Indian court to decide if HIV mother is fit to keep her child

[Che Guava]

Court puts on hold HIV decision

A court in India's Rajasthan state has put on hold a controversial decision by a lower court denying an HIV-positive woman the custody of her daughter.

Last week, a court in Jaipur ruled that the mother was unfit to look after her nine-year-old girl on account of her HIV-positive status.

The woman contracted the virus from her husband who died of Aids in 2003.

She was thrown out of the house by her in-laws last year and has since been fighting to get her daughter's custody.

"Because of her HIV-positive status, it cannot be said that the petitioner will be able to look after her minor daughter," the lower court magistrate had said in his ruling.

"It is not in the interest of the child that she remains with her mother. It is in her interest to stay with her grand-parents," the magistrate said.

Appalled

Speaking to the BBC, the petitioner said she would continue to fight for her daughter's rights.

Appalled women's right organisations in Rajasthan protested against the order saying the woman, the widow of a soldier, deserved better.

Her lawyer, Ajay Kumar Jain, says the court even turned down the appeal to not reveal her identity.

"This is against the Supreme Court order to protect the identity of those suffering from HIV-Aids," Mr Jain said.

The district court has now put on hold the lower court's order and set 11 October as the date for hearing the case.

One woman who with HIV-affected women in Rajasthan, Sushila, says at least 300 women in the state are facing similar problems.

"Most of them are not educated and they don't know that they have rights. These widows are thrown out by their families and are forced to live alone. We are fighting for them," she says.

About 2.5m people in India have the HIV virus - 40% of those are women, according to UN-backed government figures.

There is a lot of stigma attached to HIV and Aids in India and those with the virus can face discrimination, including being ostracised and denied access to schools and hospitals.

link

I'm pretty disgusted by a lot of stigmas when it comes to HIV/AIDS, but a court telling a mother that she is not unfit because she is an HIV carrier (not even AIDS), seems pretty low...

 

[Fëanor]

It sounds like she is barely able to sustain herself so i can understand that the court has decided in the best interest of the Daughter, though the mother should be granted the right to see her daughter frequently.

 

[Che Guava]

It sounds like she is barely able to sustain herself so i can understand that the court has decided in the best interest of the Daughter, though the mother should be granted the right to see her daughter frequently.

From what I understand, they didn't cite her means of living as the reason, simply the fact that she has HIV.

 

[skadistic]

Well there is a risk of spreading a highly communicable virus. Thats is a raised risk well above your typical mother. How ever thats not a good enough reason.

 

[aneeshm]

I'm torn on this one.

One the one hand, she should have custody, because she's the mother. That is, of course, indisputable.

On the other, the risk of the child contacting HIV, the degradation in the quality of care the mother can provide, and the probably (much) better care the grandparents can provide, all say that, in her own interest, the child should stay with the grandparents.

So yes, if we follow the "rights of the mother" argument, we are essentially screwing over the "rights of the daughter", and vice versa. In either case, we lose.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I'm torn as well. I think that the "rights of the mother" should definitely extend to having custody and being able to see the daughter (if it isn't possible already). On the other hand, the court has a very difficult-to-disprove idea for what the best interest of the child might be.

 

[silver 2039]

Well she got custody in the end according to the paper today.

 

[emzie]

Could one of you explain how the mother has a high risk of transmitting HIV after birth?

I'm more torn on the fact that the mother is going to be dead within a few years.

 

[Che Guava]

I'm torn on this one.

One the one hand, she should have custody, because she's the mother. That is, of course, indisputable.

On the other, the risk of the child contacting HIV, the degradation in the quality of care the mother can provide, and the probably (much) better care the grandparents can provide, all say that, in her own interest, the child should stay with the grandparents.

So yes, if we follow the "rights of the mother" argument, we are essentially screwing over the "rights of the daughter", and vice versa. In either case, we lose.

I can see how this could tear people up, but in the end we have to be as rational as we can about a situation, and one of the ways to do that is to look at real risk.

The HIV virus is transmitted via blood, semen, vaginal fluid, pre-ejaculate, or breast milk. As long as the mother is not breast-feeding the child (easy enough), I'm pretty sure that it is not unreasonable to be able to make usre that her baby's blood or vaginal fluid doesn't get mixes up with hers. Living in close proximity with someone with HIV is only really risky if you are having sex, sharing needles, or are involved in some kind of bloodsport with them.

The child is at a very low risk. In terms of actually contracting HIV and developping AIDS than say, getting potentially fatal respiratory from second hand smoke is probably more likely, yet I don't beleive that a mother can have her child taken away from her for smoking