Circuit Court Judge David Jones ruled that the mother, Encarnacion Bail Romero, had abandoned her son while she was in jail after the raid in 2007. After she was jailed, her six-month-old son was looked after by family members and then others, and arrived at the home of the Mosers when he was two. They proceeded to adopt him, even though his mother never gave her consent, and in fact, with limited resources from jail, made it clear that she did not want him to be adopted.
Bail Romero spoke no English. She had lousy court-appointed lawyers who spoke only English and were eventually removed from the case. But what is clear is that she never agreed to any adoption. Papers were put in front of her she did not understand, but she knew enough to keep stating that she did not want her child adopted by someone else. Here is what she wrote to the court:
"I do not want my son to be adopted by anyone," she scrawled on a sheet of notebook paper on Oct. 28, 2007. "I would prefer that he be placed in foster care until I am not in jail any longer. I would like to have visitation with my son."However, she did not understand the tremendous power of the adoption industry in this country and how she was in danger of losing her son. She did not understand the system.
HER RIGHTS WERE 'WRONGFULLY' TERMINATED
A ray of hope occurred in December, 2010 when the state's highest court ruled that her rights had been wrongfully terminated. The Mosers adoption was thrown into limbo. But instead of awarding Bail Romero custody of her son and allowing her to leave the country with him, as she had hoped, the court ordered a retrial. One would think that decent people would return the boy to his rightful mother. Instead, the Mosers dug in for a fight, and the court allowed the boy, renamed the same as an Irish whiskey (Jameson) with one letter different, Jamison, to stay with the couple. We rightly assumed that Bail Romero would have trouble ever getting her son back as the months and years dragged on.
Finally--more than a year later--a two-week trial in March and April got underway. It was closed to the public, and the documents and evidence remain sealed. Three months later--today--the judge ruled. The judge may have based his decision on what he considered to be Carlitos' "best interests" Laws in many states allow judges to uphold adoptions even if parents' rights were violated if the judge believe it is in the child's best interests. "Best interests" often means whatever judges wants it to mean. A poor mother in the US illegally who knows little English wouldn't stand a chance under the best interests test.
WHERE DO (ADOPTABLE) BABIES COME FROM?
The adoption system won again. A woman--albeit in this country illegally--lost her son to a system she did not understand. The Mosers? They played by the rules. And the rules favor those with more money and a "stable" home, unlike his poor mother who only wanted to take him back to Guatemala. In the past, the Mosers also used the argument that all such baby-snatchers use: we are the only parents he has ever known. And of course, they used the unstated argument that underlies all contested adoption cases, that his best interests lay with middle class adopters than his poor single mother, made even stronger when the adopters are American and his mother is from one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere.
But babies do not arrive in eggs, like those you buy at the supermarket. Nor do are they created from matter in outer space and arrive in spaceships. Babies begin with their real mothers, who have nourished them in their bodies, and they are connected forever to those mothers. Yet in today's corrupted ethos of what is permissible in a legal adoption, poor mothers lose their children to people who will do anything to keep a child, even when his real mother wants him back, and is capable of caring for him. By that logic, one could nab an infant in the supermarket while the mother is looking away, and raise him for a time, and then say--as the legal process drags on--we are the only parents he has ever known, we have a "stable" home, therefore, he belongs to us.
There must be a special place in hell reserved for such people as Seth and Melinda Moser. --lorraine
Many of the comments at the CNN website are not supportive of the natural mother's right to raise her own children; people are talking about the "better life" that "Jamison" will have.
Undocumented immigrant mother loses adoption battle
From FMF: An immigrant fights for her son, illegally adopted
Guatemalan mother seeking return of son gets her day in court
Doubly Damned by Adoption turns Victim into a Fighter
When "best Interests of the child" violates reason and decency