Michael Ryan's Letter To The Public

August 26, 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

During the course of my involvement in the case of Anna Mae He, the child of Jack and Casey He, who is currently in the custody of Jerry and Louise Baker of Memphis, Tennessee, I have been consistently surprised by some of the charges leveled against the birth parents. Most recently, I understand that the Bakers and their attorney, Mr. Parrish, have raised the question of abandonment (per their motion filed June 20, 2001). I know from past discussions with various members of the Chinese community in general that there has been concern with regard to the motives and actions of the Hes early on in situation with the Bakers. Why, the question has been posed in one form or another, would the Hes not take Anna Mae back from the Bakers earlier, before the Christian organization monitoring the temporary custody was forced by law to withdraw? Why did they not take her back and return her to China, either accompanying her or sending her back to China with an escort?

Well, the most obvious answer is: they didn't see any reason to. They trusted the Bakers; why halt a scenario that was working? They had no idea what was coming, so they had no reason to be suspicious that it would turn into a battle when the time finally came for them to take Anna Mae back.

The less obvious answers are numerous: with the Bakers as trusted caretakers for the child, the Hes had no one they trusted more in the United States, and they had no one whom they could trust to accompany her back to China. And for legal reasons, Mr. He was unable to leave the United States at that time. (It is worth noting, however, that they did obtain a passport for the child in the event that they could find someone dependable enough to escort her to China, or that they were able to eventually leave the country with her.) Casey He, whose legal status as a dependent then expired too, had problems to accompany Anna Mae back to China. As significant, Mr. He was reasonably sure he would swiftly find gainful employment by August 1999 when he finished his MS studies--again, presenting no logical reason to terminate the relationship with the Bakers.

In the end, the concept of the Hes ending the relationship with the Bakers and taking Anna Mae back hinges on hindsight. The Hes could not have foreseen the behavior of the Bakers. If they had known, they would have never placed Anna Mae in their trust in the first place.

The more recent question raised by the Bakers and their attorney, that of abandonment, selectively ignores a variety of circumstances that prove otherwise. Despite numerous financial and legal issues that the Hes endured between April and August of 1999, they nonetheless took additional measures to protect and care for their child. They applied for a passport for Anna Mae with the thought to send her back to China (again, without a dependable person to escort her, this idea was ultimately set aside). They discussed health insurance with the Bakers, which required the Hes to sign legal custody in June of 1999 in order to ensure that Anna Mae would have coverage under the Bakers¡¯ health plan. This was done, of course, with assurances from the Bakers that Anna Mae would be returned upon request. Furthermore, Mr. He remained convinced as late as August of 1999 that he would find better employment once he completed his advanced degree work, though this was hindered by his continued legal battles with a criminal charge that was dropped in November 1998. 

It is worth noting, too, that the Bakers hired a private attorney as early as May 1999, just before the Hes signed the legal custody over to them.

Even in the time between June of 1999, when the Hes signed the legal custody paperwork, and May of 2000, when they petitioned to get Anna Mae back, their history shows continued involvement in Anna Mae¡¯s life. In addition to weekly visits (many of which were photographed) where the Hes brought Anna Mae toys, books, and food, the Hes and the Bakers discussed the return of the child as early as November of 1999. At that time, however, Mr. Baker asked the Hes to postpone discussion of the topic until he wife delivered a baby she was carrying. As I understand it, Mr. Baker told Mr. He that Mrs. Baker had miscarried before, and the trauma of losing Anna Mae at this delicate time would be devastating for her. The Hes relented.

Also of note: the Hes repeatedly offered the Bakers money for Anna Mae¡¯s care, only to have these offers refused.  

Finally, in May of 2000, the Hes took legal action (all the while without legal counsel) to get their daughter back. This was the beginning of a legal battle that continues even now, one that has seen the Hes have their visitations with Anna Mae terminated by the police with a threat of arrest if they attempted to see her again, various immigration issues spearheaded by the Bakers and their attorney, and a surprising number of legal missteps resulting from lack of adequate representation, a problem that has only recently be rectified with the introduction of a pro bono attorney David Siegel on behalf of the Hes.

In spite of all these complications, Casey He attempted to call the Bakers to see her child, and in April of 2001, the Hes filed their petition again to compel the courts to return their child. At no point during the three years that the Hes have been in contact with the Bakers have their actions indicated abandonment in any way, shape, or form. I¡¯ve heard that there¡¯s some question as to whether or not the Hes were actually saving money for Anna Mae¡¯s return, and Mr. He¡¯s deposition has been cited as a source of an answer to this question by evidence of the omission of his testimony regarding money. A deposition of Casey He, scheduled for January 28 of 2002, was inexplicably canceled after the coverage by USA Today. So, to date, the question of the Hes¡¯ financial planning hasn¡¯t been raised with either birth parent, yet it¡¯s being cited as yet another tactic to deny the Hes their child.

This case continues to be enshrouded in secrecy by a gag order, clouded by irrelevancies like DNA testing to prove Mr. He¡¯s paternity, buried in minutia such as whether or not Mr. He specified his savings during a deposition, and delayed by the agonizingly slow and indifferent wheels of the Memphis court system. I hope we¡¯ll soon see some resolution to this matter that has now dragged on for well over two years.

Michael Ryan

michaelr@alexanderglobal.com

michaelgryan2@msn.com

¡¡