|
Unbelievable!
In the news is a report of the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court to return a seven-year-old girl to her birth parents. There are obviously two sides to this story, but one comment really struck me:
Emotional upheaval to Anna was dismissed as grounds for the Bakers to keep her. Being taken away from the only family she has really known "does not constitute the substantial harm required to prevent the parents from regaining custody," the Supreme Court ruling said.
If that is not substantial harm, somebody tell me, what is?
|