Anna Mae He

[a friend]

Just a note-- Anna Mae's custody has been awarded to the Bakers as of this afternoon. Go to <a href="http://www.wreg.com" *">www.wreg.com</a> for more info

Judge Awards Custody To The Bakers

5-12-04

Memphis, TN - Today was deadline for a judge in Memphis to issue a ruling in the international custody battle involving a five-year-old Chinese girl. He ruled in favor of the child's adoptive parents, the Bakers. Anna Mae He will stay in Tennessee with Jerry and Louise Baker.

Here are the conclusions of Judge Robert Childers:

C. Conclusions of Law on AMH’s Best Interests

_ The Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that AMH is a minor child of tender years, who has developed a strong psychological and emotional attachment to the Bakers, and that removal of AMH from the Bakers would cause substantial harm to AMH.

_ The Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Bakers have provided AMH a safe, stable, healthy, loving environment for such a length of time that removal of AMH from that environment would cause substantial harm to AMH.

_ The Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that continuation of any parent-child relationship between AMH and either Mr. or Mrs. He greatly diminishes AMH’s chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home.

_ The Court concludes that the risks inherent in removing AMH from AMH’s present circumstances substantially outweigh any risks posed by transcultural placement and loss of contact with AMH’s biological parents, the Hes.

_ The Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is parental misconduct or inability to parent by the Hes.

_ The Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that both Mr. and Mrs. He are unfit parents, based on abandonment of AMH by both Mr. and Mrs. He.

_ The Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in AMH’s best interest to terminate the parental rights of both Mr. and Mrs. He.

_ Applying the factors in Tennessee Code Annotated ? 36-1-113(i)(1-9) for determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the minor child, the Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the Hes?parental rights is in the best interest of AMH because:

(1) the Hes have failed to make such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, and conditions as to make it safe and in AMH’s best interest to be in the Hes?home;


(2) the Hes have failed to maintain regular, meaningful visitation and contact with AMH;


(3) the Hes have failed to establish a meaningful relationship with AMH due to the Hes neglect and inattentiveness;


(4) the effect of a change of caretakers and physical environment will have a negative and detrimental impact on AMH’s emotional and psychological well-being;


(5) the physical environment of the Hes?home is unhealthy and unsafe;


(6) Mrs. Hes?emotional instability would be detrimental to AMH; and


(7) the Hes?have failed to provide anything more than token support for AMH, despite the Hes?ability to pay such support.


Based on all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court finds that the

petition to terminate the parental rights of Shaio-Qiang (Jack) He and Qin (Casey) Luo (He) is well

taken and should be granted.

The Court finds that the petition to modify custody filed by Qin Luo (He) in the Juvenile

Court for Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee on May 29, 2001, is not well taken and should

be denied and dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Petition to Terminate

Parental Rights be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the parental rights of

Shaio-Qiang He and Qin Luo (He) be, and the same are hereby, TERMINATED.

[Robot Childers]

www.parentalrightsandjustice.com
(This editorial has no copyright, so please publish it)

Anna Mae Case: A Test for the U.S. Judicial System

On May 12, 2004, Tennessee Judge Robert Childers terminated the parental rights of Chinese immigrants, Jack and Casey He, allowing a local mortgage banker and his wife, Jerry and Louise Baker, to adopt the Hes¡¯ five-year-old daughter, Anna Mae, away from them. Though to date the Hes¡¯ lawyers have never received a signed copy of his ruling (they ultimately had to access the ruling via the website of the administrative offices of the court), Judge Childers promptly released an electronic copy of his ruling to the news media, sending shockwaves across the Internet and throughout the local community. His unexpected ruling also raised eyebrows in the Hes¡¯ home country of China, where various groups and officials awaited the outcome of the bitter four-year battle.

In his lengthy ruling, Judge Childers found the Hes guilty of willful abandonment of their daughter, effectively dismissing the fact that this poor Chinese couple has been fighting all along in three courts and before four judges for her return. As pointed out by several legal experts surveyed by news media, Childers¡¯s ruling contains seriously flawed arguments and a handful of unsupported assumptions.

Case in point: Childers cited as a basis for his ruling a Tennessee law governing the timeframe required to justify abandonment. Should the Hes have had no contact with their daughter for a four-month window, this would constitute, in the eyes of the law, abandonment. Childers cited a specific window, January 29 to June 6 of 2001, in which the Hes had no direct contact with their daughter due to their perception that the Bakers would have them arrested if they approached the child. The fact that Mrs. He did, in fact, file a legal petition on April 9, 2001¡ªduring the window in question¡ªto compel the return of her child was used by Childers as evidence to justify terminating her parental rights. Childers ruled that Mrs. He did not specify in her petition her request for visitation, so her petition to get her child back ¡°evinces Mrs. He¡¯s willful abandonment of AMH.¡±<br>
To further justify his conclusion of willful abandonment, Childers elected to ignore critical refuting evidence, such as an October 3, 1999 entry in a secret journal kept by the Bakers. In that journal, as well as in their later testimony, the Bakers stated that they wished to reduce the Hes¡¯ visits with their daughter for the express purpose of weaning the couple away from her. Childers also chose to consider the modified testimony by the Bakers that contradicted their earlier testimony and other evidence already introduced to the court. (The Bakers had originally confirmed that the police had ordered the Hes off the Baker property and not to return, laying the foundation for the Hes¡¯ four-month absence from Anna Mae¡¯s life and raising the question of abandonment; in their modified testimony, the Bakers claimed the police had told the Hes not to return that day only.) By deliberate omission and selection of testimony, Childers concluded that the Bakers never discouraged or hindered the Hes¡¯ visits and that the Hes¡¯ failure to visit for four months therefore constituted willful abandonment, i.e. grounds for termination of parental rights.

Further, Childers issued a ruling that ¡°there is parental misconduct or inability to parent by the Hes,¡± saying that ¡°the physical environment of the Hes¡¯ home is unhealthy and unsafe.¡± This was based almost exclusively on testimony from Mr. Baker, who stated he found the Hes¡¯ apartment unsavory when he visited in 1999, even going so far as to cite the presence of fish bones from the Hes¡¯ cooking as evidence of their lack of cleanliness. Interestingly enough, Childers said nothing at all about the successful parenting the Hes have been engaged in with their other two children, nor did he give weight to the Hes¡¯ noteworthy improvement in apartments over the last five years or a November 2003 visit from the guardian at litem that found their living conditions satisfactory. Childers did not cite even a single piece of evidence to prove the Hes¡¯ parental misconducts! Instead, he simply decreed that the Hes were unfit parents, and therefore, their parental rights had to be terminated in the matter of their first-born daughter.

Another ruling that is highly questionable was his detailed explanation of the origin of two court orders issued by the ex trial judge, D.J. Alissandratos, i.e. ¡°Guardianship order and No Contact Order.¡± Larry Parrish, the lawyer for the Bakers, testified during the trial that he knew exactly how the two under-the-table orders came into being, i.e. they were issued during a private meeting between Mr. Parrish and the Court in the absence of any hearing or even the prior knowledge of the Hes or their lawyer. Now, however, Childers¡ªin his findings of laws and facts¡ªpresents a new version of the origin of these two court orders by citing an unrelated conference call between various parties as the moment of disclosure, dismissing the private meeting; in essence, he excludes the ¡°ex parte¡± deal between the Court and Mr. Parrish.

As one might expect, the Hes are devastated by the ruling and are deeply humiliated by its harsh and inaccurate words for assassination of their character. David Siegel and Richard Gordon, the pro bono lawyers for the defense, have vowed to appeal the ruling, seeking true justice from a higher court. But the appeal process is hampered by the impoverished state of the Hes, a situation further aggravated when, a few days after his ruling, Childers took an additional step of freezing a fundraising account, a non-profit foundation, to help defray the Hes¡¯ legal expenses. Their supporters have recently felt forced to establish a new fundraising account (www.parentalrightsandjustice.com) while the money they had previously raised sits in a legal limbo, awaiting judgment from the court.

[Robot Childers]

Visit website:

www.parentalrightsandjustice.com

for its details. Thank you.

Guest-a said:

Just a note-- Anna Mae's custody has been awarded to the Bakers as of this afternoon.

[Anna supporter]

The judge was right in this case. The Hes asked the Bakers to adopt this child. The Hes told many lies and the judge saw through the He's distortion of the truth. The Hes continue to tell many lies and have no regard for the law or the truth.

[Woodson]

Couple of points:

1.	I have no problem with people posting their opinions but should or must back them up with facts. I'll let it go this time. In future all such unsupported postings will be removed.
2.	Pleas don't quote an entire message and posted a brief reply. We have one such posting and most of the quoted material has been removed.

[Woodson]

The latest news in this case is that the Bakers petitioned the US Supreme Court after received an unfavorable ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court and subsequent motion to rehear the case was rejected by the same court.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Mae_He

After 8 years justice was finally done.