Question

Hello,
A great deal has been written and said about this case from legal, halakhic, and moral perspectives. It seems everyone has something to say about it. Everyone talks about the parents’ rights and difficulties, and about belonging (ownership). Seemingly, there is no reference to the fetus/child itself as a party to the issue, even though once the baby has been born, she is already a person with rights and wishes of her own.
In principle, after a pair of parents raise a child, the child generally becomes attached to them and loves them, and therefore seemingly (though I will challenge this below) there is no inherent advantage to being raised by the birth parents or the genetic parents, so long as the attachment process is not disrupted. But if a person were given a choice about where they would prefer to grow up and to whom they would prefer to become attached, it seems reasonable to me to assume that they would prefer to grow up with their biological parents together with their biological siblings and become attached to them. Perhaps one can say even more than that: that this is also the child’s objective best interest, since adopted children discover at one stage or another that they were adopted, and this can affect the child, the way they see their place within the family and/or the way they are treated by their surroundings. (I have made assumptions here that require substantiation, but they seem reasonable to me.)
What do you think about this? Is it possible to assess the child’s own wishes? If so, is there room to give weight to the child’s wishes and not only to the parents’? Could this override the parents’ rights, on the assumption that the child’s likely wish is itself their right?