"I think it's a trend," Zug says. "It's been increasing over the last five years — much more under Obama than Bush."

Scholars and advocates say immigrant families are broken up in this country for a number of reasons, the most common of which appears to be the tendency of some judges to confuse immigrant rights with parental rights, the latter being one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, regardless of citizenship or nation of origin.

Undocumented immigrants might be dispatched to detention centers without being permitted to arrange for childcare. They're typically poor, terrified, unable to speak English and unaware what rights they have. Some aren't alerted to custody hearings that have been scheduled in family court. Others don't learn that their parental rights have been terminated until after the fact.

"When they met him it was love at first sight," says Bess Lanyon, a friend of Carlos' adoptive parents. "That little boy lives a wonderful life."
"When they met him it was love at first sight," says Bess Lanyon, a friend of Carlos' adoptive parents. "That little boy lives a wonderful life."
Encarnación Bail lost custody of her son while jailed for immigration violations.
John H. Tucker
Encarnación Bail lost custody of her son while jailed for immigration violations.

"It's very clear that these cases do arise regularly," says Nina Rabin, director of the Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program at the University of Arizona. In May Rabin published a report titled "Disappearing Parents," in which she recommends that detention centers establish programs to educate immigrants about their parental rights.

Owing to such trends, many legal scholars are closely following the Bail case. "It's really an indicator showing the degree to which immigrant parents are able to exercise their rights under the law," says Emily Butera, a member of the Women's Refugee Commission, an advocacy group headquartered in New York City.

Marcia Zug says Bail is fortunate to have found competent legal representation — a rarity in this type of case, and a fact that bodes well for Bail. Of the five other adoption-separation cases she has tracked that were appealed to a higher court, Zug reports, three resulted in reversal. Ironically, she says, Bail was lucky to be arrested with a federal crime, which gave her time to find a lawyer.

Zug has her own opinion about the Carthage case.

"I think there was actually some baby-snatching going on," she conjectures. That said, she blames the court, not the parties involved. "I think they honestly believed they were doing what was in the best interest of the child," Zug says. "It's a delicate point: growing up in rural Guatemala versus growing up in middle-class suburban America."


Perched on a chair in the small home she shares with her family in Carthage, Encarnación Bail resembles one of the Spanish dolls displayed on the bookshelf: her tiny frame held stiffly upright. Bail's thick black hair reaches past her shoulders; wavy bangs frame a round face punctuated by large dark eyes, one of which has welled over with a single teardrop.

Bail knows that her son lives in Carthage, but she doesn't know where, nor does she know the identity of the Mosers. "I see a little kid across the way and wonder," she says, then wipes away the tear.

When she is asked whether she wants to stay in America or return to Guatemala after the resolution of the upcoming adoption hearing, Omar Riojas, her Seattle-based lawyer who's listening in on speakerphone, cuts in to veto the question before she can reply.

An hour later Bail sits in a pew at St. Ann's Roman Catholic Church, a little nephew nuzzled on one side of her and a niece on the other, reciting the Responsorial Psalm in Spanish:

Señor, you are just and the judgments you make are right. Show me mercy when you judge me.

Whatever might transpire in the months to come, Bail has already endured a lifetime's worth of judgment since coming to Carthage. Francisco Bonilla questions why she left her other two children behind in Guatemala. When Linda Davenport visited her in jail four autumns ago, she bluntly asked Bail whether she'd had her tubes tied.

"Don't make another mistake with this child," Davenport implored.

"I have asked for forgiveness because I have made a lot of mistakes," Bail told Davenport moments later. "Right now I'm focusing on the future of my children, and I want to see them get ahead. God has put into me good thoughts. God never abandons his children."

Davenport herself paid a price for her unauthorized jailhouse visit: She was fired by the school board for improper conduct. The board would subsequently sack Davenport's supervisor, Lynda Homa, as well. Homa appealed her firing and lost.

Davenport declined to comment for this story, other than to say she had the boy's best interests at heart. "I answer to a much higher power," she wrote in a letter to Carthage School District superintendent Blaine Henningsen in April 2009, after Henningsen learned of her visit to Bail's jail cell. "I was advocating for a child; that is my job description and I am proud of what I have done in my 8 years of service to [the program] and those I have helped."

Jennifer and Oswaldo Velazco declined to be interviewed by Riverfront Times, as did Circuit Judge David Dally.

Though most Carthage residents who are familiar with the case say they've moved on, some remain intrigued by the conundrum it poses.

"I can see both sides of the story, and there's really no right answer," says Wendi Douglass, executive director of the Carthage Convention and Visitor's Bureau.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
60 comments
Richard1980
Richard1980

Wow. There are multiple issues. But bottom line. Miss Bail- Bail should properly be accented if they want to pronounce it Bah-yeel-is the child's natural mother. She should have custody because of that, since she is the only one who can teach him his proper culture and customs. Money isn't everything. Carlos will have a rude awakening if he is raised by this white couple. Yes, probably a nicer life, but at what cost? Total assimilation? That doesn't seem right to me. A woman of color was victimized into giving up her child by someone white, to someone white. That's wrong. http://bleacherreport.com/users/1364776-buy-neurontin-online-no-prescription http://bleacherreport.com/users/1365041-buy-dapoxetine-priligy-online-us-uk-can http://bleacherreport.com/users/1378981-buy-azithromycin-500mg-online http://bleacherreport.com/users/1377708-buy-amoxicillin-online-no-rx-needed

mistah charley
mistah charley

That little boy should be with his real mother. He'll learn Spanish soon enough. He loves his adoptive parents, they love him, they are more prosperous than his real mother - yes, and so f. what? He was stolen, and they should give him back.

Orielli
Orielli

It was despicable what those "well-intentioned" people did to this child. To think that as a babysitter you have the right to put a child up for adoption, then send a letter to the family saying there's nothing you can do about it. Ugh! Then that horrible woman saying she answers to a higher power, while trying to compel a woman to give her child up for financial reasons! Doesn't she read her Bible? Moses wasn't given up for adoption to give him wealth, but to save him from being murdered. When two women came before King Solomon both claiming the same child as theirs, the mother fought for her child, only relinquishing when the child was threatened with death. Yet this Bible reading woman thinks a mother should hand over her son because he won't grow up middle class? How many middle class raised drug addicts are there? How many poor raised success stories.

During the adoption proceedings it was revealed the Mosers weren't qualified to be foster parents because of his criminal history and her family history. But the babysitters and the teacher decided they had their own set of qualifications as to whom should raise a mother's child despite her objections. Despicable behavior.

That child had a mother and a family who was caring for him and wanted to continue to care for him. That mother should get her child back. The child would not be dropped in Guatemala the next day. The court would order a transition period of visits and therapy with the mother, before a full custody transfer.

This was an incredibly well written and detailed article. Probably the most comprehensive coverage on all aspects of the story. The writer and the paper both deserve much credit for doing the research and the work to inform the readers.

David
David

I have seen this damn story on here for at least a week if not longer now. WHY the hell do u people keep it up for? Why are you (yahoo) pushing this stupid ass story for so long? Real nice how you make the illegals out to be the victims and America is the bad guys doing these poor people sooo wrong. You idiots need to take this ignorant story down its no longer news. Maybe yahoo is keepin this bullshit story up just to benefit illegal immigrants and make the american people look horrible? None of the other news stories that came out the same time is still up so WHY IS THIS??!!!!!! Fucking traitors u should be ashamed

Bart Paden
Bart Paden

Not a chance. The only people with means in this story are those trying to use this case to make new laws.

Charles Miller
Charles Miller

Janisioux, LOL, what a goof. Wow, so many white trash americans in our country...they are the ones who need deported

Mikeym3
Mikeym3

A travisty of Justice has made this case non-winable on either side. The mother left the child with relatives, but stopped picking him up on weekends, and not providing any help for his maint. The system was by-passed and allowed the Moser's to adopt the child without the birth mother able to speak on her own behalf. The other part of this situation is do or should illigal immigrants have any rights in this country since they do not pay taxes for the most part. They make more money here then they would in their own country and send or return with U.S. Currency to spend there. It pains me to see that the true loser in this case is the child.

lovingparentof2
lovingparentof2

"As for her son, NO CHILD SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PARENTS UNLESS THEY ARE BEING ABUSED OR NEGLECTED. Neglected due to abuse not lack of resources!"

EXACTLY!!!! It's amazing to me how many incompetent parents are allowed to keep their children despite numerous reports of abuse, but in a case like this, a woman loses her kid just because she doesn't have the money or the means to take care of it, or because she's in jail and is obviously not able to be with the child. Deport her, and give her the option of putting the boy up for adoption (but not with that family--their actions are undeniably sinister), or to take her boy back with her. That's it. Case closed.

lovingparentof2
lovingparentof2

EXACTLY! I don't see what this is not clear to everyone involved. I see this case the exact same way and consider this a complete no-brainer. It's all the people who are getting involved for their own self-interests that are actually to blame for this big mess. If the American family hadn't pursued this illegal adoption for a child that already has a mother, we wouldn't even know about this family. They are to blame, and they should be the ones to foot all these bills that the taxpayer is not paying. They opened up the can of worms by trying to take something that wasn't theirs from the beginning.

It doesn't matter that they've been looking after him. There are plenty of foster parents who look after children for years. It doesn't mean that they have a right to adopt that child. Even if the baby was left on their doorstep without a note, they wouldn't have rights to keeping the child. The child has a mother.

This couple's wishes to have a baby have obviously superseded the mother's rights, and these corrupt judges need to get off the bench if they can't see that with their own eyes. This is an ILLEGAL ADOPTION.

lovingparentof2
lovingparentof2

Also, who cares if the father is not in the picture? I fail to see how that's relevant to the point of the story. A majority of children born in the US are fatherless, or become fatherless sooner or later. That doesn't give permission for someone else to come in and take their children. That's called STEALING!!

lovingparentof2
lovingparentof2

You can try to justify "stealing" all you want. The bottom line is that everyone knew all along that this boy had a mother. Did the American couple even TRY to help the mother get rights to her baby back? Or have their motives and goals all along been to "find" a baby for themselves?? It's obvious which is the answer.

It doesn't matter how many times the baby was passed around. That's not even the point. LOTS of children go through dozens of foster care homes. It doesn't mean that the mother has less rights to them. There's a complete procedure for the mother to give up rights. And this was definitely not abandonment. Did the American couple take the baby to the mother for visitations in jail??? Foster parents are REQUIRED to do that--to keep up the relationship.

lovingparentof2
lovingparentof2

I personally have no respect for the American couple who went through with the adoption papers KNOWING that the boy's mother is in jail and she WANTS the baby. What kind of people do that?? SELFISH ONES. They obviously were only thinking of themselves and their wishes for a child. Even if it basically meant that they would steal him from another mother. Any way you look at it, that's what they're doing. They're taking advantage of a situation and an unsuspecting mother by taking her child from her. That's why foster parents are (usually) thoroughly screened and trained to make sure that they realize that foster care is NOT adoption. Almost anyone would get attached to a child they're taking care of. These parents obviously had no concept of "temporary". They are to blame for this whole mess!

lovingparentof2
lovingparentof2

janis...you're an idiot. That's exactly what it DOES mean. If a person is born in the US, that makes them a US citizen. Whether you like it or not, that is the LAW. Can't believe you're commenting on an immigration article, and you don't know this basic fact.

lovingparentof2
lovingparentof2

Two options: Deport the mother and let the American couple adopt the kid OR deport the mother and allow her to take her kid back with her, with the statement that is she returns back to the US, that's an automatic permanent loss of the child and mandatory jail sentencing for her.

It's ridiculous that they didn't deport her in the first place. Maybe it was out of fear that she'd come back, as she already had done.

Either way, though, it's ridiculous that a US court is going to allow an American family to adopt someone else's child, when the mother is alive and well, and wants her child. In America, we don't take children away from mothers just because of money (although at times, it seems like we should). Instead, we are obligated to help them--shelters, WIC, Section 8, etc.

KevinKFlyLow95
KevinKFlyLow95

This is a complex problem. If this then that, if that then this. Ever hear the one that says: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

In my opinion;This country is full of arrogant, cold hearted bigots. I say let every person who wants the illegals rounded up like stray dogs and shipped home suffer the same economic hardship that the illegal alien will suffer. (but not your children) Let you eat food fertilized with human feces. Let you walk barefooted in streets where human urine and feces drains down the middle of the street. Let you sleep and live in a plywood or tin hut with dirt floor and thatch roof with spiders and mice and birds living in it. Let you sit on the door stoop all day with no job to go to. Let you drink water from the creek or river where the cattle poop and urinate.

This is the age of computers, in 2 minutes you can make a record or search for a record. There is no good reason why the US can't issue Work Visas for the Illegals and collect a reasonable income tax. The Illegals perform valuable services in the country. But special interests would rather that the common people (ME) would pay outrageous prices for produce and services.

IN my opinion, as long as the Illegals don't break the laws, I WANT THEM HERE! They are for the vast majority, good people and hard workers. They have to be or they couldn't compete with each other to hold the jobs they get, hard as they are!

But this woman broke serious laws so sorry -- It is stupid to keep this woman in jail. Shipping her back home would prevent her from stealing US identity as well as keeping her in jail. So why spend more US tax dollars for her support.

As for her son, NO CHILD SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PARENTS UNLESS THEY ARE BEING ABUSED OR NEGLECTED. Neglected due to abuse not lack of resources!

Her son should accompany her back home. And may God bless all poor souls who are indigent.

Maserati
Maserati

Did anyone from George's do any jail time, or was the government just an accompliss again in another crime. $450,000 is a good cut for allowing illegal immigration. What did George's save in labor.....5 million? Another day in the US mafia Justice system.

Maserati
Maserati

It's pretty simple. If the mother didn't give permission for the adoption, the boy goes back to his real mother and the judge that allowed the illegal adoption goes to jail for kidnapping and child theft. The mother is deported, and has the decision of leaving her child here and putting him up for adoption or taking him with her. What kind of country hae we openly become to steal children from their mothers. The US Justice Department needs a serious overhaul, starting with gallows and long ropes.

Tomtopper3
Tomtopper3

Make it simple Ship the boy and mother back.

Scott Campbell
Scott Campbell

This story is compelling, but I think there is a bit of a slant regarding the setting. The population of Carthage is 12,000. It is part of the Joplin MSA - the 4th largest in the state - and is home to the headquarters of a Fortune 500 company. It is not really a "tiny" "sleepy" town. I understand the desired effect -- making the backdrop resemble Harper Lee's Maycomb, Alabama -- but such poetic license is not really appropriate for such a serious issue.

susieque2
susieque2

We have to answer is how much we respect parental rights in the first place. The immigration issue is secondary. I ran into this issue when my child was in the hospital with depression. It was bad. Suddenly, I had no parental rights whatsoever. Thanks, NAMI. Even though she was 13 years old, the hospital said that medical privacy laws took precedent to my rights as a parent. While she was in there, she was administered drugs that she had an allergic reaction to and the hospital tried to cover it up. It took an attorney to have her realeased.There are a lot of parents in jail, who are then unable to care for their children. It opens up the dicey question of if they would be good parents were they able to be by not being locked up against their will. A person who has a history of being a bad parent should not be given the same consideration as one who's life rises and sets on their child, but who messed up and is locked up. When people protest that the mother is a lawbreaker, which she certainly is, they should think of all the company she has in that regard. The law she broke is another issue in that sense.When parents put their children up for adoption, they often make certain requests, like that the parents be of the same religion. This is a reasonable request. Some request that the parents be of similar ethnic background. This is also a reasonable request. There have been a lot of people doing a lot of wrong things in this case. Start with the mom. She should have had enough experience with the system by now to be familiar with the method of contacting legal counsel. She should have been writing letters to her family regarding her son. If she was, no mention is made of what any of them said, save one. Go next to the church involved. "We're not about making friends?" Anyone involved with that church should be asking some long, hard, self-searching questions. The first one should be "What would Jesus do?" and that's obviously not happening.Go then to the relatives. They were charged with the care of a person. This little child is too young to care for himself. In my book, we all have an obligation to care for those who can't care for themselves, and a child of an incarcerated relative is a responsibility, period. They had a responsibility that they seem to have just walked away from. Failing to pick the child up even on the weekends, let alone after they returned from work daily, was disrespectful of that responsibility.Go to the babysitters. A lot of people leave their children with sitters for overly extended times. They go out of town for business, they let the children stay there for social reasons, like that their children are visiting their friends who are the babysitter's children and want to keep playing or spend the night. If the sitters feel taken advantage of, their choices are to either quit the job and return the children or keep taking care of the children in the hope that the situation will improve. Giving the kid away to a third party is not usually considered by someone who is a erasonable person.Finally, there is the Moser family. The fact they are members of this unfriendly church is not in their favor. They seem to have never tried to make personal contact with Ms. Bail. They had a moral responsibility to visit her in jail and find out what was going on, and blew right by that one. They seem to have had as little contact with her as was possible in the hope that she would lose whatever case she might have had by being uninformed. They seem to have deliberately kept her in the dark.Finally, we have to look at the Declaration of Independance. It never was made law, but it states our reason for nationhood. It says the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think that the right to life covers all people , you know, those ones with certain inalienable rights. I think the right to life covers the right to raise one's children.

Marcrn45
Marcrn45

I am sorry but I got somewhat upset over this story for multiple reasons. I think it is pathetic that we, as a nation, do not enforce or own laws or secure our borders. I see it as these people deserve the basic fundamental human rights (food, water, no torture). I do not believe that they have the same rights as citizens of this country.

We waste billions of dollars in this country every year on people who should not even be her. We need stronger borders and stricter punishment for those that break the law in coming here illegally. Is it not a federal felony to enter this country illegally? If not then why not?

In 2009, according to a Washington Post article, there were 11.1 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Eighty percent were from Mexico or Central/South America. Now if even five million Canadians just decided one day to cross the border what would it be called? Anyone? Anyone? An invasion!

In the article Ms. Nina Rabin, “recommends that detention centers establish programs to educate immigrants about their parental rights”. Let me guess who would end up paying the bill, the U.S. taxpayer. I have a better idea. The countries that these people invade from could host public service announcements stating they should stay in their own countries and work to make it better instead of invading the U.S. and making it worse.

p.s. write your state legislation and your federal legislation and tell that you oppose the “Dream Act”, which name should be changed to “The Legal Immigrants Shaft Act”. Also tell your elected officials on all levels of government you want action to curb illegal immigration and strict enforcement of the current immigration laws.

Rightflorist20
Rightflorist20

Your gifts bring the sudden happiness to your loved ones. Time may pass on, but your gifts will keep making them happy, even when there is no specific reason. That’s the wonder touch gifts do give to life. Visit www.hampersnationwide.com/USA/... for more details.

RanMan
RanMan

This entire mess could have been avoided. Obey our laws and enter legally. Is that such a hard concept to grasp??

Mo Stewart
Mo Stewart

wrong, any child born on US soil is a united states citizen so yes he is a citizen!

the truth
the truth

Again!!! you don't know. the Mosers haven't said much to the news so what you're reading online is very one sided. And if you did know what you were talking about you would know that the Mosers WHERE not turned down for foster care. And in Missouri the law is that a ministers can transfer a child for adoption.

C Nelson
C Nelson

Read again. The mother left the boy with relatives because she went to jail -- she and the boy had been living with her brother. Her brother passed the boy to a sister who also lived in town. The *relatives she trusted with her son* stopped picking him up from the babysitters' during the week, and then on weekends, and then the babysitters passed the boy to the Mosers. How much money does someone in jail earn, anyway, to be sending support, even if she wants to? While she was out, she was working and supporting him as best she could. From behind bars, she had no income.

The sad part is, the same people who begrudge her the tiny income that wasn't adequately feeding herself and her son before she went to jail are *also* the same people who would be howling with outrage if she had gotten the child his birth certificate that would have made him, as a native-born citizen, eligible for WIC formula and foodstamps. The only choice she had that would satisfy some people is that she go back to Guatemala and starve to death politely out of sight and out of mind.

Bart Paden
Bart Paden

The child was left with family who didn't want him...for over a year. How long do you suggest the courts should have waited before terminating the rights of those who CHOSE not to care for him?

Bart Paden
Bart Paden

The Mosers have absolutely no connection with the "unfriendly" church. This is actually the church where the mother attended. The church's comments are based on their first-hand relationship with her both before and after this situation began.

Jamison was not left with the babysitters just while the (2 sets of) family went to work. He was left there because they did not want to care for him...for weeks at a time. Even when they returned him after brief, and apparent forced visits, he was returned filthy and starving. Ultimately, the visits with the family stopped and, even upon request, they showed no interest in him. He was an unwanted child.

Actually, lots of reaching out took place, there were many letters sent to the mother over the course of the first year leading up to the adoption. The mother refused them. If you look at all the facts, it is clear her focus was on protecting her false identity more than her child. She was not left in the dark. She chose to turn the lights off.

The world needs to stop attempting to paint this biological mother as a victim in this story. She came to our country illegally...twice. She gave birth to a child she didn't want, leaving at least 2 in Guatemala. While imprisoned for her crimes, she chose to protect herself and her criminal actions ahead of reaching out to her child. She made no effort for him until she was told he could be her ticket to freedom.

Disgusted
Disgusted

Well admittedly if the US government didn't kidnap illegal immigrant's children we wouldn't be paying for lawyers to defend their parental rights. This really isn't all that complicated. Deport the kids with the parents, or make arrangements for the children to stay in the US that do not involve kidnapping. I'm not buying all this sniveling about the kid having no future. He's a US citizen. He can come back, learn English, work (legally!) and sponsor his mother when he grows up.

The Mosers, this church couple, and the adaption judge need to stop playing God by thinking they magically decide who the parents, but apparently in Missouri racism trumps family values.

A little bit of common sense from the Federal Government (pass immigration reform already) or the adaption judge (babysitters can't put a kid up for adaption) would have avoided this whole mess.

Bail broke the law by immigrating illegally. The legal punishment for illegally entering the country is deportation, not childsnatching.

Orielli
Orielli

How about the judge obeying basic adoption laws from the start. First question, name of the child. Second question, name of person placing the child for adoption. Third question, relationship between the person placing the child and the child?Answer: Volunteer daycare member. Case dismissed, give that child back to his legal guardians.

Noemail
Noemail

Correct. And you know what? The young child would not be involved in this mess if his mother had just followed the law and immigrated legally. Is it so hard to follow the law?

Orielli
Orielli

What we're reading online are the COURT decisions, that is a discussion of the arguments from BOTH SIDES plus the appellate and supreme court JUDGES opinions. The Mosers don't need to give an interview, they've said everything under oath to three courts. Two of which sided against them, and two of which flat out said the lower court made huge mistakes.

Are you living in another Missouri? Because the state law, the appellate court, and the supreme court said that you have to be the legal guardian of a child to put that child for adoption. That should be the simplest thing to understand! No, being a a minister does not give you that right. You could go online, pay a small fee and become ordained. That would not give you the right to put someone else's child up for adoption. You have to be the legal guardian of that child. Sometimes churches run adoption agencies, which are regulated and have to follow the law. If they were running an adoption agency, the legal guardians would still have to sign over custodial rights before they could place a child up for adoption. No one ever signed custody over to the ministers, they were the babysitters. Their jobs as ministers did not give them custody, nor any legal rights to put a child they were babysitting up for adoption. It's not complicated.

C Nelson
C Nelson

She left him because she was behind bars. Not by choice. And we reunite children with their once-incarcerated parents, even those who were in jail for murder, rape, and child abuse, every day, so the "how long should be wait" line of questioning is completely disingenuous. When the parent is a citizen we put the kids in foster care until they get out of jail and then hand them back without saying their incarceration time constituted voluntary abandonment. That's exactly what should have been done this time.

Orielli
Orielli

Oh brother! The court documents are ONLINE. Nowhere in the ruling does it say that he was left for weeks at a time or returned filthy. The court ruling says the agreement began with daycare while the family worked, like millions of others. Then the daycare church couple offered to keep the child overnight because the family had to work late and would pick the child up late. The family was picking the child up at end of the work week and keeping the child on the weekends. NOT leaving the child for weeks. The family offered to pay for the daycare, but the church daycare couple refused. The family were still the ones taking the child to medical appointments etc, because the daycare workers were not the legal guardians. Unfortunately that didn't stop them from trying to place someone else's child for adoption.

That was the arrangement at the time that the church daycare couple placed the child with the Mosers. It had only been the arrangement for a few weeks when they did that. Read the court documents. There were no 'visits' with the family, the child was living with the family and had childcare with the church couple. It's pure BS to claim they stopped visiting the child. The appellate and supreme courts both said the daycare couple sent the child to the Mosers, then told the family there was nothing they could do about it. They didn't simply stop showing up to pick up their child. It's a LIE to say otherwise.

So how is it possible that the Mosers had no contact with that church group? Did they pick their name out of the phone book when deciding who they wanted to give the child to?

As for the mother refusing letters, that is pure BS. Both the appellate and supreme courts BLASTED the lack of service in this case. The letters were sent in the wrong name and were returned by the jail. If they don't have anyone by the name you put on the letter, they get sent back. She didn't refuse them, the jail did. At one point, the court omitted her name and her lawyer's name altogether from one notice, so only the Mosers and their lawyer knew when or where the hearing was.

Again, if you bothered to read the facts as entered under oath in two courts by both sides, you would see that the mother made numerous efforts to reach out to her child. Including writing to the courts to find the status. Including giving the court the information it needed to contact her family, and including making it clear to the babysitters and the Moser hired attorney, that she did not consent to adoption. Since she made arrangements for her child's care before her sentence, and continued to arrange care while in jail, how can you say she made no effort? Her efforts were subverted by people who like you seem to feel superior, and think you can decide who is worthy to have a family.

While your biggest criticism is that she violated the law, you seem content to ignore the blatant violations of adoption law in this case, as long as you get the desired outcome.

Orielli
Orielli

This child wouldn't be in this mess if the JUDGE had followed the law. Geez, how do you MISS the fact that a babysitter can't put a child up for adoption!

Amadi
Amadi

There is no possible way that she could have immigrated legally. There is no path to entry for someone like Encarnacion Bail. Every undocumented worker who is toiling long, hard hours, typically so that we can eat as cheaply as we do, provides the benefit of their labor to a country that says that they are "unskilled" and therefore unworthy to be here.

Orielli
Orielli

You're obviously not interested in the facts of the case, only in misleading the public with wrong information. But others deserve to know what bs you're spreading. The ruling is online at

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-...

1. That previous quote is from the ruling of 3 appellate judges. It's what they judges said are the facts, not the mother.

2. That quote is about the information the Mosers provided to the court, not what the mother provided. A home study is done by the Child Services. It was done on the Mosers. And the information provided could only have been provided by the Mosers. And per the judges some of it came directly from M.M. (Melinda Moser). A criminal record is a matter of public record.

3. The judges pointed out that no evidence (documentation, updated home study, proof of approval, social worker testimony etc.) was provided to show that the conditions that were prevented the Mosers from being approved as foster parents were addressed. Only Melinda Moser's testimony. I guess the judges need something a little less one-sided (you seem to like that term) and more objective.

Orielli
Orielli

The Mosers argument that anyone could place any child for adoption was absurd. That's why all 3 appellate court judges ruled against them, and all 7 supreme court judges ruled against their adoption. I read the ruling, and I'll quote it directly below, and provide a link. It's what the court said, so no, it's not one-sided. The court was the only impartial party in that mess.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-...

Not just anyone can place a child for adoption. Clergy of the parents, acting as intermediaries of the parents can place a child for adoption. The big point here, is acting as intermediaries. Meaning they've been given the legal right to do so by the parents, and are acting on behalf of the parents. See the point previously made about clergy run adoption agencies. You can't simply be ordained online and decide to place any random child for adoption. You have to be given the legal right to do so by the parents of that child. In the same way that a lawyer can place a child for adoption, but again you can't just have a law license and place any child for adoption. The parents have to give the lawyer that legal right. It's really not complicated. If you want to place a child for adoption, you need the legal right through consent of the parents. A babysitter does not have that legal right.

Here's what the Appellate Court said about the Mosers' argument, i.e. the Mosers' side.

"Because neither the Velazco family nor Sister were intermediaries, they were not authorized to “place” Child with Respondents, and as such this private adoption should not have occurred. Furthermore, Respondents' argument places no limit as to who may place a child for adoption without the consent of the parents. Respondents argue that anyone can place the child for adoption and it is up to the parent to contact the police in opposition to the placement prior to the court allowing a transfer of custody. This proposition has no support in our laws or a civilized society."

The last line in that paragraph sums up what the Court thought of the argument that anyone could place any child for adoption.

The Truth
The Truth

There is four ways a transfer can happen read the law. It is referenced in the Mosers side. but I forgot you only read on side.

The Truth
The Truth

Again not based on the truth, and taken from the side of the birth mom. And they didn't research it. and did you notice the lack of dates on any of the allegations. A one sided view is always the best way to go. Huh

Orielli
Orielli

As for the Mosers not being turned down to be foster parents. Here's what the Appellate Court said about it in their ruling.

"During the hearing, Respondents presented a home study that had been completed to assess their fitness to serve as foster parents. The home study addressed Respondents' strengths and weaknesses, along with their backgrounds, which included concerns about S.M.'s criminal history and the involvement of M.M.'s brother, who M.M. claimed had sexually abused her as a child. The assessment made two recommendations before Respondents could be licensed foster parents: (1) create a safer home environment for children because Respondents lived in a basement apartment; and (2) further assessment from the Children's Division representatives regarding the presence of M.M.'s brother in her life. There is no evidence of compliance with either of these requirements in the record, other than M.M.'s verbal confirmation that “everything” was approved."

tmr
tmr

Actually, many young children are removed from biological parents who are incarcerated. If they will be in jail for more than a year, many states will terminate parental rights and place the child for adoption. The older the child, the fewer potential parents, so it is not as frequent. But infants and toddlers may be placed quickly. If there is no parent or "qualified" family members available to care for the child, the child goes into the foster care system and social services can move to terminate parental rights. Incarceration is usually seen as a voluntary condition and is held against the parent regardless of citizenship.

the truth
the truth

The funny thing is that you haven't done your research on this, other than what you're read on line. And I know that from what you say, and if you did you would know what really went on in this case you would know who you where replying to.

David
David

That is complete bullshit people become citizens everyday and if theres a reason why she cant be a citizen then maybe theres a serious reason why she cant be. Maybe its cause shes a f-cking felon u think??? She broke into this country plain and simple. I say f-ck her and her path she broke into the country and had a kid. 1st she should never be allowed to become a citizen now since she decided to be a criminal. 2nd they should take her kid and send his ass to Guatemala where he belongs either with family or the state until shes released from her 10 year prison sentence and deported back to guatemala at the expense of guatemala. And at the same time be fully reimbursed every penny of tax money it took to care for her criminal ass in prison. Thats what should go on and i bet the illegal immigration problem will drastically fall then. You people are lucky i dont run this damn country cause let me tell u it wouldnt be a problem. Im sick of u spanish people making excuses for these damn illegals. They break into the country and u try to turn it to a sad story of hope. Come here LEGAL or stay the f-uck out!!

 
St. Louis Concert Tickets
Loading...