Teen and Unplanned Pregnancies: Adoption Plans, Safe Havens, and Prevention Efforts
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The themes here imply babies are basically being stolen from their birth mothers or birth mothers are being taken advantage of and coerced into an adoption.
At any rate, I see no problem with pre-birth consent or with states that have this law. I just don't.
Thankfully, in the following blog, the prospective adoptive parents did the right thing by returning the baby WITHIN THE REVOCABLE PERIOD. However, if they had so wished, the p-APs could have fought to keep the baby and most likely won:
Devastated and frightened, we spoke with the attorney from our adoption agency to review our legal options. The good news was that the laws of the state governing our adoption were very favorable to adoptive parents. Some states automatically return a baby to its birth mother or father when she/he chooses to parent and the adoptive parents face an uphill battle to regain custody and adopt the baby. It was the reverse for us. If we chose to fight to keep James,his birth parents were facing an uphill battle to prove that they would provide a safe and loving home for James.
Again, note that this is WITHIN the revocable period.
Quote:
Although the outcome would have been the same, we would not have had any choice to fight for James had we used the laws of the state where he was born. (For reasons other than those surrounding relinquishment and revocation, James’s birth mother elected to use the laws of the state where we lived rather than where she planned on delivering. Typically it is the birth mother’s choice as to what law will apply to your adoption plan).
I never thought I would need to take advantage of those laws, but when faced with the enormous decision of whether or not to fight for James it was comforting and important for us to know that while prospective legal proceedings would be taking place, James would live with us (his birth mother and father would be given regular visitation), and unless they had a very compelling case we were told we had a very good chance that a Judge would determine that James would stay with us, forever.
Note again that we are talking about WITHIN the revocable period!
Btw I wonder whether the mother actually knew getting her baby back might not have been a foregone conclusion. I wonder if she had an attorney of her own (something that is vital).
No doubt, there will be those who would say "Well, she shouldn't have signed the first time then, should she" (I've cut out bits so as to shorten the post)
Quote:
While nurses frantically attended to James’s birth mother due to complications from his birth, my husband and I sat on a couch in the family area of the maternity center and held our new son. ....................... Later that evening the social worker from our adoption agency arrived and after getting checked out by the attending pediatrician and approved for discharge, the social worker went in to sit with James’s birth mother and discuss whether she was ready to sign her relinquishment forms.
........................ Under the laws of the state that was governing our adoption, James’s birth mother could sign her relinquishment papers at any time after he was born. She had a relatively short period of time after signing them in which she could choose to parent and after that period of time her parental rights (and those of James’s birth father) would automatically be terminated. .....................After what seemed like an endless visit, our social worker came out and told us that James’s birth mother had signed the papers and we could go home with James that night! We were told his birth father had already signed the papers earlier that day."
So the mother had serious complications after birth. Then later that evening, the social workers went and sat with her and apparently stayed in there for a very long time (they couldn't just go in and ask whether she was ready and then come back? They had to sit there until she actually signed? What was said during that endless visit, one wonders?).
And is that child living in abject poverty, being beaten by his birthmother and burnt with cigarettes? Doesn't look like it:
Quote:
A few years ago I accidentally found out through our adoption agency that “James” is doing well and is living with his birth mother.
There is so much that I have concerns about in regards to the above blog post. I think the author did the right thing. However, if she had decided that she wasn't going to give into the mother's wishes, the mother wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. As I said, I bet the mother didn't even realise that having her baby returned might not have been a foregone conclusion.
Last edited by susankate; 04-01-2013 at 09:59 PM..
LOL! I must've been typing too fast. If a woman changes her mind during the rescind period/time to revoke period, then she did not want to plan for adoption. There were likely other circumstances that were at play.
Does this clear up what you are referring to?
Pretty well every bmother I know of online, even the most pro-adoption ones, would tell you that they relinquished because of circumstances. Often the decision to make an adoption plan depends on whether the original counsellors choose to use adverse circumstances as something to overcome or as reasons the person shouldn't parent.
Also, though I am pro-choice, I don't have problems with sensitive pro-life counselling, i.e. along the lines of just listening (funnily enough the best type of pro-life counselling is the same as the best time of unplanned pregnancy counselling). However, I do have a problem with this type of manipulation:
Again. Laws do not define ethics. There are many unethical behaviors that are perfectly legal. Ethics go far beyond that, and it's just silly not to recognize that basic fact. Ethics exist in all aspects
of life. Political ethics. Work ethics. Marriage ethics. Adoption ethics. Now you are saying your opinion on if something is right or not does not have to with ethics. Of course it does! That's ethics!
I don't think Jaded discounts the notion of ethics at all. What some of us refuse to do is allow you and Susankate and those who we perceive as being against most adoption to define the word for us.
The difference between something that is "legal" and something that is "ethical" is quite profound. In the one case, the state has enacted in writing prohibitions and proscriptions against particular activity. In the other case, we have subjective standard sometimes held by individuals, sometimes compiled by people who fancy themselves as "experts" in an area. Their opinions may be widely held or scantily held. There is simply no way to know. I do know that I could form a group. Maybe I would call it "Adoption USA". We could adopt a series of standards with respect to adoption and call those "Adoption USA's standards of adoption ethics". You'd probably disagree. Many would probably disagree and that would render our standards pretty meaningless. That's what I'm getting at even if some refuse to see that.
That's why we don't give more weight to what you say about "ethics".
I don't think Jaded discounts the notion of ethics at all. What some of us refuse to do is allow you and Susankate and those who we perceive as being against most adoption to define the word for us.
The difference between something that is "legal" and something that is "ethical" is quite profound. In the one case, the state has enacted in writing prohibitions and proscriptions against particular activity. In the other case, we have subjective standard sometimes held by individuals, sometimes compiled by people who fancy themselves as "experts" in an area. Their opinions may be widely held or scantily held. There is simply no way to know. I do know that I could form a group. Maybe I would call it "Adoption USA". We could adopt a series of standards with respect to adoption and call those "Adoption USA's standards of adoption ethics". You'd probably disagree. Many would probably disagree and that would render our standards pretty meaningless. That's what I'm getting at even if some refuse to see that.
That's why we don't give more weight to what you say about "ethics".
You completely are missing what I'm saying. And trying to make me out like some adoption bully forcing others to bend to my will. Moderator Cut. Because if you read what I said, you will not find anywhere where I said my way is right.
I never said anyone had to give more weight to what I specifically say. Can you point out where I said that? Or where I said only I am right? Or where I said even that only my opinion is right? Or where I said only my opinion of what is ethical is right? No?
What I actually said is that it can be beneficial to listen to others when forming opinions. People with actual experience in an area. Jaded is a prospective adoptive parent. It might bode her well, just as it does me, to listen to others. I'm not clear on how me saying this means I think I'm right? Seems to me I'm pretty open to the opinions of others, actually. So... the opposite of telling everyone to only give credence to what I say is ethical.
Moderator Cut. Your statement even lines up with that. Ethics do not equal laws. It is far more complex than that. Agree?
Moderator Cut. To me, not opening yourself up to other ideas and opinions and taking them in means you will never learn and grow. Just my opinion on this.
Finally, I'm an adoptive parent. So, quite clearly, I'm not against adoption. Obviously.
Last edited by Jaded; 04-02-2013 at 11:44 AM..
Reason: Personal Attacks
ArtfulDodger, I am in favor of allowing a woman to initiate, including signing, her desire to plan for the adoption of her child pre-birth. What you've said above can still be done with this option. Removing the mandatory wait-times doesn't mean that one must sign pre-birth, it just means she can, if she chooses. So, what's the problem?
Can we drop the smokescreen in this thread, too? Because numerous problems have been made very clear.
Perhaps you believe it should be a choice no matter how many people are harmed by unintended consequences, but that is entirely different than refusing to acknowledge the harm that has or can be caused.
Furthermore,
1. What major problems are caused by waiting until after birth to sign?
2. Why should those take precedence over precautions to avoid major problems with pre-birth signing?
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 04-02-2013 at 07:34 AM..
The themes here imply babies are basically being stolen from their birth mothers or birth mothers are being taken advantage of and coerced into an adoption.
At any rate, I see no problem with pre-birth consent or with states that have this law. I just don't.
Actually, nobody implied, inferred or stated that babies are being stolen from birth mothers but since you have now changed the goal posts, let me again bring you back to our present discussion where in an earlier post you said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
And, yes, make the plan before the birth of the child. Because if she changes her mind afterwards, then she really never wanted to plan for an adoption in the first place. This indicates her being uncomfortable with the decision. One's mind about relinquishment should be made prior to the child being born IMO. Because if she felt unfit or unable to care for the baby prior to birth, then how would the birth of the child change this? How have her circumstances changed during the course of the pregnancy to bring about this difference?
Sorry, but when someone says that "one's mind about relinquishment should be made prior to the child being born", without giving any benefit to the fact that the new mother has the absolute right to change her plan to relinquish into a plan to parent, that is the very definition of taking rights/choice/free will from her.
I don't think Jaded discounts the notion of ethics at all.
Really? See my post above which clearly demonstrates that Jaded does discount ethics known by most experts in the adoption industry; women should not be held to an "adoption plan". Women should not be signing away their parenting rights before a birth either.
Quote:
What some of us refuse to do is allow you and Susankate and those who we perceive as being against most adoption to define the word for us.
The difference between something that is "legal" and something that is "ethical" is quite profound. In the one case, the state has enacted in writing prohibitions and proscriptions against particular activity. In the other case, we have subjective standard sometimes held by individuals, sometimes compiled by people who fancy themselves as "experts" in an area. Their opinions may be widely held or scantily held. There is simply no way to know. I do know that I could form a group. Maybe I would call it "Adoption USA". We could adopt a series of standards with respect to adoption and call those "Adoption USA's standards of adoption ethics". You'd probably disagree. Many would probably disagree and that would render our standards pretty meaningless. That's what I'm getting at even if some refuse to see that.
That's why we don't give more weight to what you say about "ethics".
You are playing the 'anti-adoption card' in an attempt to win an argument because in reality you cannot refute the poster's argument with logic or facts. There is no evidence that the above poster or any other contributor to this thread is anti-adoption. Purely conjecture on your part.
It would probably behoove both prospective adoptive parents, and birth parents to listen well to those of us who have and continue to walk this journey. Just my educated opinion....
Last edited by Avery_Harper; 04-02-2013 at 11:09 AM..
You are playing the 'anti-adoption card' in an attempt to win an argument because in reality you cannot refute the poster's argument with logic or facts. There is no evidence that the above poster or any other contributor to this thread is anti-adoption. It would probably behoove both prospective adoptive parents, and birth parents to listen well to those of us who have and continue to walk this journey. Just my educated opinion....
This.
You can't refute an argument based on the perception that a person is not as "pro-adoption" as you, anyway.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 04-02-2013 at 11:13 AM..
How can anyone refute an argument based on their perception/belief that a person is not as "pro-adoption" as they are anyway?
Exactly.
Playing the anti-adoption card is no different than those who play the race card attempting to win their argument. All bluff, and no substance behind the tactic used to marginalize their opponent.
You can't refute an argument based on the perception that a person is not as "pro-adoption" as you.
Oh, you can. It just makes the other person realize you don't have a substantial counter argument.
I tire of being accused of being anti-adoption or some variation of it. As the mother of an adopted child, it's beyond silly and just derails the discussion.
Besides, I've been accused of far worse. Lol. If wanting adoptions to be ethical makes me anti adoption to some people here, well then, I guess I don't want to be pro adoption.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
