I can't read the full article but it seems that Age and Zoomic are right and the father didn't sold his baby to fund his gambling addiction, but to pay his debts. Without justifying it at all, I think this was quite common until a few decades ago, when people were starving to death in some places, but yet it is inadmissible, no matter how serious the situation in which one finds oneself. I'd personally prefer to die because of my debts before my children were put at risk.
Unfortunately, that's also a story we've heard about several times: the story about people with a serious addiction problem who is not able to control himself if he sees himself with money in hand. Otherwise, it is incomprehensible that a father can act like this with his own child.
The Topic is misleading. Yes as well I didn't finished the story but the father didn't sell the baby to fund his gambling addiction but was to pay debt and in the process he used the money to play gamble. It is not only addiction that can lead to that behaviour but greediness because someone that has high demand can do that. The ones he has is not enough so he wants make more money. And addiction also follow.
Why must a father sell his own kid to pay debt. It is not rational in any way.