主题：【原创-评论】谈谈关于贺梅一案 “公正的审判” -- 梦里依稀

[url]http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_2899689,

00.html[/url]

Judging from some opinions, legal experts both respectful and shocked

By Shirley Downing

Contact

May 20, 2004

Legal and child welfare experts are divided on the controversial May 12 ruling

that stripped a Chinese couple of parental rights to their 5-year-old

daughter.

Circuit Court Judge Robert Childers refused to return Anna Mae He to birth

parents Shaoqiang 'Jack' and wife Qin Luo 'Casey' He. The Hes have fought for

four years for the return of their first-born child from foster parents Jerry

and Louise Baker of Cordova.

Some lawyers praise Childers's professionalism and dedication to duty in the

20 years he's been on the bench. Other legal and child care experts use

"appalled," "stunned" or "shocked" in describing the ruling.

"This is an extraordinary case and an extraordinary opinion," said adoption

attorney Bob Tuke of Nashville, who served on a committee that helped rewrite

the state's adoption code in the mid-1990s.

Tuke said Childers used a "sound application of the law, including

constitutional principles" in reaching a decision.

Tuke also said the Hes' credibility was a factor - Childers simply did not

believe them.

Memphis Bar Association president John Heflin III said Childers "is a very

fine and experienced trial judge."

Childers has won numerous awards and is past president of the Tennessee Trial

Judges Association and past president of the Tennessee Judicial Conference, he

noted.

Heflin said the ruling "is a lengthy, detailed, factual analysis of the many,

many hours of testimony that he heard. Do I know whether he is right or not? I

don't know. I wasn't in the courtroom. Would I agree with him?

"Judges have the unfortunate situation that half their customers are unhappy

at the end of the case because they rule against somebody."

Other legal experts were not so generous. Steven Lubet, professor of law at

Northwestern in Chicago and author of several books on judicial and legal

ethics, said he was stunned by the ruling and its wording.

"I don't see how he can possibly find abandonment," Lubet said. "It is

inconceivable that he would find abandonment while the parents are actively

pursuing legal remedies to retrieve their child."

Lubet said Childers "draws every possible adverse inference against the Hes,

many of them with seemingly no support at all" while not using the same

reasoning with the Bakers.

Lubet said he plans to use the case in his classroom "to teach students how to

uncover unspoken assumptions in judicial opinions. It is just filled with

unspoken assumptions."

Richard Wexler, ????utive director of the National Coalition for Child

Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va., called the ruling "appalling."

"No matter how much the judge tries to divert our attention by spewing venom

at the Hes, at the bottom, this case is about wealth and poverty," Wexler

said.

Chris Zawisza, director of Child Advocacy Clinic at the University of Memphis

Law School, questioned the legal analysis of the 73-page ruling.

Beginning on Page 4, Childers describes the Bakers and their background, and

the Hes and their background. By Page 9 he is describing the Bakers as warm,

caring and filled with love for children. Over the next four pages, Childers

discusses the Hes and gives his opinion of their actions and motives.

Zawisza said the law "requires that the court not compare the natural parents

with adoptive parents in termination of parental rights proceedings because

the issue in a termination case is whether there is clear and convincing

evidence the parents either abused, neglected or abandoned the child, and that

is it.

"It is irrelevant what potential adoptive parents look like."