Time to Call it 'Quets'?
Bad Joke? Too soon? It's your call, but it's still a question worth asking, for many reasons. With the media attention this case is receiving, the outcome may very well affect family law, both in the US, and even in Canada. Another question (Quets-tion?...I AM awful) that I would like an answer to is: are we guilty of a double standard?
I looked on Google news, searching for "Father Kidnapping" and "Mother Kidnapping" (in each case without the quotes). Only one or two of the recent stories produced by either search were about cases where a parent had abducted their own biological child. The top result for the second search (and several others down the list) were coverage of the Quets case. In both cases where a Father was the kidnapper, the father in question was armed. Does this mean that Men in general see violence as an appropriate solution to their problems? Or is it just that the kind of guy who resorts to kidnapping is perhaps not of the soundest state of mind? Ms. Quets may not have been armed, but she did resort to kidnapping. What reason is there to believe that she is any sounder of mind than any bitter, gun-toting Father who wants to be a part of his kids' lives? No matter how you slice it, this woman is no Heroine, no God-Appointed defender of mothers everywhere. Like more of us than would care to admit it, this woman acted on....instinct? Ever heard the one about "DON'T SEPARATE A MOTHER BEAR FROM HER CUB(S)....EVER!" ? This is like that, but with less severe maulings.
Ms. Quets was dealt an awful hand, if indeed she was pressured into handing over the kids. This almost (perhaps fittingly) feels like a little-kid morality argument, but it has to be said: Her actions are not justified, for the same reason that we don't kill murdere....oh, wait, they DO that in the US. Nevertheless, they TEACH kids that an Eye for an Eye leaves the world blind. Eh, 1/2....s'ok for a country that elected George Bush twice! Seriously, though...Ms. Quets is her own worst enemy here: by taking illegal action, she has put all involved in a tight spot. The media coverage has hearts-a-bleedin' everywhere, but is it realistic that Judges will now endorse illegal action by giving this woman an out? I don't think so. Before you somehow bring up my liberal stance on Prostitution, which is currently illegal (if only in roundabout ways here), I say the following: 1) It cuts down on abuse if the prostitute is in fuller control of transactions 2) NOT FOR CHILDREN. I'm not going to say that Ms. Quets' kids could not understand what was going on, but any reader of Le Petit Prince will know that it can be hard for children to fathom how silly Grown-Ups can be. I doubt either of those little ones knows the letter of family law, nor the complicated circumstances surrounding their birth and adoptions.
What is telling about this is that no one (save the law) is standing up for the adoptive parents, at least not as publicly as Ms. Quets' supporters are. This is turning into a kind of soap box for people to talk about the 'Sanctity of family'. I wonder what adopted children everywhere think of these people. "Aren't WE a family?" they might ask their adoptive father or mother " Why do they say we aren't?". This is news that sells papers, and it shows.
More later, promise