舊金山狼
Quit Howlin'!
回寒星靜月
Your reasoning, though seemingly fair, is at its roots shamefully biased.
It's the Bakers who had schemed to steal the girl from the very start. The Hes didn't intend to give away their flesh and blood permanently and they have endured prejudice throughout the court system until the recent reversal by the state supreme court. And to think that they have to suffer ridicule from the likes of you.
The natural parental right is a basic civil right of man. It is Orwellian to say that the best interest of the child is for her to live with a family that can provide better living conditions, better education, better moral upbringing or better whatever, or with a family that through trickery has managed to keep her for eight years. Do we barge into the home of a welfare mother, a poor illiterate, or even a criminal and take away their children? Not unless the children are in some kind of imminent danger. Can someone steal a baby, keep it for a number of years and claim they are the better parents since the child will suffer great trauma if returned to the true parents? Well, that is just plain ridiculous if not criminal.
Even if Mr. He had been convicted of the sexual assault charge, that would not be ground for taking the girl away from him and/or his wife. And all that talk about the Hes being 猥瑣: Sorry, being 猥瑣 doesn't mean losing your parental rights.
Someone has observed that most people on English-speaking forums are in support of the Hes and at least 50% of the people on Chinese-speaking forums are in support of the Bakers. Well, that's just sad, sad, sad.
I don't suppose I can change your mind since you're so vehemently against the Hes getting May back, but I want to point out that you're wrong on the law and you don't have a leg to stand on either as far as morality is concerned. This is not a world where children are assigned to the fittest parents. Call me when it is 1984.
