Battle Over Adoption
* As newlyweds contemplating the start of our own family, we were disturbed as anyone else following the tragedy of toddler Jessica and the equally fascinating case of teen-ager Kimberly Mays (Aug. 3).
In an article linking these stories, lawyers are quoted as saying that teen-ager Kimberly Mays is old enough to say what she wants but that Jessica is not. What? I would say that Jessica’s tearful plea before being publicly wrenched from her parents was in fact dramatic evidence she certainly could communicate what she wanted. Now the question remains, will the courts adopt this as additional precedence and rule that a more verbally capable teen-ager has no more say in her upbringing than a crying child--then wrench her from her happy home as well?
The Iowa Supreme Court erred when it attempted to dabble with the wisdom of King Solomon. Instead of splitting a child in two halves, it eviscerated a family.
HOWARD and MINDY SAMUELSON
San Diego
* Having once been the child of a custody battle myself, my heart goes out to little Jessica and the DeBoer family. When I learned at the age of 18 that my biological parents had tried to regain custody of me, I felt a wave of nausea and panic consume me. A fear that my parents could have lost me, that the joy and happiness that I look back on as fond memories could have never been, and that the wonderful loving life I’ve had might have been denied to me. Luckily the court ruled against my biological parents, a first ruling of its kind in Los Angeles County.
When the judge ruled in favor of my parents his basis was simple: “Giving birth does not make a parent.” I thank God for his logic every day and only wish it were more widespread. A parental relationship is based on communication, love and devotion, not on blood type.
Unfortunately, Jessica will not be blessed with the same ruling, and will have to live out the flip side in this tragedy. But what’s most upsetting is that the courts continue to make decisions based on technicalities, and subsequently overlook the best interests of the child at stake.
TRACY MALLOZZI
Los Angeles
* The baby Jessica affair played out on television like a sleazy talk show. “Good people” (DeBoers) face off “bad people” (Schmidts) in an emotionally charged and polarized argument (who gets custody of Jessica) all within the glare of an ill-informed judgmental audience (we, the viewers). The televised treatment of the custody battle has contributed significantly to the tragedy of the case. The constant images of crying Jessica being carried out of the DeBoers’ home in the arms of a stoic attorney surrounded by weeping onlookers benefits no one except the DeBoers, who are as responsible for this travesty as the Schmidts, if not more so.
The DeBoers successfully mounted and maintained a publicity campaign designed to enlist the public on their side. Crying and weeping on camera, they have led us to believe that a terrible injustice was being done to them and Jessica. However, anyone familiar with just a few facts of the case (that the adoption procedure wasn’t properly administered and that the biological father did not consent to the adoption) would have dismissed the DeBoers’ over-the-top emotions as pure theatrics.
But on Aug. 2, the DeBoers were left with the image of crying Jessica being driven away from their home. Watching in disbelief, we could only hope she’ll grow out of this tragic start on life. Nobody had Jessica’s best interest in mind. Not the DeBoers. Not the Schmidts. Not the courts. And certainly not the media.
JAY DOVER
Los Angeles
* Regarding Jessica being given to her natural mother, who first didn’t want her: The Iowa Supreme Court reportedly gave her the child over the child’s protests, “because the constitution doesn’t cover anything like this.” Too bad that the constitution doesn’t cover anything like judicial stupidity.
GERALD G. ALTMAN
Downey
* The reporting on the Jessica story has had a negative impact on the image of adoption. It is rarely mentioned that Dan and Cara Schmidt have been seeking the return of their daughter since she was 6 weeks old. The stories state that the DeBoers tried for over two years to keep Jessica. The flip side is that they kept the child separated from her parents by the misuse of the legal system.
As an adoption attorney I know that it is usual practice in such a situation to advise the prospective adoptive couple to relinquish the child immediately when the biological parents refuse consent early on. Traditionally the biological parents are viewed preferentially and the likelihood of failure to complete the adoption is high.
The DeBoers should not have subjected Jessica to this experience knowing the outcome would be to lose her. They must have hoped to make the bonding issue the only issue. That would be bad law. It would encourage a rash of child-stealing cases.
This is not what adoption is usually like; 95% of adoptions filed proceed without conflict. M. MICHELLE ERICH
Port Hueneme