Addendum to "Letter to the Editor"

August 6, 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

I realized, in the aftermath of my previous letter regarding the ongoing child custody battle for Anna Mae He, that some readers were left confused over the timeline and precise circumstances of the child's relocation from the home of her natural parents, Jack and Casey He, to the home of her foster parents, Jerry and Louise Baker. Further, I realized that the entire situation raises questions not only of ethics and morals, but legality as well.

First, to clarify the timeline of action: some readers were under the impression that the Hes have only recently begun the battle to have Anna Mae returned to them, that they allowed more than two years to pass before taking any action whatsoever once the Bakers attempted to claim Anna Mae as their own. If this were the case, I would *not* be
supportive of the case--this would constitute abandonment, and I have no sympathy for abandonment, regardless of whether the law agrees or disagrees that the biological parents are the right parents to raise the child. In this case, however, the Hes *never* abandoned Anna Mae. During the year the newborn was first with the Bakers, the Hes were regular visitors, coming every week to bring her small presents and to hold her. Their visitations with the child were terminated by the Bakers after a
year--once the Bakers had tricked the Hes into signing over legal guardianship in order to get Anna Mae on their health insurance, a ploy designed to lay the groundwork to keep the child. In fact, court records indicate that the Hes began legal action as early as November of 1999, and that the juvenile court began to hear the case more than two years ago. Since then, the Hes have a long-standing record of consistent action to get Anna Mae back. The Bakers, of course, have made every effort to prevent the Hes from seeing Anna Mae, and so they've not laid eyes on the child in all that time.

Next, at least one reader was unclear as to the understanding between the Hes and the Bakers at the beginning of their relationship. To clarify: a Christian organization in Memphis served as an intermediary between the two families in order to place Anna Mae in a home (the Bakers') where she could be taken care of while the Hes regained their financial status. After six months, the Christian organization--by law--was required to withdraw from serving as intermediary. At that time, the organization informed both families that, to maintain the current situation (Anna Mae living with the Bakers and the Hes visiting her there), the two families would have to pursue the relationship outside the supervision of the organization. Both parties agreed; the Hes agreed because, in the six months the Bakers had been watching Anna Mae, the couple had seemed like a trustworthy, charitable family. Shortly after the withdrawal of the Christian organization, the Bakers--now operating with NO supervision from ANY authority--told the Hes that they needed to sign over legal guardianship of Anna Mae in
order for the Bakers to have the child covered by their health insurance. The Hes signed the paperwork thinking they were acting in the best interests of their child by ensuring she would have health insurance should she become ill; furthermore, they signed with the understanding that the paperwork would in NO WAY interfere with them reclaiming Anna Mae once they were able to financially care for her. The Bakers assured them that signing away legal guardianship meant nothing. But of course, it is the foundation upon which the Bakers now argue that
the Hes intended to abandon Anna Mae in the first place. Note, too, that legal guardianship is NOT the same as "parental rights," which, if signed away, would be the REAL indicator that the Hes didn't want Anna Mae. And they have NEVER signed away their parental rights, under any circumstances.

Finally, I would add that the American legal system is, even at the best of times, a confusing morass of jargon and splitting hair. Consider the difference between "legal guardianship" and "parental rights." Consider the loophole that allows the Bakers to call the police on the Hes to have them removed from their property, thus keeping them away from Anna Mae, and then using their prolonged absence from Anna Mae's life as evidence of abandonment under Tennessee law. Consider the Hes' status as illegal immigrants, which gives the Bakers ammunition to intimidate any of the Hes' would-be employers (because most employers cannot afford to risk hiring an illegal immigrant), thus denying them any means of financial independence, and then using their lack of money as evidence against them in court to suggest that they're incapable of supporting Anna Mae. The Bakers have Anna Mae because the Hes trusted them. The Bakers have Anna Mae because they were able to trick the Hes. The Bakers have Anna Mae because they were willing to lie to get what they wanted. The Bakers have Anna Mae because they continue to play both sides against the middle, using the law the twist circumstances to their benefit. But the Bakers are not legally entitled to Anna Mae--they are not her parents. They took her away from her parents, as surely as if
they had killed her before her parents' eyes. The law will ultimately find that the Bakers have taken her illegally, and the things that go beyond the law--the DNA paternity test, the demands for psychological evaluations of the Hes, the suggestions that Casey He is somehow involved in terrorism--will simply serve to indicate the vicious, selfish, cruel people that the Bakers actually are. The law may never address *that* aspect of this case... but it should.

Sincerely,

Michael G. Ryan
Seattle, WA, USA

กก