should be returned to his original bio-mom the one he was kidnapped from, and nobody else. If this lady proved she kidnapped this kid, then the child should be under the care of Child Services until they determine who his parents are and why he was kidnapped..and then returned.

It's a tough situation...and your question isnt worded very clear... if you could clarify a little bit more it'd be great!

Answer 2

No, because this is a very complicated situation.  

The adoptive parent has invested a lot of emotion and time in this child, and to find out that the natural mother did not give up her child would be a very bitter pill to swallow.  This is not a situation where refusing to give up custody is being "pro kidnapping."  It's being a parent in a tough tough situation.  

My prayers go out to all parties.

Answer 3

You mean like the books about the girl who didn't find out she was kidnapped until she was like 16? In her case no. She didn't want to go back to her bio parents either. If the child is old enough to decide it should be treated like a normal custody case and the child should decide. In those cases the child has grown up with those parents and it would be cruel to force them to go back to someone they don't even know. If unlike the book series the "adoptive parents" had actually kidnapped the child they should be prosecuted and the child should go the the real parents. It really is going to depend on the individual circumstances.

Answer 4

If the mother is fit and the father is fit  and if they can take care of their child and one of them didn't sign the papers for a adoption and a couple know this it's a high rick placement and being good people and much better than everyone else they find out that the child can't be adopted and that one of the parents want their child then if they keep the child then it's kidnapping when they hid where the child is.

  I didn't think of that name the lawyer for my son said it on the news if they felt that they didn't do that they should have got on the news instead of hiding with their adoption agency out the back door of the court house But don't worry people my son sue them all and they chose to settle.Which gives him plenty of money to drag them in and out of court for years and be able to afford to visit his child once a month 3 states away. Kidnapping Yes that is what this was called.

It's always in the best interest for a child to stay with the natural parents unless the are unfit

Answer 5

A big ole yep on that one

Answer 6

No, not sure anyone is truly pro-kidnapping.

But adoption isn't kidnapping.  If the child was kidnapped, then it is unlikely that the adoption took place.

And if they committed an 'illegal act", then likely they don't have the right to refuse to return the child, the authorities would be involved.

Sorry, kind of a weird question.

Answer 7

I'm not pro-kidnapping especially when using the term in a case such as this.  I'd venture to say that most parents who adopt internationally believe that they are acting in complete compliance with the laws, both foreign and domestic.   In order for there to be any crime committed there has to be intent and your use of the phrase "despite the illegal act committed on their behalf" just shows how biased your question is in the first place.

If I was an adoptive parent in an international adoptions situation, who adopted in good faith (well, what do you know, I am one of those) I would want to do what is best for the child given the particular circumstances.  I don't believe however that in all cases it's best for a child to go back.  For a child to be raised, in good faith, by one set of parents who they have known as their parents all their lives and then be sent back to their biological parents, who unfortunately are essentially strangers to them by this time, could be incredibly harmful to the child.  Factor in that the child would, in all likelihood, be going from the only home it has known in a relatively well off situation to a totally foreign land with a much lower standard of living would only serve to do more harm.  

The total interests of the child need to be considered but regardless of how it is handled one set of parents is going to get hurt.  At the same time however the child is going to be hurt as well but depending upon where the child is in the process that pain can and should be kept to a minimum.  They are the ones who are most innocent in this whole scenario.