Response to Choice 2:
Parents not only exercise primary authority over their children, they also bear responsibility for their well-being as well as development. That being said, the rights of a parent are contingent upon protection of their child’s best interests. Standards are established by the state to ensure a child’s education, health, safety, and all other basic needs are met. Therefore, the state has the responsibility to intercede when parents become dysfunctional and put their children in harm’s way. Most, if not all, of this intervention are structured by federal and state laws, law enforcement and child welfare agency actions, as well as judicial decisions.
Due to the extreme substance abuse exhibited by the parents, custody of their infant child was relinquished to the state. The state found the best possible home for the child that was able to meet the aforementioned needs of the child. After many years, the parents have now regained their custody, against the will of their now nine year old girl and her foster parents.
With regards to the parents, I believe that they, in their own right, are ethically and legally justified to seek renewed custody of their child. Although a great deal of time has passed, they went through the proper measures to clean up their lives, and their acts. They have gone through the proper legal procedures to see that they are physically, financially and mentally equipped to handle parenthood. A court has obviously ruled in their favor for the fact that they deem these parents fit to take care of the child.
On the other hand, this is more a question of law versus justice. Law and justice are two entirely different animals. In this scenario, the law in regards to the parents’ right has been satisfied but by no stretch of the imagination can one call this outcome justice for the little girl, or for the foster parents.