The custody of children, under the model family law code, which pretty much applies in all states, requires that the best interest of the child be paramount. If both families - the biological one and the one that raised the child - wanted to maintain custody, they could both petition to have custody of the child and be declared the child's legal parents. Assuming the parents who raised the child did nothing wrong and didn't kidnap the child in the first place (although I'm wondering here how that would work - was the baby switched at birth? Did the wealthy parents adopt the child thinking he was an orphan?) the decision on who would have custody would be based on the child's best interests. Courts are loath to terminate the rights of biological parents, so they wouldn't make the decision based on the fact that the "adoptive parents" were wealthier. But the court might look at what sort of psychological trauma might result from removing the child from a happy, stable household and giving the child to people who are--to the child, anyway--perfect strangers. Depending on the age of the child, the child's opinion might be sought.
There was a case in Florida a few decades ago involving baby girls switched at birth. When one girl falls ill at age nine and her blood typing reveals she's not the biological child of the parents who were raising her, it is discovered she was switched at birth with another baby girl. The girl who'd fallen ill, died and the parents who were raising her sued to get custody of their biological daughter. The court, however, awarded custody of the girl to the father who'd been raising her, stating that he was psychologically the child's father. It granted the girl's biological parents visitation rights. The case grew messier when the father stopped allowing the biological parents visitation rights and the girl ran away from the father who'd raised her to move in with her biological parents.
In other words...it's complicated.
Rac
