Quote From: busyparentsFact - yes the mother is in prison but hopefully not for long. I would never suggest taking them to foster care unless there is reason to be concerned about the Needhams. The verdict is still out there - we don't have any facts there to work with. Anyone know about the other child they have? I am just trying to discourage people from thinking that it is ok to just take them away because she was ill.
Fact - she did take them to Canada. Before you assume though that she did not take legal action, let's look into that. I know she filed a civil suit against them and a custody suit. She was trying.
They sealed the suit - why - no one involved wants people to know what happened. Shouldn't the 911 tape show Allison was not taking voluntary and confident actions? Seems like after that, and her poor physical condition, they would have thrown out the case. Seems suspicious, doesn't it? Looking at the whole picture - they didn't give the kids back fast, made the trial last for a long time, then ruled against her, sealed her civil suit, denied her visits, etc. Doesn't seem like she was finding success by going through the 'correct' methods. That doesn't mean it is ok to ignore a law, but as her attorney said -
she did not have criminal intent in her actions.
Anyone read anything on the investigation into baby 'selling' and human trafficking? The UN was investigating the US for this issue. I wonder how hard it is to win a battle against money like that -
adoption is a billion dollar biz. She is fighting not just against the Needhams but against the whole group. I bet they don't want her to win. I am sure someone on here can post a link on that. I don't have one handy.
Fact - she did not make a great decision most likely by going to Canada. However, if she had not, we would not have found out about this case in the media. She may have lost them and no one would have ever known. Maybe that will turn out to be a good idea in the end. Who knows.
When it comes to judgment, I think you have to differentiate between an act of impulse - which is clearly not evidence of one's real judgment and a decision that follows logical thinking and analysis. She said she decided last minute. Maybe she took steps in the months before when she probably was feeling scared, but she obviously did not plan it out or she would not have been caught so fast. She would not have traveled under her own name and used legal passports, etc, that are trackable.
We can't judge her sense of judgment by this one act. If you look back - she had enough money to spend about a half million on legal fees. She is selling her house.
She must have pretty good judgment to keep a job for 20 years and have that kind of money. We all do things we later feel were not a good choice - though they seemed it at the moment it occurred. We have to look at the whole picture.
You are right - stating opinions can imply judging, but I do think we need to be careful that we don't judge someone without knowing the whole situation.
Acts of impulse can be construed as judgment. For example, if you veer your car off the road to avoid hitting another car to both minimize the damage to the other car and minimize the damage to your own car. It's impulse, a survival mechanism.
If you think youre going to die, and have little to no support from a boyfriend, no family around, you'd want to ensure the survival of your offspring, right? It's better than leaving them by the side of the road to rot. Granted,it would have been better if she had worked out who would get the kids in the event of her death during the pg, but that's what we have.
First impressions are judgments and we can evolve them. Ideas are our judgments of the world and what we learn about it. Does that mean we should stop having ideas? Nah! Being sensitive to everything denies a creative outlet, which stunts society instead of evolving it. But they're just ideas, and you can change an idea.