http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/01/girl.found.alive/index.html
Pretty smart of the mom to get a hair sample!
Pretty smart of the mom to get a hair sample!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Kidnapped Girl Found
- Thread starter virividox
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The article doesn't say anything about the birth mother getting custody yet. I wonder how long that will take (and why it will take a while). And I wonder how well the child will adjust in her new, proper home. She may wind up being more loyal to the mother who kidnaped her, unless that mother was abusive.
That's a bit freaky....and for the woman to still be in the same area after all that time.
You have to wonder how its going to affect the child, though.
D
You have to wonder how its going to affect the child, though.
D
Wow, as a parent, I cannot imagine how that would feel. Hopefully they will get the child back to the birthmother very soon, and they can get counsiling to help through this amazingly difficult time.
A very sad story that can have a happy ending. I saw that story on our local late night news yesterday. Just wonder what prompted that lady to kidnap an infant and then start a fire to cover up the crime. My greatest concern is for the child, she has only grownup knowing Carolyn Correa as her mother. My prayers go out to Delimar Vera and her mother Luz Cuevas that the transformation will be made easy.
Am I the only one who questions whether moving the child is actually the best thing for the child?
I think it is possible that as long as Correa was not abusive, etc., it might actually be in the child's best interest (psychological trauma and so on) to stay in the family situation she has grown comfortable with.
I think this is really more to appease the parents than for the best interest of the child.
I think it is possible that as long as Correa was not abusive, etc., it might actually be in the child's best interest (psychological trauma and so on) to stay in the family situation she has grown comfortable with.
I think this is really more to appease the parents than for the best interest of the child.
My biggest question is:
Why the hell wasnt this lady investigated 6 years ago? According to the real mom, she had come to the house, went upstairs to 'retrieve her purse,' and moments after leaving, the fire started and there was a missing baby.
HMMMMMMMMMMM!!! Wonder what happened???
The even stupider thing is, why would you invite the mother of a kiddnapped child to her birthday party? Guilty conscience?
Why the hell wasnt this lady investigated 6 years ago? According to the real mom, she had come to the house, went upstairs to 'retrieve her purse,' and moments after leaving, the fire started and there was a missing baby.
HMMMMMMMMMMM!!! Wonder what happened???
The even stupider thing is, why would you invite the mother of a kiddnapped child to her birthday party? Guilty conscience?
You might want to re-think this one
You might want to re-think this one - the woman is a kidnapper and an arsonist (and had no problem causing severe psychic pain to the real mother and her family, causing them to lose their child, their house and all of their belongings, causing physical burn damage to the mother's face and putting fireman and everyone on that block and in the house in extreme danger).
The woman has committed some of the most serious felonies short of murder - why should any child be kept in that environment - even if Correa - for the moment - is not abusive? In any event, she belongs in jail and will not be much use to anyone for the next 20 years or so.
By the way, would you think it would be in the best interest of the child to remain in the home of a serial killer or a rapist, as long as that person didn't murder or rape their own? Remember, what Correa did is not normal, even-tempered behavior - someone who could burn down a house of someone they barely know in order to steal a child they have no previous connection with has some very cold blood running through their veins - however normal life may have been in Correa's home for the last 6 years, that type of personality could snap at any moment. Needless to say, I disagree strongly with your assessment.
coolsoldier said:
You might want to re-think this one - the woman is a kidnapper and an arsonist (and had no problem causing severe psychic pain to the real mother and her family, causing them to lose their child, their house and all of their belongings, causing physical burn damage to the mother's face and putting fireman and everyone on that block and in the house in extreme danger).
The woman has committed some of the most serious felonies short of murder - why should any child be kept in that environment - even if Correa - for the moment - is not abusive? In any event, she belongs in jail and will not be much use to anyone for the next 20 years or so.
By the way, would you think it would be in the best interest of the child to remain in the home of a serial killer or a rapist, as long as that person didn't murder or rape their own? Remember, what Correa did is not normal, even-tempered behavior - someone who could burn down a house of someone they barely know in order to steal a child they have no previous connection with has some very cold blood running through their veins - however normal life may have been in Correa's home for the last 6 years, that type of personality could snap at any moment. Needless to say, I disagree strongly with your assessment.
minipoduser said:
Any personality can snap at any moment. Most crimes are committed by one-time offenders. A normal life is more important than some act in the caretaker's past.
You do make a good point, though, that if Correa goes to jail, it probably would be easier for the child to deal with changing parents then with a parent in jail.
On a side note, why would Correa kidnap a newborn as opposed to, say, adopting one? Doesn't make sense to me.
"Some act"
Maybe shoplifting, trespassing and minor embezzlement are committed by one-time offenders, but most violent felonies (e.g., murder, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, abuse, arson) are committed by repeat offenders. Although I feel terrible for the 6 year old girl whose life is being turned upside-down, I don't think that she will be best served in the long run by a parent who has a history of violent felonies. "Some act" is a misdemeanor, a monetary felony like shoplifting or check kiting or even, perhaps, manslaughter - her acts were kidnapping and arson - both of which were violent crimes against the child and the child's family. I was being generous in entertaining the thought that there might have been a normal life in that household over the past 6 years - I guess we will find that out shortly - but the likelihood that the girl would have a normal life growing up to adulthood in that household seems to me to be far, far less than growing up in a household with a parent/parents who are not violent felons and who haven't already committed a major felony against you. Also, imaging the trauma the girl would go through if she found out the truth as a twenty-year old (perhaps when she ran into one of her sisters by coincidence and noticed the resemblance) - she would have a complete breakdown - as a 6 year old, at least, there is time (and ability) for healing - they process (and get over) things quite a bit differently at that age.
One other point, I don't think that what the State is doing here is "appeasing" the parents of the child. Crimes like murder and kidnapping do not have statutes of limitations - the State is required by law to pursue this matter - they have no discretion to just let it go even if it was Mother Theresa who burned down the house and stole the child. And think about it - the lack of a statute of limitations on these types of heinous crimes is quite legitimate - if a person was permitted to steal a child as long as they hid her away for 6 years (the typical limitations standard for many offenses), what kind of protection would that be for both parents and children? If that was the legal standard, you'd have an entire industry of trade in stolen infants like you do in stolen cars - and prospective kidnappers would have no real deterrent against ruining the lives of thousands of families - I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where baby-stealing was a common reality.
Oh, and why wouldn't she just adopt a child instead of stealing one? - She's a mean, cold-hearted, nasty psychopath.
coolsoldier said:
Maybe shoplifting, trespassing and minor embezzlement are committed by one-time offenders, but most violent felonies (e.g., murder, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, abuse, arson) are committed by repeat offenders. Although I feel terrible for the 6 year old girl whose life is being turned upside-down, I don't think that she will be best served in the long run by a parent who has a history of violent felonies. "Some act" is a misdemeanor, a monetary felony like shoplifting or check kiting or even, perhaps, manslaughter - her acts were kidnapping and arson - both of which were violent crimes against the child and the child's family. I was being generous in entertaining the thought that there might have been a normal life in that household over the past 6 years - I guess we will find that out shortly - but the likelihood that the girl would have a normal life growing up to adulthood in that household seems to me to be far, far less than growing up in a household with a parent/parents who are not violent felons and who haven't already committed a major felony against you. Also, imaging the trauma the girl would go through if she found out the truth as a twenty-year old (perhaps when she ran into one of her sisters by coincidence and noticed the resemblance) - she would have a complete breakdown - as a 6 year old, at least, there is time (and ability) for healing - they process (and get over) things quite a bit differently at that age.
One other point, I don't think that what the State is doing here is "appeasing" the parents of the child. Crimes like murder and kidnapping do not have statutes of limitations - the State is required by law to pursue this matter - they have no discretion to just let it go even if it was Mother Theresa who burned down the house and stole the child. And think about it - the lack of a statute of limitations on these types of heinous crimes is quite legitimate - if a person was permitted to steal a child as long as they hid her away for 6 years (the typical limitations standard for many offenses), what kind of protection would that be for both parents and children? If that was the legal standard, you'd have an entire industry of trade in stolen infants like you do in stolen cars - and prospective kidnappers would have no real deterrent against ruining the lives of thousands of families - I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where baby-stealing was a common reality.
Oh, and why wouldn't she just adopt a child instead of stealing one? - She's a mean, cold-hearted, nasty psychopath.
Dros said:
minipoduser said:
I just don't buy it. Pulling off a kidnapping, covering the tracks, and getting away with it for six years seems too complex to pull off without some rational thought. And mean, cold-hearted, nasty, etc. seems over the top also. Seeing as she kidnapped the girl to actually raise and care for her (as opposed to ransom, baby trade, etc.) means that she must have some affection for the child (perhaps too much affection, but still affection).
I'm always interested in these bizarre cases, and I don't think we ever get the whole story.