Millions Potentially at Stake in Illegal Immigrant's Child Custody Case

Source: AP

The child is 4-year-old Alessandra Villalobos. Severe brain damage has left her unable to walk or talk, and a pending medical malpractice lawsuit could provide millions of dollars for the cost of her care.

The girl is an American citizen, but her mother, Ingrid Diaz, is an illegal immigrant facing deportation. She's forbidden from working to provide money to care for her child.

Diaz lost custody when she faced eviction. Nashville nurse Amanda Stinnett has been caring for the girl since March and wants permanent custody.

Diaz says she is fighting in probate and juvenile court to make sure her daughter gets the best decision possible. Stinnett declined to comment.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518706,00.html

because she can't support her? Nice government.

and this would not be a problem.

what about poor US citizens who can't provide for their children, should they be excluded from having children?

would not grant citizenship based soley based being born on American soil. It would require at least one American citizen as a parent. The basic intent of the XIV Amendment was to grant citizenship to the millions of recently freed slaves, that could not be considered citizens by the Dred Scott Decision of the Supreme Court. Because of the wording of the Amendment as it exists now, cross the border, kid exits vagina, instant citizen.

all the people and their kids who came after the XIV amendment would be excluded from citizenship.

No. once the change is made, it is effective from that date on. Not retroactive.

mention naturalization?

or from the time of radification, no immigrant entering the country according to the law, could ever become a citizen. Congress recognized that fact and wrote the XIV Amendment in that manner.

from the very start. Remember, all whites here had been immigrants not too long before the Constitution had been adopted and the Framers, Sons of Liberty, etc. were all simply British citizens until the Revolution. No one was an "American citizen" simply because there had never been any such thing as the United States of America. So, from the jump, the Constitution took care of that issue. It made all those in the U.S. in 1789 citizens of the U.S. AND Article I gave Congress the power to enact naturalization laws. And Congress did enact naturalization laws, starting in the later 1700's. And, naturalization laws discriminated against non-whites until 1952 (except for a supposed mix up briefly in the 1870's.)

Not sure, but you may be thinking of the "natural born citizen" requirement for the Presidency that give rise to the whole Obama birth certificate flap. That is only a Presidency issue, though, not a general aimmigration issue.

Constitution. If the XIV amendment did not include the term "or naturalized" it would have meant that the only way a person could become a citizen would be to be born in the country. The amendment would have negated the Article I authority for Congress to enact naturalization laws beause only persons born in the united States could be considered citizens.

Nobody has a right to raise a child in squalor simply because they birthed them. Any parent, citizen or otherwise, who cannot provide for their child should have their parental rights removed until they can, or removed if there is no evidence that they ever will.

She can't work, can't make money to take care of the kid, therefore she is unfit? It sounds to me like the fix is in.

Custodial rights are often infringed on when a parent is breaking the law.

so what about the working poor who only can afford to pay the rent of a mobil home and verily can get enough food for their family, should they be punish because our capitalist system need the poor in the production line and the rich in the management of wealth?

The only rights that matter are the RIGHTS of the child to be raised in an environment with sufficient food, clothing, heat, and educational resources to permit them to grow up healthy and with a decent education.

The underlying cause of that poverty is irrelevant to this particular point. If, for WHATEVER reason, a parent is unable to provide for the basic necessities of raising a child, we as a society have a duty to step in, take the child, and move them to an environment where those resources can be provided. The rights of a parent END when that parent is no longer capable of providing for the child. Parental rights do not grant the right to make your child suffer in poverty alongside you.

This womans situation is tragic, but it doesn't change the basic facts here. She is unable to provide for the child. If the child is returned, it will not have access to the food and medical resources it needs. The mother cannot care for the child. Finger pointing about the cause of her poverty doesn't change the fact that she's there, or the conditions that the child would endure. Given the option, I'd improve her situation too, but that option apparently doesn't exist for her right now. The option DOES exist for the child, and it should be used.

if the child get the compensation to be raised in a good environment, why would she lost the right to live with her mother?

First, there's no gurantee that she will win. Statistically, only about 30% of medical malpractice cases that go to trial actually end up in any kind of significant win for the plaintiff (because hospitals usually settle the strong cases, leaving only the weaker or marginal cases for trial). On top of that, any multimillion dollar win would probably go straight to appeal, meaning that it might be years before the girls guardian actually sees any funds. It's improbable that the government is going to let the mother stay in the country that long.

In the mean time, this particular girls life is dependent on equipment and medical care that the mother is unable to provide.

or is the government that is going to pay for the girl's equipment an medical care.
If the government will be paying the bill it would be better that the mother could take care of her kid knowing that there is no abuse or other circumstances that could endanger the girl's life. In that case the parent would not have to provide for the child.

She 2 patients on Saturday that precipitated it (she is and RN in an OB/GYN office). One is a 23 with her 8th pregnancy (3 were miscarriages). The other was a 30-something with her 15th pregnancy. Neither woman is married and both are on Medicaid.

We asked, at what point does the government take the kids away. If I am a drunk, or a drug or an abuser, my kids get taken away because they should not be raised in that environment. However, the environment that these kids are raised in are just as bad (for the reasons you mentioned). What do we, as a society do?

The first four are things that all children should have. The last is one they should never have.

If a parent can provide for their children and doesn't abuse them, I do NOT believe that the government or society should step in simply because we disagree with their parenting practices, or think they're bad people. Once you start doing that you're crossing into a dangerous form of social engineering. A 23 year old single mother on Medicaid with 5 kids may not be the greatest parent in the world, but we don't require that all parents be the greatest...only that they be good enough to get the job done. If that 23 year old mother can keep the kids fed, then I would object to the state stepping in. If the kids were going hungry, my position would be very different.

We don't take kids away from drunks or drug users simply because they drink or use drugs. We take kids away from those situations because those types of parents tend to ignore the five points listed above.