切换至摄影模板
博文
贺梅案中谁在撒谎？谁又在支持撒谎者？
总有人说贺家在贺梅生下不久就把她送给贝克了。这种说法相当无知。事实上，贺家最初找到贝克家照看小孩是通过少儿法院与教会的一种慈善服务。之所以挑中贝 克，是因为他们家注册充当临时FOSTER HOME，之前照看过10多个类似情况的小孩，经验丰富。这个抚养是确定时限的：三个月。
贺梅案真正的关键点是，在最初这三个月之间，贺家在少儿法院签了一份监护权移交文件，贺家把贺梅的监护权给贝克了。
根据贺家的作证，当时贝克说需要给小孩办一个医疗保险，而办保险需要贝克是贺梅的监护人，当时由律师KEVIN WEAVER解释，监护权移交是临时的，只是为了办保险。贺家在得到再三保证之后，就签了这个文件。
贝克则作证说，不是这么回事，当时说好让贝克抚养贺梅成人。
两个故事截然不同，必有一方说谎了。初审CHILDERS法官断定贺与罗的可信度为0。
但 是，另外两名在场的证人，Pastor Yao （一位牧师兼翻译）与法庭的工作人员Sara Cloud都一致作证说，当时就是为了办保险，而且一再强调监护权移交是临时的。这两人的证词与贺家证词相同，而与贝克证词相反。不仅如此，SARA CLOUD还作证说，当时贝克与贺家在此问题上是一致的 (见附文证词）。
实际上，贝克方在策划签订这个监护权文件时早已找了KEVIN WEAVER的律师咨询，询问了剥夺父母权的事宜，并做了相应计划。后来，正是KEVIN WEAVER以贝克律师身份启动剥夺贺罗父母权之程序。
其实，从贝克启动剥夺贺罗父母权一事就可以看出，那个监护权移交是临时的。如果是抚养到成人，那贝克也就根本无须去剥夺贺罗的父母权了。
无论谁在撒谎，在法律上，贺梅案的定论如下：
【The Supreme Court ... emphasized that any threat of harm emanated not from the Hes but from the system that unlawfully maintained A.M.H. in the Bakers’ custody some six years after she should have been returned to her parents.】
附文：
PASTOR YAU证词
Q. And what specifically ― based on that, what
specifically did you explain to Ms. He?
A. In summary ― you know, I can’t recall the word
for word question ― said that because the Hes were
unable to financially support the baby at that time,
that some family was willing to take care of their
baby on their behalf, but because of the legal
procedure that necessitate to buy insurance or to
administer medication or whatever to the baby by
the custodian, Ms. He needs to give the authority
to the custodian by signing a document.
Q. Did you hear the word “temporary” in that meeting?
A. Yes.
SARA CLOUD证词
Q. All right, and did either Mr. or Mrs. He tell
you that they wanted the Bakers to take care of their
child on a permanent basis?
A. No.
Q. Did the Hes ever say anything to you that
indicated to you that they were interested in either
a temporary or permanent arrangement?
A. Temporary.
Q. Can you tell us what you recall?
A. I recall mainly talking to Casey, that she was
very concerned that it was not a permanent situation.
She did not want it to be a permanent situation.
Q. She made that very clear to you?
A. Yes, sir.
. . . .
Q. When Mr. and Mrs. Baker and Mr. and Mrs. He were
before you on June 4 of 1999, did they appear to
be in agreement?
A. Yes.
Q. It did not appear to be a contested matter. Is
that correct?
A. No.
Q. You understood Ms. He, through the interpreter,
to wanting this matter to be temporary only. Is that
your understanding?
A. Yes.
. . . .
Q. If you understood that Mr. and Mrs. Baker wanted
language in the consent order that said that, “We
will be able to raise this child until she’s 18 years
of age,” would you consider that to be consistent
with what Ms. He understood on that day?
A. No.
. . . .
Q. Ms. Cloud, what was the agreement that you were
so sure that all parties had consented to? Was it
temporary or permanent?
A. Temporary.
. . . .
Q. Temporary because it could be changed; right?
A. That would be one of the reasons, but I believe
Casey was fairly adamant that at some point she
wanted her child back.
贺梅案真正的关键点是，在最初这三个月之间，贺家在少儿法院签了一份监护权移交文件，贺家把贺梅的监护权给贝克了。
根据贺家的作证，当时贝克说需要给小孩办一个医疗保险，而办保险需要贝克是贺梅的监护人，当时由律师KEVIN WEAVER解释，监护权移交是临时的，只是为了办保险。贺家在得到再三保证之后，就签了这个文件。
贝克则作证说，不是这么回事，当时说好让贝克抚养贺梅成人。
两个故事截然不同，必有一方说谎了。初审CHILDERS法官断定贺与罗的可信度为0。
但 是，另外两名在场的证人，Pastor Yao （一位牧师兼翻译）与法庭的工作人员Sara Cloud都一致作证说，当时就是为了办保险，而且一再强调监护权移交是临时的。这两人的证词与贺家证词相同，而与贝克证词相反。不仅如此，SARA CLOUD还作证说，当时贝克与贺家在此问题上是一致的 (见附文证词）。
实际上，贝克方在策划签订这个监护权文件时早已找了KEVIN WEAVER的律师咨询，询问了剥夺父母权的事宜，并做了相应计划。后来，正是KEVIN WEAVER以贝克律师身份启动剥夺贺罗父母权之程序。
其实，从贝克启动剥夺贺罗父母权一事就可以看出，那个监护权移交是临时的。如果是抚养到成人，那贝克也就根本无须去剥夺贺罗的父母权了。
无论谁在撒谎，在法律上，贺梅案的定论如下：
【The Supreme Court ... emphasized that any threat of harm emanated not from the Hes but from the system that unlawfully maintained A.M.H. in the Bakers’ custody some six years after she should have been returned to her parents.】
附文：
PASTOR YAU证词
Q. And what specifically ― based on that, what
specifically did you explain to Ms. He?
A. In summary ― you know, I can’t recall the word
for word question ― said that because the Hes were
unable to financially support the baby at that time,
that some family was willing to take care of their
baby on their behalf, but because of the legal
procedure that necessitate to buy insurance or to
administer medication or whatever to the baby by
the custodian, Ms. He needs to give the authority
to the custodian by signing a document.
Q. Did you hear the word “temporary” in that meeting?
A. Yes.
SARA CLOUD证词
Q. All right, and did either Mr. or Mrs. He tell
you that they wanted the Bakers to take care of their
child on a permanent basis?
A. No.
Q. Did the Hes ever say anything to you that
indicated to you that they were interested in either
a temporary or permanent arrangement?
A. Temporary.
Q. Can you tell us what you recall?
A. I recall mainly talking to Casey, that she was
very concerned that it was not a permanent situation.
She did not want it to be a permanent situation.
Q. She made that very clear to you?
A. Yes, sir.
. . . .
Q. When Mr. and Mrs. Baker and Mr. and Mrs. He were
before you on June 4 of 1999, did they appear to
be in agreement?
A. Yes.
Q. It did not appear to be a contested matter. Is
that correct?
A. No.
Q. You understood Ms. He, through the interpreter,
to wanting this matter to be temporary only. Is that
your understanding?
A. Yes.
. . . .
Q. If you understood that Mr. and Mrs. Baker wanted
language in the consent order that said that, “We
will be able to raise this child until she’s 18 years
of age,” would you consider that to be consistent
with what Ms. He understood on that day?
A. No.
. . . .
Q. Ms. Cloud, what was the agreement that you were
so sure that all parties had consented to? Was it
temporary or permanent?
A. Temporary.
. . . .
Q. Temporary because it could be changed; right?
A. That would be one of the reasons, but I believe
Casey was fairly adamant that at some point she
wanted her child back.
