This refers to a murder by
serial killers Lake and Ng -very sick people. Not for the weak of heart.
In this article (Ed's note: no article link could be found), the serial killer picked off a young family of three -mother, father, and infant child. The father was killed, deemed useless by the killer. The mother was kept for a time as a sex slave, then later killed. But the infant was "adopted" (not legally) by the killer's brother, who was told it was abandoned on the killer's doorstep. This was all the information in the article on this family.
So I was left wondering what was to happen to the child?
Obviously, the child grew up with the killer's brother, never knowing his or her real family was killed.
But for the sake of my question, let's assume the child is around seven years old. The murder is discovered and tried, etc. Also assuming (for the sake of argument) that the murdered parent's parents are still alive. Who should get the child?
The child and brother already have a bond. The child is attached to him, and he is understandable attached to the child. The brother didn't knowingly do anything wrong (other than fail to contact authorities about the mysterious child).
However, the grandparents are biologically related. They probably knew and loved the child as a baby. They more than likely despaired over his/her disappearance. Can they really be denied the rights to their own flesh and blood?
Who do you think should get custody of the child (assuming also that there's not laws about this, I don't have a deep knowledge of the law honestly)?
Recommend
Comments (11)
You said assuming there are no laws so I'm going to start with that assumption. I would say that the home in which the child is staying should be checked out to determine that it's a fit place for the child to stay if it is then the child should be allowed to live there no sense punishing the child because his fake adoptive parents are idiots. I think the rest of the childs blood relatives should be considered for visitation rights. A child can never have too many people love him.
There's a lot of assuming and hypotheticals there, but I'd have to say that, assuming that they're fit to be parents, the grandparents (or biologocial aunts/uncles) should be allowed the child. It just feels wrong to let people whose only claim to child is that their brother killed his parents, whether they knew or not, have the kid...there's something just wrong about that to me.
The home the child was raised in should be checked out, and if its fit, the child should remain there. The grandparents should do the right thing, and maybe become involved in the child's life, but not jerk the child away from the life it's grown up into.
whoever that loves the child, and also has the capacity to provide food, nutrition, clothing, and medicine (i.e., money, house, and car) for the child. i would think that it is best that this situation be decided by someone who is raising a child that age so that he or she could best decide the best situation for the child. if that is not possible, then grandparents with a guardian(s) would be best possible outcome for the child.
i wrote base on my experience of being raised by my aunt, uncle, and grandparents. and they were all very good at taking care of me, but, my aunt and uncle were the best because they had the energy to take me to school and back, and do the school work with me at home.....
of course, there are grandparents who are agile and fit, but it is rather sad that having worked all their life, they are left to raise yet another child. it may be another chance to make up for what they did with their own children, but who knows if the school system is set up that way these days.
I would think it would be necessary to look at all the details of both homes and weigh the pros and the cons, but I would be more likely to place the child with his (her? I didn't see a gender reference in the article) grandparents. I know it's not the brother's fault that this happened, but he definitely should have gotten a lawyer the second that child showed up on his doorstep, and asserted his legal rights to the child. Because he didn't, well, that's why they're in the situation they're in now.
Poor kid, though - need some amazing therapy for the rest of his life. :(
The biological relation should. That's a sad story.
And the killers brother is still in the wrong because there are legal things you have to go through when adopting.
From a legal standpoint, it seems that the child should go to the grandparents. But if it were up to me, I'd hire a professional to evaluate the abilities of both parties to care for the child and then decide from there.
Whomever the parents left the child to in their Will will assume custody of the child. If no Will exhists, the closest blood relative will assume custody. If none come forward, the child would be placed in a foster home. The sticky situation is going to be sorting out if the killer's brother knew anything at any point. I would argue who would not call the police if a child just showed up on their doorstep. Seems a little too fishy.
@cmwcbs10142006@xanga - Yup. I totally agree.
The unrelated brother of the killer, even though he supposedly did nothing wrong and didn't know about the true origin of the child, has no legal custodial rights to this child.
The bio parents obviously. The "adopted" parent knew something was illegal about this "adoption". You don't leave a child with their kidnapper no matter how benevolent they are.
I think a more interesting, and realistic, scenario would be looking at cases of "adoption abduction" from other countries. A baby is born, taken under false pretenses, given the status of "orphan" and then LEGALLY adopted by an American couple who has NO idea this baby still has biological parents who did not give them up for adoption. Couple raises baby for 7 years, adoption scam is busted, bio parents are discovered and want their child back. What then?
I was adopted by a step mom as a child. Biology actually has very little to do with what makes a child comfortable. The "grandparents" are actually strangers to a frightened seven year old child. I beleive the child should stay with the "brother" and have vistiation with the "grandparents" if possible. And a very good therapist. Parenting is not just Biology