i have read a few postings recently about fmothers changing their mind. many answers support getting the baby back, yet, an equal amount believe that the adoption should stand as is.
questions:
1) should someone who's adopted child's mother changes her mind fight to keep the child; or give the child back?
2) how many aparents would continue to fight a fmother who obviously wants to parent her child (absent of abuse or neglect)?
i'm referring to when the child is placed in the home (usually from the hospital) and prior to termination of parental rights.
Should a mother changing her mind be an indication that the child is not adoptable?
If an adoptive parent knows a mother wants to keep HER child, then they have NO RIGHT to fight for another MOTHER'S child.
It is absolutely despicable and a proof of an adopters entitled feeling that they even dare to fight for a baby when a mother clearly wants to keep her child.
Most adoptions take a year to finalise so in that time, if a mother wants her child back then NO ONE should stand in her way.... after all, regardless of the consent being signed, in most cases, a mother is still legally a guardian... which makes no sense at all. It can take a while for a mother to return to her usual self after giving birth; PND doesn't always make itself known for the first 6 weeks and treatment can take a while after that. Children are not pets or items to be taken from 'owners' to suit one's need to have.
At the end of the day, adopters should not expect a mother to easily part with a child to satisfy THEIR desire to have a baby. To even be given the opportunity to raise another mother's child is huge with implications for both mother and child... if they really wanted what is best for that child, they would immediately return the child to his/her mother. Anyone who fights a mother to keep her from her son or daughter shows beyond a shadow of a doubt adoption is about lust and NOT love. (This is in regards to children NOT being abused, neglected etc...i.e. infant adoptions etc)
Should a mother changing her mind be an indication that the child is not adoptable?
Yes.
My situation is a little different because my son was in international foster care prior to me adopting him. But, nevertheless... here are my answers to your other questions:
1. Not once all legalities are finalized.
2. I would fight for my son now. However, I was prepared to give him up prior to all paperwork being finalized.
Until all the legal paperwork is done the first mom has every right to change her mind and get her baby back.
A lot of adoptive parents probably would fight to keep the child because the feel entitled to it. (they refer to the baby and even the first mom as theirs)
This is why I feel it is wrong to match a couple with a baby before it is born. I think that a couple should not be told about or presented with a baby until the baby is legally free for adoption.
Of course this won't happen because ppl pay a lot of money to get a wet baby fresh from it's mother so they can pretend it was always theirs.
Yes. I rarely use the word %26quot;entitled%26quot;, but when ap's do this, it shows me they think they are entitled to the child. As a few posters have said, this is another reason why pre-birth matching is wrong on every level- NOT just for the first Moms %26amp; Dads, but for them, too.
When I was adopted, adoptions weren't finalized for 6 MONTHS, and my ap's knew at any time, my n Mom could have changed her mind.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind could keep a child and try to fight the first Mother if she changed her mind. I think they are in for a world of hurt when they child grows up and finds out that they did this...and the child WILL find out. I dont think I could ever speak to my parents again if they had pulled something like that.
I often wonder if ap's who do this still tell their child he or she was %26quot;chosen%26quot; or a %26quot;gift%26quot;. yuck.
Return the baby immediately. Adoptive parents who fight mothers who want the baby back are sick.
1. If the legal rights have not yet been terminated then of course, the first mother should be able to get her child back, no questions asked. I don't think the %26quot;adoptive parents%26quot; (using the term loosely because at this point, no adoption has taken place), should have the option of fighting to keep the child. Adoptive parents are well aware of this possibility when they choose to take the child home as a %26quot;legal risk.%26quot;
2. How many would fight? No idea. Some would, I'm sure. But I also think it's the agency's responsibility to be very upfront and blunt about what it the %26quot;waiting period%26quot; means. I also think that the adoptive parents should have the option of *not* bringing home a child before the parental rights are terminated.
Now there have been some questions where someone is asking nearly a year later if they can get their child back and at that point, no. I don't support it unless there is proof of coercion. I do think there needs to be a finite point where the adoptive parents can stop walking on eggshells and allow themselves to attach and love their children.
If the parental rights have not been terminated, then there is no reason for the child to remain with the PAPs.
Legally, the PAPs should not have a leg to stand on. They are not parents, under the law. In most states, they have standing as foster parents or guardians at most.
The child is not an %26quot;adopted child%26quot; in these circumstances, as there has been no adoption. In most states, no petition to adopt has even been filed yet, since the natural parents' parental rights are still intact.
There should be no %26quot;fight%26quot;. ..in these situations.
If the adoption isn't finalized then the child is still legally the natural mother's therefore she has every right to raise her child. It is also morally wrong to deny a mother the right to raise her child.
Once the adoptive parents and agencies are informed that the Mother wants to parents the baby should be given back immediately because they were informed going into the adoption that the first mother could change her mind and once that change of mind is made before the adoption is finalized The first parents should receive their baby back. I mean why would you fight for a child that is obviously wanted by its mother and/or father? Are you trying to %26quot;save%26quot; a child from poverty? Not everybody that is poor will remain poor all their lives. Some of us will actually further our education and become middle class.
The only way I would fight for a child that I wanted to adopt was if that child was my foster child and the mother made her choices that drugs and everything else was more important than her baby. And after 3 or 4 years with me in foster care and my kids became attached to my foster child and the state wanted to terminate parental rights if the Mother refused Yes I would fight. But that is a made up situation for when I become a foster parent. But I plan on fostering a child at a time with every intention of them returning to their natural parents.
If the revocation period for the termination of parental rights has not passed, the child should be given back to the biological family, because legally the relationship has not been permanently severed. That's the whole point of the revocation period, but I know some prospective adoptive parents do fight to keep the child during that time. In my opinion, under those circumstances the child should be returned with as little disruption and drama as possible.
If the biological family was coerced, the child was kidnapped, the father was not given a chance to claim his parental rights, or the adoption was otherwise fraudulent, it should be overturned. If the biological parents' legal rights were violated, they shouldn't lose their child forever because they were victimized.
However, absent those circumstances, a finalized adoption should stand. Custody should not be a point for debate years after the adoption, as has been the case in many of these questions. Adoptive families are families. They need the security to develop safe attachments. A childhood of uncertainty about where he/she will be living is not good for the child, so there has to be a cutoff point.
I believe the biological parents should have a revocation period to change their minds, and should get back the baby without question if they do. I believe fraudulent adoptions should be overturned.
Once the revocation period is passed, and in cases where there is no fraud, the child should remain with the adoptive family. But hopefully an open adoption with visitation could be negotiated if it was not already in place.
Until the paperwork and legalities are finalized, the natural mother has every right to change her mind and the adoptive parents should not fight for the child (barring abuse or neglect on her part) because the child is not legally theirs.
In that kind of situations, PAPs are under the understanding that the natural mother can change her mind and should not be surprised if she does so.
Well, yes, one would think. But ... I have read on %26quot;pro-adoption%26quot; forums that prospective adoptive parents ascribe to %26quot;possession is 9/10s of the law%26quot;. Meaning, once they get their lustful, greedy hands on a womb-fresh infant, the natural parents will need to have enough money to go into a showdown to exercise their rights to THEIR child.
Should they fight? No. Do they? Yes. Womb-fresh infants are scarce and then there is all of that mooonnneey that they stand to lose.
How many fight? My guess is 50/50 but I am willing to be surprised on this one.
1) Give the child back.
2) Probably many would fight because the emotional cost of %26quot;losing%26quot; is enormous. However if parental rights have not been terminated, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on.
Our daughter was born and her natural mother brought her home for the first two weeks. Our social worker told us it is rare for a mother to relinquish after she brings the baby home. So we understood it probably wasn't going to work out. But she did change her mind and our daughter went to live in the nursery at the agency for the next few weeks while the father's rights were being terminated. The agency would not let us bring the baby home until all the legalities were finalized. I'm very grateful it worked out this way.
I dont think they have a right to take the baby back, and i dont think they have a right to get the new parents hopes up just to shatter them. I think they should wait until the mother sees the child, and make the decision from their. you have you have no idea the impact that baby makes on you when you 1st see it.
