Mothering Forum banner

HAPPY update to "Would you let her keep the child"

11K views 146 replies 48 participants last post by  BelovedK 
#1 ·
Grandma just stopped by with good news!

Her grand daughter gave up her baby for adoption to a family that she chose. An elementary school P.E teacher and her husband They have adopted two other boys and the new baby will have brothers. The teenager is very excited to have been able to choose the family.

She picked the family she most wished she had grown up in, and wanted that for her child. (tissues please)

Everybody is pleased with her choice.

The teenager WILL be going to a group home in a few weeks, she is in a juvenile hall facility right now. Then she's off to a girl's home that is waaaaaaay across town, so she and her boyfriend will not be able to see each other for a while.

I hope this is the help she needs.
 
#102 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
Like what? Mothering is mothering...it's not teaching, or running a daycare or whatever. What other way than mothering is there to be a mother??
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.
 
#103 ·
I just wanted to say that this whole thread has been a *very* eye opening read for me.

Also, I had no idea that some people were 'anti-adoption' or that there was an anti-adoption movement.

Apparently I have some reading to do.
 
#104 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by choli View Post
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, then put the child up for adoption?

I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?
 
#105 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by zoesmummy View Post
I just wanted to say that this whole thread has been a *very* eye opening read for me.
I am so glad to hear this. I think more of us need to open our eyes, take apart the propaganda, and start looking at this issue critically. I foresee some big changes in the adoption industry in the coming years.
 
#106 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, then put the child up for adoption?
It is not a foregone conclusion that young mothers will do that, any more than it is with other mothers. By that logic we should take everyone's baby away in case they neglect them in the future.

Quote:
I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?
I get what you wanted, and no it's not worthy of condemnation. It's the method by which that dream is fulfilled, yk? And who gets harmed along the way.

I think there are ethical ways to find homes for children who need them, children for would-be parents who want them. I don't think what is currently happening is ethical, and I don't think it's the only way we can do things.
 
#107 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reminds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.
NOT the same - I don't miss my mother because she lives down the street. The woman who gave birth to me is an individual I have chosen not to have contact with. That might not be your experience - but it's mine.

Michelle
 
#108 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by miche28 View Post
NOT the same - I don't miss my mother because she lives down the street. The woman who gave birth to me is an individual I have chosen not to have contact with. That might not be your experience - but it's mine.

Michelle
And that is fine. Your experience is worthy of respect. But it does not negate the views of those who feel they *were* harmed by adoption. Just because it doesn't harm everybody does not make it okay.
 
#109 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by choli View Post
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.
Yes - and my hats off to those parents who have the fortitude to heal the damage of neglect and abuse in older children who have to be removed. There are many more families who can't do that. Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.
 
#111 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
And that is fine. Your experience is worthy of respect. But it does not negate the views of those who feel they *were* harmed by adoption. Just because it doesn't harm everybody does not make it okay.
The problem is that it doesn't get respect - all the language is really hiding an underlying belief that my mother is not really my mother.

I know there are differences in people's experience - my sister is actually interested in meeting her birth family and that's her choice which I support (as do my parents).

But over the years, I've met a lot of adoptees - the notion that I'm an extreme minority in this group doesn't get born out. The reality is that those of us who aren't troubled by this don't speak up b/c it's not an issue for us - let's just not forget that we exist.
 
#112 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, then put the child up for adoption?

I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?
I don't think that it is a good idea to remove a child from her mother on the chance that she might not be a good mother due to age, to provide another woman with a baby and the "experience" of raising one from infancy, that all. I DO believe that younger mothers are pressured to give up their babies, especially if they are in the foster care system.

My sister became a mother for the first time at 16, but she was already more than capable of being an excellent mother at 13. She was SERIOUSLY pressured to give up her child, and in fact allowed her DS to be fostered for 3 months while she got a place to live and a support system. She then got him back from foster care despite being called all sorts of names by the foster mother and the social worker, raised him and had another as well. He is now 25, very happy, has a great job - and is VERY happy his mother fought to keep him.

These things are not black and white. I guess for me, I don't see that it is someone else's duty to give up their child so you can have an experience.
 
#113 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by miche28 View Post
Yes - and my hats off to those parents who have the fortitude to heal the damage of neglect and abuse in older children who have to be removed. There are many more families who can't do that. Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.
The attitude that eventual abuse may occuar is completly dismissive of the primal wound which is caused by disrupting the continium of the birth/infancy stage. That is an emotional wound which forever effects ones relationships and developement. (like circ is a physical wound that forever effects the penis function) A mother's pregnancy prepares her baby to be attuned to her movements, smell, taste, her voice. Newborns recognize their mothers. Only her body is primed to provide the perfect breastmilk for that baby. An infant is capable of bonding only with his mother. After that attachment is secure trusting others will be the next progression. Some are better able to bond to substitutes than others, but it is a loss when mother/baby separation occuars. No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.
 
#114 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.
 
#115 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.
It is a social construct that people who can bleed, become pregnant and give birth are considered 'children.' And if we constructed it, we can deconstruct it.

Many, many young mamas are fabulous mamas. Some are not. This is true of mothers of ALL ages. I'm seeing some serious age discrimination here.

I think if we want to improve the odds of children having good childhoods, we have to as a society provide supports to their families. Constant messages that young mothers suck and should give up their children do NOT help with that.
 
#116 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.
Thank you - in case anyone is worried, my primal wound has healed up just fine with a lifetime caring and compassionate parenting that I have been able to use as a model to build my own family with my loving husband.
 
#117 ·
thismama: Have you ever been involved with the foster care system? Not read about it, not commented about it, but experienced it? If so, you would know that most often the primary goal is re-unification. That a child will be returned to its bio home over and over again in the hope that the parent/parents will do better the next time. (This does not occur as often now as in the past) Many times this is to the detriment of the child.

I am not saying that the system does not have flaws; but as many flaws as it has it is also the only thing like it at this time. The public system itself is still young having only been around since the 1960's. Up until that time child abuse was legal and in severe cases the parents were tried under animal cruelty laws. That being said the public adoption system has come a long way and is still learning, changing, and evolving. To wholly condemn it based on its past instead of realizing the strides that have been made and the lives that have been saved, well.....

Here is a link that provides some information on the public system, it takes a look at both sides of the issue that has been discussed on this thread.

http://www.futureofchildren.org/info...m?doc_id=75337

To play devils advocate to some of the posts here. What does the public system have to gain by unjustly removing the baby from this child? Did they score points with the adoptive family? No, there is nothing gained here except for by the baby. If the family that adopted that baby were looking for the "perfect infant" they would not have gone through the public system they would have sought a surrogate or private adoption where they could ensure proper prenatal nutrition, no drug use, no neglect, etc, etc. Note: this is not to see that children who go through the public system are "damaged", however, there is an increased likely hood for issues to arise due to abuse or drug use.

I have been very pleasantly suprised at the passion that people have exhibited on both sides of this issue. It really shows that whatever side of the fence you are on you truly want what is best for everyone in the situation.

Here is a link that provides the latest stats available on the public sytem, it includes: # of children in system, median age, race, sex, length of stay, % w/ goal of reunification

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm
 
#118 ·
My stepmom gave up a son for adoption when she was 15. She knew and chose the family, they didn't live far away. She was happy and GRATEFUL that there were people out there who could give her son the life she was unable to provide for him. I think this is a happy situation and I hope the young woman turns her life around. There is no way this girl would have been able to properly care for her child, I think we can all agree on that.
 
#119 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post

Many, many young mamas are fabulous mamas. Some are not. This is true of mothers of ALL ages. I'm seeing some serious age discrimination here.
So, do you see any age at which someone won't be a good parent? You have no feelings of age discrimination whatsoever? Nine year olds can give birth so okay they are ready to parent?
 
#120 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
As the book title says IN THE DECADES before Roe v. Wade and that was in the early 70s. You can base your view of adoption on what happened fifty years ago when adoptions were closed, girls were sent away in shame and shunned, but that has very little to do with adoption today.
Read it before you judge it.

The setting may be decades old, but the themes are timeless.
 
#121 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
So, do you see any age at which someone won't be a good parent? You have no feelings of age discrimination whatsoever? Nine year olds can give birth so okay they are ready to parent?
Can nine year olds really give birth? I've never heard of it, IRL, so I think it's a bit of a strawman.

I would say there is no age at which I think it is okay to remove a baby from its mother, becoz we have decided arbirtarily that she is "too young."

I think if we want children of young mothers to have good childhoods, we have to provide the supports to help that happen. It is not ethical to remove children from their mothers via non-consent or coercion. I see it as a very basic human rights violation, for both parties.

If we get nine year olds becoming pregnant, well I could see that being a really good area of specialization for social workers. The ethics around how we approach it, what constitutes consent, what supports to child-mothers need, etc etc. Splitting up families becoz someone is young or poor is not okay. This very quickly turns the young and poor into babymaking machines for an industry which sells babies to the rich and 'upstanding.' Kwim?

It's a real and serious ethical issue IMO.
 
#122 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by A&A View Post
Read it before you judge it.

The setting may be decades old, but the themes are timeless.
To say it is timeless is to suggest it makes no difference that we now live in a culture where:
women are much more likely to be accepted as teen parents.
open adoption is a possibility.
the most frequent reason women lose custody is for drug problems rather than "shame".
access to birth control and abortion are legal.

If you think it makes no difference then yes, what was happening in 1950 is totally relevant to right now. I'd suggest though that it is a lot more complicated than that.
 
#123 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
Can nine year olds really give birth? I've never heard of it, IRL, so I think it's a bit of a strawman.
Yes, nine year olds can give birth. Girls get their periods younger and younger and it is unfortunately not that uncommon for preteens to be sexually active.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I would say there is no age at which I think it is okay to remove a baby from its mother, becoz we have decided arbirtarily that she is "too young."
Is any understanding of child development arbitrary? Is it artibitrary that we don't hand the car keys to a seven year old and tell them to feel free to take a drive? Is it arbitrary that we don't want ten year olds having sex? No, this is based in a meaningful and honest understanding of child development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I think if we want children of young mothers to have good childhoods, we have to provide the supports to help that happen. It is not ethical to remove children from their mothers via non-consent or coercion. I see it as a very basic human rights violation, for both parties.
What about having the mothers have a good childhood themselves? It sort of sounds like folks are suggesting that girls are babymaking machines. We have to protect these newborns against a "primal wound" from separation but what about the 10 or 11 year old? Do we owe her no protection? I'd suggest that girls who are getting pregnant that young more than likely DON'T have a decent support system.

Please explain to me what support we need to provide to a young girl to make it so she can be a parent when she's not developmentally ready to be one?
 
#124 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
open adoption is a possibility.
Open adoption is not legally enforceable. Aparents can say they will do open adoption, and then reneg. Mama has no recourse. This has happened to one of our own mamas here.

Quote:
the most frequent reason women lose custody is for drug problems rather than "shame".
The social system is paltry, pathetic, and in shambles. Mamas who are forced to rely on it must live in desperate poverty, leave their babies to do workfare, and are called welfare queens despite all that. I'm willing to bet that is one of the most frequent reasons women *give up* custody. It is not a very walkable road.

Quote:
If you think it makes no difference then yes, what was happening in 1950 is totally relevant to right now. I'd suggest though that it is a lot more complicated than that.
Yes it is more complicated. And yet it is the same, yk? The way it plays out has changed some, but the themes remain.
 
#125 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post

The social system is paltry, pathetic, and in shambles. Mamas who are forced to rely on it must live in desperate poverty, leave their babies to do workfare, and are called welfare queens despite all that. I'm willing to bet that is one of the most frequent reasons women *give up* custody. It is not a very walkable road.

Absolutely which makes me wonder why you want to sentence the baby of this 13 year old who isn't ready to parent to that life. It is a hard enough life for someone who is ready to parent and who wants to make it happen.

This makes me wonder why instead of directing your attention to reforming the welfare system you seek instead to bash adoption and the many people who are pleased with having placed a child for adoption or having been an adoptee.
 
#126 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
Yes, nine year olds can give birth. Girls get their periods younger and younger and it is unfortunately not that uncommon for preteens to be sexually active.
True, theoretically. I just don't ever hear of it actually happening, in any kind of numbers at all. So... kind of a strawman IMO.

Quote:
Is any understanding of child development arbitrary? Is it artibitrary that we don't hand the car keys to a seven year old and tell them to feel free to take a drive? Is it arbitrary that we don't want ten year olds having sex? No, this is based in a meaningful and honest understanding of child development.
It is based in a meaningful, honest, and *culturally biased* understanding of child development. Women all over the world become mothers in what we call the teenage years. It's a social construct that teenagers are big children. Which is fine, until we use it to violate their human rights.

Quote:
What about having the mothers have a good childhood themselves? It sort of sounds like folks are suggesting that girls are babymaking machines. We have to protect these newborns against a "primal wound" from separation but what about the 10 or 11 year old? Do we owe her no protection? I'd suggest that girls who are getting pregnant that young more than likely DON'T have a decent support system.
It's pretty much the end of childhood to get pregnant, grow a life in your body, give birth, and then have your child, that brand new being, taken from you against your will or coerced away, or to be forced to give up that new being becoz of guilt or deperation.

As I have said many times on this thread, I am in no way advocating forcing young mothers to keep babies. I simply assert that it should be a CHOICE she gets to make free from coercion or desperation.

Simple as that. I'm shocked there is an argument really.

Quote:
Please explain to me what support we need to provide to a young girl to make it so she can be a parent when she's not developmentally ready to be one?
Not developmentally ready is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Fact is, as I said, women around the world give birth at ages we consider scandalous.

I have already listed the supports I believe we should provide: Income, housing, educational and employment opportunities, support to stay home with babies during the early years, respectful non-coercive counselling, and the opportunity to participate in and co-create community with young mothers and others.

If we care about the babies as we all assert we do, allowing their mothers a free choice, and providing supports to them as they grow, is really the least we can do.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top