The Bakers and their attorney, Larry Parrish, filed another federal lawsuit on Monday. The Bakers claim that A.M.H.’s constitutional rights have been violated. Parrish invoked several hypothetical examples that would justify the federal court’s intervention. Apparently he and the Bakers feel that being returned to her parents bears similarity to the following:
- Giving custody of a child to a foster parent who will keep the child in a cage.
- Giving custody to adults who would sterilize the child.
- Giving custody to adults who would have the child’s tongue amputated.
From a psychological point of view, doesn’t this make you wonder just a tiny bit about the workings of Larry Parrish’s mind? In the sterilization example, he specified a “Hispanic” child. Ironic because he refers to the Hes as “progenitors” in the legal papers–maybe he’s thinking subconsciously about the Bakers stripping the Hes of their child.
Parrish’s legal papers previously referred to the Hes as representing “monsters” to A.M.H. They also referred previously to amputation. Very vivid, very disturbing imagery.
But overall, the imagery is of a child who is locked away, losing birth rights, and losing voice. And maybe it’s all about losing voice. Because the Bakers have repeatedly insisted that they are not doing this for themselves, they are doing this for A.M.H. Yet they continue to put words in her mouth. Remember the $5 question and answers?
In the most recent filing, Parrish also included a hypothetical conversation between A.M.H. and the juvenile court judge:
Anna: Is it my fault the litigation was protracted or that I have been living with the Bakers all of the 8 years of my life and am bonded with them?
Person: Of course not.
Anna: Why, then, must I be substantially harmed?
Person: Well, the Tennessee Supreme Court seemed to base your being harmed on public policy that requires it….
Anna: But what about me? Is that not a high price for me to pay for something I had nothing to do with and that does me no good?
Person: Well, I guess you have to suffer for what the Tennessee Supreme Court would say is other people’s good. It’s sort of like the soldiers who must be harmed; I guess the theory of the Tennessee Supreme Court is that some children must be harmed to protect unknown biological progenitors of children who you do not know.
So now not only do the Bakers and Parrish speak for A.M.H., but they also speak for Judge Curtis Person.
Hopefully, when the end of this month comes, A.M.H. will be permanently reunited with her parents. Hopefully at some point the Bakers will be able to see that they were the ones who caused her the substantial harm. And hopefully the Hes will continue to allow her to have a relationship with the Bakers. Although I am starting to think that this is not in her best interest at all.