The A. M. H. case and its implications to A. Mae H.

A. Mae H. is a lovely eight years old who most likely won't recognize her birth parents or realize the scope of the bitter legal battle around her over the past seven years. It, most likely, will take years for her to know her birth parents, S-Q He & Q. Luo, who recently regained their parental right and custody.

At the center of the battle are two families fighting for this lovely girl at the two opposite extremes of the society. Jerry and Louise Baker were an affluent couple with six figure income in Memphis and the Hes are temporary visitors to the US working in low paid restaurants. Today's ruling (hopefully) may be the end of their legal battles for this matter, all parties (including Mae) came out as losers.

Personally, I'm leaning to blame the Bakers for their greediness and nasty techniques throughout the eight years. Although I admit they may well be attached to Mae and love her, what they have done do not seem to be able to raise Mae as a good person. So, even in the best interests of the child, they can't won. Not in here.

For those who don't know the history of the case, a reading of the recent Tennessee Supreme ruling (No. W2004-01225-SC-R11-PT) will help. It is too complicated and obviously very difficult to get an impartial picture of all the facts. Nevertheless, here's how I see it:

Jan. 19999
Due to special circumstances, the Hes had financial difficulties when Mae was born. The have little income and no health insurance. They agreed to give temporary custody of Mae to the Bakes so she can have the care she needed as an infant.

Jun. 1999
For health insurances purposes, the Hes signed temporary custody transfer agreement to the Bakers based on the understanding that this is only "temporary" and they would have "open visitation" rights.

Oct. 1999
The Hes decided to ask Mae back and the Bakers refused. The legal proceeds started and the Hes still got to visit Mae.

Jan. 2001
During their visit, the Bakers called police and ask the Hes "never come back to this house, or you will be arrested."

The Hes then turned to the court to resolve, but the Bakers use every right to delay the process.

June. 2001
It's four months since the last Jan. visit and the Bakers claimed that the Hes "abandoned Mae by willfully failed to visit her."

The local court bought this and striped the parental right from the Hes. This was done without an official hearing and later proven to be an under the table deal between Bakers' lawyer and the court official.

In the next three to four years, the Hes tried their case at different courts and failed. One court even order them to pay $15,000 to compensate their expenses. Considering this is a couple with no permanent job, fighting a legal battle, and raising two other children.

Jan. 2007
All previous rulings have been overturned and reversed by the supreme court of Tennessee for:

1. The failure to visit between Jan and Jun, 2001 is NOT "willful". The Hes have initiated two court hearings and were delayed by the Baker's lawyer.

2. Reject "the contention that when a child has been in custody of a non-parent for a significant period of time, a less standard should be applied in determine whether parental right may be terminated. "

Because "such a standard will increase the likelihood for delaying cases in order that the child remain in the custody of the non-parents.

3. "Financial advantage and affluent surroundings simply may not be a consideration in determining a custody dispute between a parent and a non-parent."
"Mere improvement in quality of life is not a compelling state interest and is insufficient to justify invasion of Constitutional rights."

I'm sure the drama will eventually make its way to Hollywood.