Views: 3958|Replies: 4

U.S. court gives daughter back to Chinese parents [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-8 09:24:59 |Display all floors ... battle_x.htm?csp=34

Eight years ago, a young man from China, He Shao Qiang, was studying in America, in the state of Tennessee. His wife Qin Luo had come to join him, and they were expecting their first baby.  Then, just before the baby was born, Mr. He was accused by another student of sexual assault.  Even though he was eventually acquitted of the charges, it caused him to lose his scholarship and income.

With no way to support their new baby or get her the medical care she needed, the He family placed their 1 month old baby girl  (Anna May) into foster care -- it was their understanding that this was a temporary arrangement until they were able to become financially stable enough to take her back.

But the couple (Jerry & Louise Baker) who took in Anna May were unwilling to give her back to her parents.  First, when the He's came to visit their daughter they refused to let them see her.  Then, after this had gone on for a number of months, the Bakers filed with the court for permanent custody of Anna May, claiming that the Hes had abandoned their daughter and not even come to visit her (!!!)  The local court ruled in the Baker's favor, and Qin Luo and Shao Qiang lost their little girl.

However, miraculously, after years in court, the Tennessee Supreme Court has just ruled that He Qin Luo and Shao Qiang are the legal parents of Anna May, that the social services in Tennesee need to work out a plan to restore Anna May, now 8 years old, to her parents, and that in the meantime they have the right to visit their daughter beginning this week.

That's the good news.  A story with a "happy ending" -- however, in real life, there will still be some huge problems:

1) Anna May only speaks English.  Her Mom, Shao Qiang, only knows a little English.  At age 8, it will take a long time for this little girl to acquire the language skills she will need to communicate with her mother -- language skills she could have quickly acquired as a preschooler.  Furthermore, if the family does return to China, she will be way behind in her knowledge of Chinese characters, and thus way behind her classmates in almost everything.

2) Anna May has spent her entire life with her foster family -- including 4 brothers and sisters.  She knows nothing of her real family.  It will undoubtedly be a traumatic transition to a new family, new language, new culture.

3) While the He family have been very gracious -- Mr. He even said that Anna May is a lucky Chinese girl -- with 2 families to love her very much (implying that he will probably allow the Baker family to have continued contact with her), the Bakers are continuing to be the slimey, manipulative, sleezeballs they have been all along.  They are trying to get the visitation rights postponed, and they have taken the little girl on national TV, which has traumatized her (she ran screaming from the reporters).  Jerry Baker finally coerced her into talking to reporters by promising her $5 for every question she answered, and then asking leading questions about where she wanted to live, and who she wanted to be her parents. She answered the United States to the first question (she's never been to China) but refused to answer who she wanted to be her parents (with her foster Dad right there, that tells me the true answer is her Chinese parents).    Who knows what the Bakers have told this little girl about her real parents, and yet she seems to have an instinctive knowledge of where she belongs.

[ Last edited by karenb at 2007-3-8 03:17 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-3-8 10:00:30 |Display all floors

Hmmm ...

An exceptional set of slime-balls it seems ... are we to presume this is typical American behavior, or what the Chinese might expect from 'white' people?

Or do the really wise people know that very vast majority of Americans not only abhor such behavior but are quite willing to say and do something about it?

Lessee what happens here ...

[ Last edited by eightyeight at 2007-3-8 07:17 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-8 12:05:42 |Display all floors

What a greedy couple and messy US court

They want someone's child. They won't give the child back after fostering her.  They taught the child to say she was not Chinese.  They taught her to say she was "Mexican" instead of Chinese.

And, the funny judge sitting in his comfortable chair helped to take her away from her biological parents.  What is this? Slavery without paying?  Stealing from "aul" and give it to "John" when "John" is a white man as the judge?

Thanks to the supreme court that still has some moral virtue.  Congratulations!

It is a sorrow that the daughter and her parents were separated for six years owing to the legal battle in court.  Would any amerikan parent separate their child from them for six years?

[ Last edited by myfriend at 2007-3-8 12:08 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2007-3-8 17:28:13 |Display all floors

A tragic story.

Where greedy, arrogant, heartless people will try to break up family relationships to suit their own desires.

It could happen anywhere in the world, and it has happened elsewhere in the world.
It doesn't indicate anything other than the failings of the foster parents.
"他不是救星, 他是一个非常淘气男孩" - Monty Python

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-8 18:05:29 |Display all floors

ahem...and the failings of juvenile court

The judge's ruling in 2004 was absolutely appalling.  

1) The judge found the He couple guilty of "abandonment" of thier child because they went for 4 months without visiting her.  However, according to court documents, the reason the Chinese couple didn't visit during that time is because the Baker family refused to allow the He couple to visit their child, and even called the police and had them escorted off the property.  The police told the He couple to settle it in the courts and not come back to the Baker home.  Within 3 days of being ordered off the property, the He's sent a letter to the Juvenile Court, explaining the problem and asking for redress.  This was followed by numerous phone calls, faxes, and eventually they  filed another petition to get their child back in that 4 month time period.  But because their petition did not specifically state that they wanted visitation rights, the judge said they were "uninterested" in visiting their child.

2) Furthermore, even though the He couple visited their child 80 times in a period of 80 weeks (they were following the Bakers rule of one visit a week), the judge called these visits "token" visits -- as if they should have visited more, or longer.  However, when Mrs. He did attempt to stay longer than one hour, in October 1999, Mrs. Baker ordered her out of her house, and even called the police to escort her away.  Louise Baker noted in her journal that Mrs. He wanted to visited more frequently and for longer periods of time, but Mrs. Baker wrote that she wanted to decrease the visits to only twice per month, and eventually stop the visits altogether.  She wrote this in her journal only 4 months after accepting the child into foster care -- which clearly indicates her intent to steal the child from her rightful parents. The judge did cite a number of times (based on the Baker testimony) that the Hes missed their meeting with Anna May at the appointed weekly visiting time, but failed to note that most of these missed meetings were due to the Bakers, not the Hes -- for instance, Mrs. Baker would say (when Mrs. He arrived) -- "oh, I have to go somewhere, you can't visit today").  Even with missed weekly meetings, the Hes did meet with their daughter 80 times in 80 weeks -- hardly abandonment!

3) The judge stated that the He couple were unfit parents because their apartment was dirty.   However, this was based only on the testimony of Mr. Baker.  The court appointed guardian also visited their apartment, as did other legal personnel,   and found it quite satisfactory. Judge Childers completely ignored the successful parenting of the Hes with thier other 2 children (the were statements to this effect in the record given by the court appointed psychologist, the court appointed guardian, etc), and without a shred of evidence, declared that there was parental misconduct or inability to parent on the part of the He couple.

Furthermore, Judge Childers, after his 2004 ruling that denied parental rights to the He family, continued to pass a 2nd ruling denying the impoverished He family access to a fundraising account (which had been contributed to by members of the He's church and the Chinese American community) which had been established to help pay their legal bills.

Judge Childers should be put out to pasture,because he is not fit to practice law in any country.  Fortunately, the higher courts overturned his ruling, but it took 3 years to do it.  That's a long time in a child's life.  Those are years in which little Anna Mae should have been getting to know her younger siblings, learning Chinese, and bonding with her parents.

[ Last edited by karenb at 2007-3-9 08:38 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.