In the Best Interest of the Child (1990 TV Movie) User Reviews (5)

Closure & answers

[Dragonflyke · 7/10 · 22 August 2008]

1) It's not Curt who got out of the truck and helped Mandy out, but in fact his sister who was sitting next to him.

2) The woman Mandy meet in the field is her aunt. Her mother gives the address to Curt. Indeed, you don't see her any other time in the movie.

3) Even though the movie was not based on a true story - That's the official line adopted by producer Robert A. Papazian - the plot of this made-for-TV movie would seem to be inspired by the exploits of the real-life Dr. Elizabeth Morgan.

This is her story and maybe the ending we missed in the movie:

Dr.Elizabeth Morgan, the Washington, D.C., plastic surgeon, spent two years in jail in the late 1980s rather than disclose the whereabouts of her young daughter and for defying a court order to allow her ex-husband to visit the girl.She claimed the girl's father sexually abused the child, though the allegations never were proved.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a victory for Dr. Eric Foretich, an oral surgeon who has maintained that he never hurt his daughter and that Congress wrongly took sides in the custody case.

Eventually, Hilary was located in New Zealand where she was hiding with her maternal grandparents.

Morgan, went to jail rather than allow Foretich the visits ordered by a District of Columbia Superior Court judge. A special act of Congress freed her in 1989 and the next year she joined her daughter.

A New Zealand court gave her sole custody but the visitation requirement by the U.S. court remained in effect, meaning that if Morgan returned to America she would still face a court order to allow her husband to see their daughter.

Hilary was allowed to remain in New Zealand only if Dr. Morgan stayed and surrendered Hilary's passport to the court. Dr. Foretich, thinking of Hilary's welfare and stability, refused to fight further.

Congress intervened again in 1996, passing the Elizabeth Morgan Act, which allowed the girl to decide whether to see her father. Foretich and his parents sued the government in 1997, challenging the law.

The appeals court declared the law unconstitutional because it applied only to Foretich.

A film that goes a bit of the way to demonstrate the callous actions of family courts.

[EdmondDantes424 · 7/10 · 18 January 2015]

There is worldwide distress caused by cps and the family courts. They imprisoned me for similar reasons to the woman in the film. The film does not bring out enough just how corrupt the family court system is, or how cps workers thrive on bullying people. A top psychiatrist told me that their was a huge trail of very long term distressed children and families left in the wake of social services. The film also fails to show that the family courts readily allow things to happen that the criminal courts would put people imprison for. The film misses that this situation is a pandemic. The idea that the system is run by sociopaths does not come over strong enough.

I agree...Very Confusing???

[free1108 · 6/10 · 9 June 2007]

I agree with the other reviews in that the end of this movie is confusing and leaves the viewer with no answers. I suppose we do know the only answer in cases like this was to do what Jennifer did..Run and Hide. I believe the law has improved since this movie was filmed, but people must still do this today, to protect their children from an unjust legal system that will put the child with the abuser. In this case, I felt there was more than adequate information given to the judge to rule in favor of Jennifer and Mandy. There were plenty of qualified experts stating the child was being abused and even Mandy, herself, told that it was her father that was doing these hideous things to her. So very hard to understand?? In reference to the end...I do not recall seeing the woman that Mandy met in the field any other time in the movie...I have no idea who she was?? Also, it appeared that Curt got out of the truck and helped Mandy out. He had been in a wheelchair in every scene that we had seen previously. Are we to assume some sort of foul play here? How did he get out of the truck and walk if he was supposed to be wheelchair bound, if not? What does all this mean and whom did Mandy meet in the field?

Where's the closure?

[margoletta · 4/10 · 6 October 2002]

This movie was interesting and it held my attention but I was very disappointed in the end at the lack of an ending. When the courts are wrong and people fight for justice, I feel the viewer needs to know that there are alternatives to the choices the main character has made. This movie just ended and left you feeling pretty cheated.

Confusion!

[hannahmc · 8/10 · 5 April 2006]

I was confused by the end scene. Who is the woman that Mandy runs to in the country? Is it her Grandma? It just seems weird because Mandy looked super happy to be seeing her, why didn't Jennifer give her daughter to this woman at first? Instead of running away with her? I don't get it. I hate it how Jennifer goes to jail for protecting her child from a rapist. I think that's sick. She deserves better. I really hate her husband too, he is such a sicko, he hurt his own child and continues to want to see her, to abuse her (emotionally, psychologically) and he shows no remorse for what he has done. He acts as though he didn't do a thing wrong and that what he did was normal behaviour between a father and daughter.

Where is the justice in this film?