I recently wrote about a perceived injustice in the Chicago legal system (perceived by an angry public, that is), in which a Chicago police officer who beat up a female bartender for not serving him more alcohol walked away from his trial with no jail time. (That post, and its related video evidence, is here). Writing about that verdict reminded me of the last time I felt irate over a Chicago-area legal decision: the Baby Richard Case.
Even if you're not from Chicago you probably remember Baby Richard (whose real name is Danny Kirchner). He was a baby born to Daniella Janikova in 1991; she willingly gave him up, and he was adopted by the Warburton family, who already had one natural-born son. Janikova told her on-again, off-again boyfriend, Otakar Kirchner, that their child had died. When Kirchner found out that he had a living son and that he'd been adopted, he sought to intervene in the adoption. The Warburtons fought him.
The case was in the courts for four years; in that time Baby Richard bonded with his adoptive parents--the only parents he'd ever known--and his brother. Otakar Kirchner and his girlfriend married, and, united, they appealed to the courts to let them reclaim their son.
In June of 1994, in a decision that shocked Chicagoland, Justice James Heiple ruled that the boy should be returned to his biological father. With news cameras rolling, the crying four-year-old child was pried out of his mother's arms and handed to a man that he did not know.
Even fifteen years later I think of Baby Richard often. I talk about him to my students, who are about the age he would be now. I think about how much of an identity a child forms by the age of four, and reflect about how much damage might have been done when the boy was transferred to new parents--and given a new name. Rather than let him keep the name the Warburtons had given him, the Kirchners gave him the name they wanted for him: Danny.
Added to that, little "Richard" was separated from his older brother. Although the Kirchners had promised that the boys could still see each other, that never happened. Both boys lost a brother that day. When I think of my own two sons and of the bond they have shared since the little one's infancy, I find this part of the case to be particularly heartbreaking.
In 1997, more than two years after Baby Richard, aka Danny, was transferred from one set of parents to another, his real father, Otakar Kirchner, moved out. The boy lives with his mother Daniela, the woman who originally gave him up for adoption.
A book defending the Kirchners was written by Karen Moriarty, a therapist who observed the transfer of the little boy, and who reported that he had adjusted well.
Defenders of the Warburtons, however, suggested that not only had they built a happy and stable home for their adopted son, but that they were cheated out of any further meetings with a child that they had loved. Judge Heiple was criticized for never meeting with Otakar Kirchner before making his decision; he claimed that the decision was based on Illinois law, and that he had to follow it.
But the overwhelming feeling in Chicagoland was that Heiple and the legal system in general failed to take the child's happiness into account, and that they had therefore committed a crime of omission by following outmoded adoption laws rather than examining the realities of the relationships in front of them.
Photo link here (and thank you to Jonathan Quist for the link!)

10 comments:
Oh, that photo gives me chills. What a terrible thing to have happened. I do remember that case.
That episode also made adoptive parents everywhere worried about adopting--and they already have such a stressful journey to adoption.
Elizabeth
Mystery Writing is Murder
Perhaps if that judge had showed more empathy, the child would still be with his adoptive parents.
I agree, Paul. I know that Judge Heiple was a very unpopular person after the decision.
Elizabeth, I have to look this up, but I thought that this case might have spurred some changes in adoption law.
I've read about a number of cases like this one, and it always makes me angry and sad. I think adopted children have a right to know who they are and who their biological parents are, but it's wrong to tear a child away from his adoptive family years after the adoption.
It really is an ethical dilemma in some cases, but in this case I think the real parents might have tried to consider what price had to be paid by everyone other than themselves.
Shall we dip into treacherous waters and ask what everyone thinks of the Jackson children's situation? Does Debbie Rowe have a right to decide at this point that she wants her two kids? Will any of the three kids ever know who their biological father is? What will the youngest child be told when he asks about his mother? It's hard to imagine a sadder situation than that one.
Sad, and confusing. Those seem like some murky waters with much fabrication of facts.
When I heard the Judge's decision I was shocked. I thought the natural mother had a limited time to change her mind. And yes, I really feel for the child. He had a good home and then it went away.
Michael's three children will always carry his legacy, and curiosity about why they were. I don't know who could give them a normal home, but I suspect it's not their mother (Debbie).
Marilynne, I'm with you. It was just shocking.
In regard to Jackson's children, I also get the impression their mother doesn't want them.
It makes me think of little Athena Onassis--so rich, but so isolated.
And like the Baby Richard case, all of the public spectacle makes it somehow more tragic.
Post a Comment