Thursday, December 04, 2008
"Is you is, or is you ain't my baby"
A news story in Cannes has become more fascinating for what isn’t revealed than for what is. A woman is suing a maternity clinic because she believes her baby was switched at birth. Nothing new there then - we already know that it’s what most mothers suspect when their little darlings turn into monsters.
Clearly the reporter sent to cover the story is no Philip Marlow. He doesn’t have a whole lot of information to impart and zero hunches. The woman is his only source and there’s not a word from the neighbours - what sort of a reporter can’t even get them to blab?
All we know is:
* mother gives birth to baby girl fourteen years ago, who is transferred to special care unit suffering from jaundice
* takes baby home a week later and expresses surprise that baby has more hair than at birth but is told it’s normal
* also notes that baby looks of mixed race, but puts it down to her own Spanish origins.
* ten years and two more children later, husband demands DNA test on first baby, which proves he‘s not the father
* woman takes DNA test which proves that neither is she the mother
* decides only possible explanation is that babies have been switched at birth
* finds her real daughter, with whom she has a happy reunion but afterwards struggles to know what her role is, since her daughter already has a mother
Isn’t the reporter remotely curious to know whether she saw the baby in between giving birth and taking her home, or notice that it looked of mixed race when she first saw it?
Didn’t he ask why the husband demanded a DNA test after ten years, whether he suspected the baby wasn’t his from the start or only when the possibility of divorce and child maintenance approached? And who suggested that the mother should take a DNA test herself?
And how did she find her daughter? There’s no comment from the clinic, which has in any case changed ownership, even though the woman is going public with the claim that they’ve never recognised their mistake, apologised or shown any sign of compassion.
The mother tells us that after the DNA test, her ‘daughter’ was shocked and afraid and needed reassurance that it didn’t change anything between them, although adds that, paradoxically, the ties between them have since become stronger, but what about her real daughter - don’t they see each other any more?
But above all, I want to know what the other mother and father involved think about it all - are they champion swimmers who’ve long wondered why their daughter is water phobic, or are they disappointed that just as life was going along pretty well, this little skeleton should jump out of the cupboard?
The reporter may have asked for interviews from the others and been refused, but come on, isn’t that an intriguing part of the story too?
Clearly the reporter sent to cover the story is no Philip Marlow. He doesn’t have a whole lot of information to impart and zero hunches. The woman is his only source and there’s not a word from the neighbours - what sort of a reporter can’t even get them to blab?
All we know is:
* mother gives birth to baby girl fourteen years ago, who is transferred to special care unit suffering from jaundice
* takes baby home a week later and expresses surprise that baby has more hair than at birth but is told it’s normal
* also notes that baby looks of mixed race, but puts it down to her own Spanish origins.
* ten years and two more children later, husband demands DNA test on first baby, which proves he‘s not the father
* woman takes DNA test which proves that neither is she the mother
* decides only possible explanation is that babies have been switched at birth
* finds her real daughter, with whom she has a happy reunion but afterwards struggles to know what her role is, since her daughter already has a mother
Isn’t the reporter remotely curious to know whether she saw the baby in between giving birth and taking her home, or notice that it looked of mixed race when she first saw it?
Didn’t he ask why the husband demanded a DNA test after ten years, whether he suspected the baby wasn’t his from the start or only when the possibility of divorce and child maintenance approached? And who suggested that the mother should take a DNA test herself?
And how did she find her daughter? There’s no comment from the clinic, which has in any case changed ownership, even though the woman is going public with the claim that they’ve never recognised their mistake, apologised or shown any sign of compassion.
The mother tells us that after the DNA test, her ‘daughter’ was shocked and afraid and needed reassurance that it didn’t change anything between them, although adds that, paradoxically, the ties between them have since become stronger, but what about her real daughter - don’t they see each other any more?
But above all, I want to know what the other mother and father involved think about it all - are they champion swimmers who’ve long wondered why their daughter is water phobic, or are they disappointed that just as life was going along pretty well, this little skeleton should jump out of the cupboard?
The reporter may have asked for interviews from the others and been refused, but come on, isn’t that an intriguing part of the story too?
