“After four days, how can you not recognize your baby?” Sophie Chas, the lawyer for the clinic, told the newspaper Le Figaro. “We can believe in it when it’s a second, a day, two days. But 10 years? The mothers may have been involved in creating the damage.”
How sad that the lawyer chose to argue that "the mothers may have been involved in creating the damage"... because they trusted the doctors? ...because they didn't possess some "maternal instinct" to recognize a baby they had spent almost no time with? Even after say 2 years or 10 years it's your fault because you didn't call the police to report that your child's skin tone doesn't match your own? How is it even acceptable to make this argument in a court?
in France, when the judge is a professional (by opposition to a jury), you can use whatever arguments you want in court. But outrageous arguments are extremely risky, the lawyer might have been in a desperate position to use that.
To summarize, two babies were switched at birth with plausible explanation as to why neither mother acted on her suspicions. Each mother bonded with her non-biological child, and raised her as her own (just like millions of adoptions the world over). 10 years later, when a paternity test finally happened (the delay was better explained in these HN comments) and the families were reunited, differences in parenting and family dynamics (one said to have strict discipline) meant neither family got along with their biological child nor wanted to keep in close touch. They still made about $1 million each from the birth clinic in a civil suit.
I'm not really sure what the big deal is here, and whatever cultural significance was missed by the NYT author (surprising given the French-sounding name). Fact is, this was the plot of a hugely successful French movie in back in 1988, thus still entrenched in the memories of many adults. Of course, the movie was more of a white-collar vs blue-collar social satire and very funny. But the real story for the French audience was that of life imitating art.
Without a court order the the express consent of the person must be obtained in writing before the carrying out of the examination, after the person has been duly informed of its nature and its purpose.
It seems that everyone involved gave consent, so in this case, they are not illegal
The reasoning is that a "your" kid doesn't only depend on genetics, it's also through adoption, or other family system (like in Africa, some kids are raised by their aunt and uncle). Because deciding overnight that the kid should stop calling that guy daddy is not really something we want to be simple like fetching a baguette. Since it's a medical procedure, they used the medical law to limit that. A family matters judge has to be involved, and the outcome has to have a purpose. In this example the "father" was very distant and not really involved in raising the little girl and the couple was splitting, so the question of paying child support was raised. I guess the lack of a fatherly bond and the lack of genetic link made the judge decide against the child support and allowed the father to be removed from the child birth certificate (but it's a soft limit, the judge has to make a difficult call for the definition of father).
French society may in that aspect be a little closer to Japanese, to which I'm more familiar with: Some cultures put more value on harmony than on justice. This was at first not very easy for me to understand, coming from a German speaking culture, and I believe it may be even more difficult for Americans (who according to my impression seem to be even more demanding of 'justice'), but it is what it is.
Just as an example, in case of a car accident in Japan, the blame (and thus damages/fines) is almost always shared (even in completely obvious situation where we would see one party 100% at fault), especially so when a passenger other than the driver was hurt - just so the driver in question wouldn't loose his face completely. 'Being there' at the wrong moment is enough to be partially blamed for what happened. There's something to this you know - if an incident is potent enough to destroy someone's social status, it often might be better for society to let it slip, rather than to go the 'nuclear option' (i.e. the American way) of throwing people in jail, make them loose their job, possibly their family, or even take away their children. With marriages it's similar - husbands/wives often rather don't want to know rather than to risk a family's stability.
I googled a bit in French, and I can't find the specifics of the test in this story, but the separation of the couple could be a legal event that would justify the judge allowing the test (because of the skin color difference, and child support payment). Moreover, after the test, the father was allowed to be removed from the birth certificate by a judge, so I don't think it was a quick trip to Spain.
We use the excuse of biological dissimilarities to get around the fact that most archetypes we've constructed have been artificially constructed -- gender, relationships, and socialization all revolve around certain attributes that are very arbitrary and have little, if anything, to do with biological characteristics. The controversial "wire mother" experiment carried out by Harry Harlow[1] proves this to some extent.
I had similar questions when we were presented the opportunity to adopt a newborn. She is now 10 days old, and she has felt like mine ever since I first saw her minutes after her birth. Perhaps my experience is unique, but I didn't expect the connection to happen as quickly (instantly) as it did.
I don't have any maternal instincts (by definition) but can assure you that loving a child is actually pretty easy (and natural). My adopted daughter is our fourth child and I've got the same attachment to her that I have to the three I sired.
You love someone if you take care of them (or are taken care of). That's about all it takes. And it is not required that one of the parties be a child.
How sad that the lawyer chose to argue that "the mothers may have been involved in creating the damage"... because they trusted the doctors? ...because they didn't possess some "maternal instinct" to recognize a baby they had spent almost no time with? Even after say 2 years or 10 years it's your fault because you didn't call the police to report that your child's skin tone doesn't match your own? How is it even acceptable to make this argument in a court?