"Gone baby gone"

Do you agree that Patrick (Casey Affleck) was right to call the police to report that Jack (Morgan Freeman) had the kid & it was better for her to be with her drug/alcohol addicted mother who cared very little for her daughter?

Or do you agree with the rest of the cops & the girlfriend who thought the kid should stay with Jack where she most likely would have had a better life with more love and affection as well as money?

Unfit mother, better off with Jack.
I mean, even after she almost lost her daughter, as soon as she gets her back she's right back to leaving the kid at home and going out to party. Those are very formative years, and that kid won't get far up the hierarchical needs ladder if she's traumatized by abandonment.

You don't get a Mulligan on that shit.

And I thought it was a "Violent Femmes" track. Nope, that's "Gone, Daddy gone"

Putting myself in the child's shoes, I cannot imagine growing up, learning that I was kidnapped, and that other people knew about it and did nothing. I would feel violated--by everyone in society.

A child might be better off in another home, but it isn't up to an individual to decide that on their own. The brother-in-law could have reported the mother to the authorities. If the brother-in-law and his wife could demonstrate they could provide a good home, the authorities might have awarded them custody.

Instead they decided to simply break the law. That in itself suggests they are not suitable parents, and the same goes for Morgan Freeman.

Putting yourself in the child's shoes, you would really prefer to be raised by that addict than by those loving, responsible people?

As far as law goes, remember that those who helped free slaves and those who hid Jews were also lawbreakers.

The two main factors of ambiguity to me are: 1) The mother was unfit, but the child was not in imminent danger; and 2) the motives of the "surrogates" seemed tainted with a selfish desire to "own" this beautiful child.

It seems like the Casey Affleck character did what he did with the knowledge that he would be responsible to watch over the child when she went back to her mother.

I found it interesting and I guess a nice change that he and his girlfriend did not get back together.

(I hope I got that right-- it's been a long time since I've seen this movie.)

putting myself in the child's shoes, I would prefer not to be raised by criminals. Makes no difference is the crime is drug use or kidnapping.

1) A user is not an addict.

2) Mom's are allowed to go outside the house and are not require to be with her kid at all time....from what I remember of the movie mom did have a babysitter lined up (the appropriateness of that sitter is definately questionable)

3) Fitness of 'foster' parents is not a certainty...actually given the circumstances far from it.

4) Children belong at home with their parents. There are ways to go about properly determining the fitness of the mother eg#4. This debate makes me think of First Nations children being removed from homes (culture/land/language) because of assumed unfitness, which turned out to be unwhiteness/uneuropeaness.