[neb52]

"The judge also cited China's "one-child-per-family" policy in his ruling, noting that families with more than one child in China were subject to financial penalties and the loss of government benefits."

WTF! Since when did Chinese Law become a factor in court decisions in America.

The other problem is the Hes never gave up responsibility to the child. Therefore the Bakers have no right to assume ownership of the child. Irregardless of the length of time they have cared for it. The purpose of foster care programs is to provide a temporarily safe home for a child. As foster parents the Bakers knew that Anna could be taken back any time.

[July 4th]

WTF! Since when did Chinese Law become a factor in court decisions in America.

The judge is not applying Chinese law here. He's comparing it to the US, and making a decision under US law. It would be negligent of the judge to not consider all aspects of the child's life with the other family.

[Valpal1]

That statement is taken out of context. The judge was pointing out that sending the child back to China would not be in the child's best interest as the mortality rate for female children is 50%.

The parent's did in fact sign their child over to the Bakers. Read the entire decision.