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.
 
#127 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
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.
If that is what you are reading, you are misreading me.
 
#128 ·
I haven't heard anyone mention the role of the babies' fathers. It used to be that if you got "in trouble" it was shotgun wedding time. Now that has turned into single motherhood as the default, which is less ideal financially.

Of course, at one point a kid with a high school education or less could go to work in factory and earn enough to support his little family, and that ain't happening now. And there was a stigma if he didn't do the right thing, which doesn't seem to be there anymore. Still, why is this only a mother's problem?

Now I have to go sing my DD the "C is for Condom" song. Maybe if I start early...
 
#130 ·
I'm confused. Did this 13 year old WANT to parent? From what I have seen in this thread, in the op post, she did not. So why do people seem to feel she is mature enough to parent (though it appears she didn't want to) but not mature enough to make the decision she made? I know this thread is all about a certain 13 yo, but some posts seem at such opposites with one another that I had to check twice to see if there were 2 situations - 1 with a mama who was trying to parent and 1 with a mama who was not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
Confusing sentiment...an adoptive mother IS raising someone else's child, (and lots of adoptors feel they were the rescuers.) There are other ways to express nurturing, loving, mothering behaviors than gaining someone else's baby

As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reinds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.
I agree with the first half of your quote Moonbeem. DH and I are raising OUR child - DH's, mine and DD biomama's child. She's a part of all of us and will gain both good and bad things from all of us.

I don't understand the second half of your post though. Could you clarify?
 
#131 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
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.

I agree that every mama should have a free choice - and not be looked down upon for whatever decision she makes.
 
#132 ·
I do not know if this 13 year old was able to parent. I know she said she wanted to. I know there seems to have been some neglect. I also know that it seems people did not exactly rally around with practical support and encouraging messages, and I wonder if the outcome could have been vastly different had that occurred.

That is where I am coming from. I'm not: Oh no THIS particular mother should DEFINITELY have kept that baby. Which is what ppl seem to be wanting to hear.

These conversations can get a lot more polarized than they actually need to be, methinks.
 
#133 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
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.
I asked this before and got ignored (the story of my life
):
How exactly does a mother that isn't there with the baby not inflict that wound? Assuming the primal wound theory is valid (I haven't read enough to have a proper opinion about it, but I'm assuming it is an issue that some adoptees have, I've met enough people who talk about it), how does a mother who neglects the child help protect from that wound? I mean, bio-mother who chooses not to bond vs. adoptive mother who does bond. I don't really see how the bio-mother is creating a secure attachment here, in this particular case.

I mean, you say it's a loss when mother/baby separation occurs. Okay, we'll go with that. The mother in this case chose to separate herself from the baby. She chose to neglect the baby and sneak out to go joyriding or whatever. The separation has occurred. Loss has occurred. Wound has been inflicted. Being the mother in the eyes of the law hardly matters to the baby. She was not acting like a mother. She was not bonding. How is giving the baby a stable family that will bond with him, will not neglect him, a bad thing? Would it be better to keep the baby waiting until mother comes around, if ever, when she hasn't shown any interest in making that change? Or would the wound heal better if there was a constant set of caring parents in the baby's life?

I mean, the primal wound theory isn't about being united with a set of adoptive parents. It's about being separated from the bio-mother. That separation had already occurred. The adoption is more the consequence, not the reason.
 
#134 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by anubis View Post
I mean, bio-mother who chooses not to bond vs. adoptive mother who does bond. I don't really see how the bio-mother is creating a secure attachment here, in this particular case.
You are assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mama and baby, and then assuming a healthy one between adoptive mama and baby.

I don't think anyone is saying it is better for a baby to be with a neglectful bio-mama than a loving and attentive adoptive mama. I think we are questioning the assumptions generally re: young and poor mamas and whether they can be good parents. And specific to this situation, I think we are questioning whether this young mama might have done a better job had people rallied around her.

I also don't think adoptive parents are necessarily always fabulous. I think they can be just as dysfunctional as everyone else. Adoption does not automatically = a fabulous life and perfect parenting.
 
#135 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I do not know if this 13 year old was able to parent. I know she said she wanted to. I know there seems to have been some neglect. I also know that it seems people did not exactly rally around with practical support and encouraging messages, and I wonder if the outcome could have been vastly different had that occurred.

That is where I am coming from. I'm not: Oh no THIS particular mother should DEFINITELY have kept that baby. Which is what ppl seem to be wanting to hear.

These conversations can get a lot more polarized than they actually need to be, methinks.
Oh. Thank you for clarifying and I agree that it can get polarizing. Like I said, I think any mama who wants to and is able to parent should be encouraged and supported. No disagreement from me there.
 
#136 ·
I am stunned that mamas would advocate that this baby should stay with this mama. Seriously, I wouldn't even want her to babysitt my kids. Judgemental- you betcha. I just keep coming back to how long the baby should have waited for the mama to grow up or even make some attempt at parenting. Please, give some me some idea. Does she have to leave him, no one realize and he gets physically hurt or worse? Since when is leaving a baby ok? \

And anyone who says that the system is flawed and does not do enough, that the adoptive parents should have taken them both in, she deserves another and another and another chance (which she does but not at the expense of her baby's welfare)- please act upon those beliefs. Take in a teen mom and her baby. Make sure it is one who has been in at least other settings. Make sure she has no respect for the consequences of her actions. Make sure her mouth is as foul as a sailor

Anyone who says the world is slanted to adoptive parents- go read the adoption forum here. It hardly seems like they are snatching babies from poor unsuspecting teens. They are going out of the country. They are adopting foster children. They are using private adoption. All are waiting and hoping that they are finally chosen. Not the other way around where they are chosing which birthmother they want to take a baby from. You should see all the paperwork and personal questions... and home visits that are involved.

In my line of work, it is often that there is pressure to keep a baby at all cost. You should hear what is said to the *very* few that choose to place their children with other parents. It can get pretty bad. And yet, it is not the same the other way around. Keeping the baby is the default now.
 
#137 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
You are assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mama and baby, and then assuming a healthy one between adoptive mama and baby.
Actually, I think it is an unhealthy attachment or no attachment between mom and baby BASED ON the details given by the op. I am assuming the adoptive parents will be able to bond well with the baby due to the fact the baby is still so young. Time does become important when it is used to set up an untrusting relationship with a baby. Each new wound goes deeper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I don't think anyone is saying it is better for a baby to be with a neglectful bio-mama than a loving and attentive adoptive mama. I think we are questioning the assumptions generally re: young and poor mamas and whether they can be good parents. And specific to this situation, I think we are questioning whether this young mama might have done a better job had people rallied around her.
Young and poor does not equal a bad parent. Being neglectful does. I do know a few moms who were moms at 13. They did ok by their kids. They stayed in school, connected to the many social services avaliable, and relied on support groups to learn how to be a good parent. I know it can be done... but only if there is effort put forth by the mother. You can lead a horse to water but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I also don't think adoptive parents are necessarily always fabulous. I think they can be just as dysfunctional as everyone else. Adoption does not automatically = a fabulous life and perfect parenting.
LOL- nothing does. That said, it is a very lengthy process that if it goes correctly, works to weed out unfit people. I sure didn't go through that when I became a parent.
 
#138 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
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.
The suggestion was that to consider age is discrimination, period. The bond is from birth and by giving birth someone is a mother. Okay, is there a limit to that? People want to defend that 13 years are ready to be moms. What about 9 year olds? If you want to be consistant about it and not be discriminatory based on age then you need to support any girl capable of giving birth as being ready to parent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
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.
How silly. The suggestion isn't that in all civilizations in all times that age is fixed. Rather that we operate in the here and now for people in the culture they live in. What happens to 10 year olds in the Amazon isn't really particularly relevant. What I'm concerned about is does this individual have what it takes to function as an adult in this culture in order to be able to provide a safe, nurturing home for this child. Her behavior clearly suggests otherwise. Knowing that some 13 year old in some other culture in some other time could do it has zero to do with the wellbeing of this baby.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
It's pretty much the end of childhood to get pregnant, grow a life in your body, give birth,
Most of the time with preteens and young teens who get pregnant there is some degree of sexual exploitation involved in that. Curious, do you consider when the girl gets raped the end of childhood or just when she gives birth.

If anything rather than railing against adoption, I'd think that some of this energy would be better spent speaking out against the sexual exploitation of children.
 
#139 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
You are assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mama and baby, and then assuming a healthy one between adoptive mama and baby.

I don't think anyone is saying it is better for a baby to be with a neglectful bio-mama than a loving and attentive adoptive mama. I think we are questioning the assumptions generally re: young and poor mamas and whether they can be good parents. And specific to this situation, I think we are questioning whether this young mama might have done a better job had people rallied around her.

I also don't think adoptive parents are necessarily always fabulous. I think they can be just as dysfunctional as everyone else. Adoption does not automatically = a fabulous life and perfect parenting.
I'm assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mother and baby based on the information we've been given of this particular mother's actions. There are certainly reasons she is behaving that way and I'm not saying she's some sort of an evil monster or anything, just that at this point it wouldn't in my opinion be in the baby's best interest to let him wait for the mother to come around. I do hope that the mother gets suitable help. I also hope that adoption was the right choice for her. Nevertheless, I can't say I don't see this as the best choice for the baby, given the options available.

Yes, I would like to see better resources for young mothers (heck, I was raised by a young single mother). It would be great if someone could take in both the mother and the baby, turn the mother into a different direction, "save" them both, as it were. However, there are precious few people willing and able to take on a task that huge. I know I could not do that. Would I like to be able to do it? Yes, I would love to give the people involved the help they need. That would be ideal, obviously.

Sadly, what is ideal is not always practical. And sacrificing a child's wellbeing just to be idealistic isn't something I'm comfortable with. I fully agree that in an ideal world things would go as many have suggested in this thread. In reality, the resources aren't there. And given then circumstances, given the resources available, I still can't help but think this might just have been the best way things could have worked out for the baby.

I do see your point that if she had been told she could do it, things might have turned out differently. I agree, they might have. She should have been encouraged in her decision, no matter what it was. I can't remember anyone out and out saying that she was discouraged, but it's a fair assumption, there is a definite bias against young parents. That might well have played into why she made the kind of decisions she did. I mean, I subscribe to the theory that people do what is expected of them. If she was told that she'd be a crappy parent, it's no wonder she did what she did. I suppose I did overlook that earlier, it just seems like such an old-fashioned way of talking about young mothers. Where I come from (Finland originally), the support system is fairly good for parents, young or old, single or not. The stigma has faded. I guess I filtered the story through my own background and experiences. It must depend so much on where the whole thing takes place.

Heh, I started this post disagreeing and ended up agreeing (well, to a certain extent anyway). With thismama of all people, that's a first
 
#140 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roar View Post
The suggestion was that to consider age is discrimination, period. The bond is from birth and by giving birth someone is a mother. Okay, is there a limit to that? People want to defend that 13 years are ready to be moms. What about 9 year olds? If you want to be consistant about it and not be discriminatory based on age then you need to support any girl capable of giving birth as being ready to parent.
I've already addressed what I think should be done for 9 year old mothers, if they in fact exist. So I won't re-hash.

Quote:
How silly. The suggestion isn't that in all civilizations in all times that age is fixed. Rather that we operate in the here and now for people in the culture they live in. What happens to 10 year olds in the Amazon isn't really particularly relevant. What I'm concerned about is does this individual have what it takes to function as an adult in this culture in order to be able to provide a safe, nurturing home for this child. Her behavior clearly suggests otherwise. Knowing that some 13 year old in some other culture in some other time could do it has zero to do with the wellbeing of this baby.
What I am saying is that we create the climate based on our beliefs. And our beliefs about what age someone is developmentally ready to be a mother are subjective, biased. Then we construct a reality in which it is very damn difficult to be a mother, becoz nobody believes young women can do it, so supports are not there, trust and encouragement is not there, role models are not there.

Unless you look for them. Then they are there in spades. www.girl-mom.com comes to mind, what a fabulous network. But social programs are not there, that is the concrete reality.

I am saying this woman's behaviour does not exist in a vacuum. It is clear there was not enough support for her to parent her baby. Also clear she neglected the baby. I wonder if the support had existed, would we be seeing a different outcome now? Maybe. And tragic that we cannot know that.

Quote:
Most of the time with preteens and young teens who get pregnant there is some degree of sexual exploitation involved in that. Curious, do you consider when the girl gets raped the end of childhood or just when she gives birth.
I don't believe that for a minute. Yes women of all ages get raped, sadly. But I do not believe that teenage women are not sexually autonomous beings, but mere passive victims of others sexually. I do not think most teenage mothers became so via rape.

Quote:
If anything rather than railing against adoption, I'd think that some of this energy would be better spent speaking out against the sexual exploitation of children.
You choose what you spend your energy on, and I shall choose where I spend mine.
 
#141 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post

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.
This is in no way an attack on you specifically thismama, but just a good example of what I was saying when I said there was generalizations going on that some one said were not being made. Generalizations are being made. This statement is one of the types of generalizing statements that is hurtful. "I don't think what is currently happening is ethical". Our adoption was ethical. When some one talks about adoption and says what is currently happening isn't ethical without specifying the adoption situations they find unethical, their generalization hurts the children that need families. They insult the families built through completely ethical adoptions. There are many differing adoption experiences, many different reasons a child might find themselves in the position to be adopted. Ethical adoptions do happen and they happen more frequently than not. Do certain areas of the adoption world need reform? I think so. But it doesn't negate the parts that are working fine, just like the drunk woman who rolled on her baby and suffocated it doesn't negate co-sleeping being a perfecting acceptable and safe way to night-time parent. The term "Anti-Adoption" does not differentiate and there are distinctions to be made.

Sarah
 
#143 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pearlgirl View Post
This is in no way an attack on you specifically thismama, but just a good example of what I was saying when I said there was generalizations going on that some one said were not being made. Generalizations are being made. This statement is one of the types of generalizing statements that is hurtful. "I don't think what is currently happening is ethical". Our adoption was ethical. When some one talks about adoption and says what is currently happening isn't ethical without specifying the adoption situations they find unethical, their generalization hurts the children that need families. They insult the families built through completely ethical adoptions. There are many differing adoption experiences, many different reasons a child might find themselves in the position to be adopted. Ethical adoptions do happen and they happen more frequently than not. Do certain areas of the adoption world need reform? I think so. But it doesn't negate the parts that are working fine, just like the drunk woman who rolled on her baby and suffocated it doesn't negate co-sleeping being a perfecting acceptable and safe way to night-time parent. The term "Anti-Adoption" does not differentiate and there are distinctions to be made.

Sarah
Okay. Point taken.

I think there is much corruption within the adoption industry and that it compromises the ethics of adoption generally to a certain extent. I also think it is hard to have free choice in a culture where there is a huge lack of social services, and where the bio-mama/baby bond is not adequately respected. And I think over-respect for money and higher socio-economic status, and guilting mothers on that basis, complicates it further.

So in that way I tend to see adoption in general as being ethically compromised. Kwim?

That said, of course I don't know your individual situation, and I can think of adoptions that IMO were extremely ethical, as ethical as can possibly be given the context in which we are all operating.

If I were an adoptive mama, (and I may someday be), it would be very important to me to know exactly what went on with my child's adoption. What were the issues, why was the child relinquished or taken, who is profiting from this adoption, what level of contact is desired by the birthmama and available to my child. I would also make sure to fulfill any promises I make to the birthmother, and to support a reconnection when my child and the birthmama are ready.
 
#144 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
Okay. Point taken.

I think there is much corruption within the adoption industry and that it compromises the ethics of adoption generally to a certain extent. I also think it is hard to have free choice in a culture where there is a huge lack of social services, and where the bio-mama/baby bond is not adequately respected. And I think over-respect for money and higher socio-economic status, and guilting mothers on that basis, complicates it further.

There may be some pressure by some people to place the baby with adoptive parents but please show me the numbers. How many place their baby v. how many parent? Like I said before, most the young mothers I work with experience just the opposite. That is why there are over 40 waiting parents for every 1 (white, healthy of course
) baby.

If there is a lack of social services in our society (I think there is), it could be argued we are all at the same disadvatage. I'm sorry this girl was not able to use what was avaliabe to her. If I was her and I was a young mom but not 13 and I wanted to do right by my baby, I would have taken advantage of every possible resource I could find. She seemed to have no problem finding time to party. Maybe she should have used some time and energy to do some research on good parenting. If she is not capable of that, how then is she capable of advocating for her baby's needs?

ETA: there were over 138,000 adoptions in America in 1999. The adoption "industry is about 1.4 billion dollars. Figured out over those 138,000 adoptions, that is on average about $10,100 per an adoption. That is really not so much money that average people can not adopt.
 
#145 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by choli View Post
I'm sure that was painful - almost as painful as it was for the baby's Mom to hand it to you in the first place. But, why do you say that she will be at best a mediocre mother to him? You have no way of knowing that - isn't that why she is in a residential program for teen moms, to learn how to be a good parent? On what are you basing the idea that she will be mediocre?

I don't think there are any perfect solutions in these cases, and there is no sure fire predictor of who will be a good parent, and who won't. There are many mediocre parents out there, should the children be removed from all of them and reallocated to "approved" parents?
I'm basing my assessment that the best I can hope for is for her to become a mediocre mother on the "care" she gave her older dd for the 2 years that she "parented" her. Her most basic needs, food, shelter, human contact, adult supervision were not met. The mom had many many supportive people around her, offering physical help and financial help, connecting her with great resources in the community. She was working with an intensive parent educating program (not live-in though) that time around too. I'm also basing my assesment on the relationship I have developed with her over the last year of having her dd in my home as my foster daughter. I like this mom well enough as a person. But seeing how she acts and reacts to her kids leaves me very little hope that she will ever be more than just good enough. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

And, just to be clear, when I agreed to foster the baby I *knew* it would likely be very short term, as they were trying to get her into this program and I *knew* I would likely get my heart broken. I also knew that it would be best for the mom, and her family, if her 2 kids could be in foster care together, if she only had to deal w/ one foster mom etc. So I did it. That's my point -- not how painful it is for me, but that I do want this mom to have a chance, so I got involved.
 
#146 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
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.
Imagine that infant's psychological deconstruction when the person she is trying to bond with is emotionally unavailable, handles her with detachment or roughly, with angry, impatient hands. Imagine when her cries are unanswered, when she lies in her own filth until her skin breaks down. When she learns - forever - that there is no use in trusting or loving or reaching out or having needs. These children become the shattered adults who tragically mishandle their own lives and go on to procreate with no capacity to understand or implement parenting.

Then imagine that same infant cuddled, and cooed over, and snuggled. Fed immediately and fully. Clean and warm and loved. Consistently. Forever.

Infants bond completely with their caregivers, be they father, mother, distant aunt or anyone loving and attentive.

Sorry moonbeem. You're just wrong.
 
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