US Judge Childers in his May 12, 2004 decision revoked the parental rights of Anna Mae He¡¯s Chinese immigrant parents. This case has enraged many people in the US due to the way the judge ignored the law and made judgment based on his personal prejudices. However few Chinese are speaking out over the injustice. I can¡¯t help wondering why that is so.

I found answer in Chinese author Lin Yutang¡¯s book ¡°My Country and My People¡±. Lin said that though most Chinese were concerned about what was good for their family and their country, few considered what was good for the general society. He gave an example which pictures society as a full bus. It can¡¯t go anywhere because a passenger is insistent on getting a good seat and refuses to get out of the driver¡¯s seat.

Soon after Anna Mae¡¯s birth in 1999, temporary legal troubles led to the revocation of university scholarship of her Chinese immigrant father. Having no income and large medical bills, the Hes resorted to an agency that placed the baby with the American Baker family for 90 days of temporary custody. After 90 days the Bakers asked to continue the custody temporarily rather than let the Hes send Anna Mae to relatives in China. Within one year the Hes went to juve-nile court to get Anna Mae back because the Bakers refused to return her. The Bakers responded by asking a higher court to void the Hes¡¯ parental rights. Judge Childers revoked the Hes¡¯ parental rights. The case is being appealed in a higher court.

Many Chinese may say: ¡°What happened to the Hes is unfair but it does not affect me.¡± That is short-sighted. The verdict endangers the Chinese in several ways. The US has a precedent-based legal system under which a verdict can affect the outcome of subsequent legal cases.

US courts have held that, unless parents abuse their children, no one else has a right to take them away. Judge Childers seems to be ruling that because the Bakers are richer than the Hes and US culture is better than Chinese culture, the Bakers should raise Anna Mae rather than her parents. This endangers the right of Chinese parents in the US to keep their children.

Recently, US car dealers were convicted of cheating Chinese customers by promising one thing in Chinese and writing something different in English. In Anna Mae¡¯s case the Chinese translator testified that he explained to the Hes the custody agreement was temporary and only needed for medical insurance. But the judge ignored the testimony, implying that only English has legal significance. The judge seems to be indifferent to what a Chinese person is promised in Chinese. This endengers any Chinese in the US with poor English skills.

Many early Chinese California Goldrush miners made fortunes. But then disaster struck. US courts ruled that Chinese could not testify against white people. As a result Chinese were driven off gold mining claims by white miners who had no fear of being arrested. Judge Childers heard testimony from four Chinese witnesses, but found fault with all the Chinese testimony except for the translator. If his ruling is not overturned it could bode as badly for Chinese in the US now as in the California Goldrush.

It is time for Chinese people to get off the driver¡¯s seat of their personal comfort zone and to speak out so that the bus of justice for Chinese in the US can get moving.