Did you read the article? If it states the facts correctly (it is MSNBC, after all), the Bakers SOUGHT to adopt, but never adopted Anna. She was a foster child; the natural parents signed over custody to get health insurance for her, but never allowed an adoption.
While the natural parents may not have offered the best option for Anna’s life, the Bakers battling through the courts for seven years, further acclimating her to America, its culture and language, was not in Anna’s best interest.
These are always gut-wrenching cases, but absent a legal adoption, I don’t know how the courts could have ruled otherwise.
Sorry, but I’m concerning myself with the child here. If this were the case of an infant or toddler, it would be different, but not in this instance. To say the child’s best interests were not served by keeping her in the U.S. vs. China is, well, patently absurd. I have contempt for our wonderful state court here, as usual, and similar disgust for the natural parents that would not want their child living in the BEST possible place for her at this juncture even if that meant being apart (ever hear of sacrificing for your kid ? It is, again, amazing what people will justify in the name of “parental rights” if that means moving a child from a safe, nurturing, familiar or privileged environment to an alien or unsafe one. Any parent that would put THEIR selfish desires ahead of their children do not deserve to be parents).
Did the court even ASK her what she wanted or preferred ? The only logical and humane decision the court could’ve made was to allow her to stay here and arrange for the immigration of the parents here. If they refused that, or cited, say, language and cultural issues for not doing so, well, welcome to that poor little girl’s world now.
I’d prefer that court said “screw it” and just did what was right.