Some of the public inlcuding legal communities are confused about this case: This case is NOT about a divorced couple involving who has custody and who has visitation rights. Right after the Bakers "gained" temporary custody of Anna Mae in June 1999, they began to actively pursue their next step of terminating the Hes' parental rights because they knew the Hes would expect Anna's return once they came back on their feet. Upon advice from their legal counsel, the Bakers tried to reduce Hes' visits and further to remove the Hes from their child completely so that Anna would lose her memory of the Hes. After they successfully barred the Hes from seeing Anna, Bakers are now proposing their well-prepard theory: Anna does not remember the Hes, so her return might cause substantial harm
We respectfully request that the general public be informed: AMH case is not about or against Adoption, the truth clearly shows the Bakers did not adopt our daughter.
It's not accurate for news media or the public to refer to Anna Mae as an "Adopted Child", or the Bakers as "Adoptive Parents." They could be referred to as foster-care family.
In its ruling, the Tenn Supreme Court found the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Hes gave up Anna Mae "only as a temporary measure to provide health insurance" for her, "with the full intent that custody would be returned."
Two credible witnesses, Ms. Sarah Cloud and pastor Yao, testified that the June 1999 custody paper was temporary, because the Bakers needed it for Anna Mae's health insurance and that the setup was intended only for a short period of time.
The Hes family never opposes adoption because it can provide a loving home for those unwanted kids whose parents are either unavailable, or unable, or unwilling to take care of their kids.
Mr. and Mrs. He, Parents of Anna Mae He
download this issue
click here to see more »