Wife dies and husband adopts their 1 year old out to the aunt.

[Anonymous]

Most jurisdictions use the word "relinquish" rather than "abandon." But then OP's search for drama in an otherwise predictable legal case wouldn't grab this much attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Known a friend for about a year, It somehow came up when he was in his late twenties his wife died in a car accident. He adopted the daughter out to the wife's sister so she would have a mother. I was simply shocked. I asked didn't he think she needed a dad? Or didn't he foresee him meeting someone at some point? Today the daughter is grown, he doesn't have a relationship with her. I also found out he's been divorced twice. I believe he didn't want to be saddled with a child so he could screw around. He also mentioned he had a vasectomy years ago...
Am I being too judgmental, or is this guy just awful?

Sounds to me as though he made the right decision, actually.
Yes you are being too judgy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

[Anonymous]

Those calling the bio father judgmental names seem to be posting out of fear. I am surmising they have an unstable marriage and / or uninvolved father of the children. Probably no familiarity with how often this (family breakdown) happens, and I am not referring simply to divorce.

If indeed this applies to you -- or at least got you thinking , I would have an uncomfortable discussion with your spouse and a visit to a family lawyer to get something down on paper.

In real terms, every holiday season like Thanksgiving , or especially New Years, people will die in car crashes. Children will be left either with one parent or no parents. Despite lovely ceremonies supposedly appointing godparents, that doesn't work out so well in real life. Get the scenarios on paper. Get the financial stipulations worked out ahead of time and get all those papers signed and updated every 3 years. Widower Dad may be able to get Aunt Ginny to help him take care of 10 month old Larla now, but she may re-marry and may be ill-equipped to take care of 14- or 17-year old Larla. And Dad's new wife may convince him to give Larla to Aunt Ginny full time, especially when there are new children in the picture. (There will be.)

This is a par-for-the course work-a-day for those of us in family social services, family law, foster care, and adoption care, though you all seem so fascinated by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

A toddler knows the difference between the Aunt, and mom and dad. The child was abandoned by her dad. The Aunt wasn't ever going to be called mom because the only mom died. Mom didn't place her for adoption compared to mothers that place their infants for various reasons. This was clear abandonment by the father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

A toddler knows the difference between the Aunt, and mom and dad. The child was abandoned by her dad. The Aunt wasn't ever going to be called mom because the only mom died. Mom didn't place her for adoption compared to mothers that place their infants for various reasons. This was clear abandonment by the father.

You don't think kids consider their adoptive parents as their parents?

There are a lot of nutty old people posting in this thread. Or maybe just the OP posting in different ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

A toddler knows the difference between the Aunt, and mom and dad. The child was abandoned by her dad. The Aunt wasn't ever going to be called mom because the only mom died. Mom didn't place her for adoption compared to mothers that place their infants for various reasons. This was clear abandonment by the father.

You don't think kids consider their adoptive parents as their parents?

There are a lot of nutty old people posting in this thread. Or maybe just the OP posting in different ways.

You must be that racist poster a few posts back. Ageist too I see, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

A toddler knows the difference between the Aunt, and mom and dad. The child was abandoned by her dad. The Aunt wasn't ever going to be called mom because the only mom died. Mom didn't place her for adoption compared to mothers that place their infants for various reasons. This was clear abandonment by the father.

The child was never abandoned. The child was relinquished to a member of the family for temporary custody of a minor until that designation was changed to adoption of said minor. This is so common I cannot believe the poster has never come in contact with such a situation. She must live a sheltered life. Or, maybe because I work for a social services agency, I see it every day.

I agree this is the same poster repeatedly who has never sought therapeutic care for her issues -- having either personally experience or fear of a future experience with her spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

A toddler knows the difference between the Aunt, and mom and dad. The child was abandoned by her dad. The Aunt wasn't ever going to be called mom because the only mom died. Mom didn't place her for adoption compared to mothers that place their infants for various reasons. This was clear abandonment by the father.

This poster is out of her mind and knows nothing abut the world of adoption. Most adoptions are "older child" and not infant and yes, they become Mom and Dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

A toddler knows the difference between the Aunt, and mom and dad. The child was abandoned by her dad. The Aunt wasn't ever going to be called mom because the only mom died. Mom didn't place her for adoption compared to mothers that place their infants for various reasons. This was clear abandonment by the father.

This poster is out of her mind and knows nothing abut the world of adoption. Most adoptions are "older child" and not infant and yes, they become Mom and Dad.

From Adoption and Beyond: "Domestic infant adoption, often considered the most common type of adoption, involves the adoption of newborn babies within one’s own country".

[Anonymous]

Sounds like he realized his limitations and was wise enough to formalize an adoption by family who would love the baby. Seems better than the alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all you adoptive parents. Yes you are real parents and love your children and your children still love you. I'm sure you gave them
Their bio parents most likely had great reasons for not parenting.

However, none of that changes that your child may still feel abandoned or some kind of loss related to their bio parents.
This is a very real thing.

Because there are weird people like some of the posters in this thread telling them that adoptive parents aren't real parents.

Literally no one is saying that. You are being willfully obtuse. Two things can be true. This child was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her and became her parent.

You can't claim the child was "abandoned with no parent" without saying the adoptive parent isn't a parent. How do you not see that?

But you can. Two things can be true. Auntie stepped in to become a parent. After her mother died and her father abandoned her.

At what point was the child without a parent?

After her mother died and her father abandoned her. Not sure how much more simple to make this for you.

When you claim her father "abandoned" her, she had an adoptive mother. There was no point she was abandoned without a parent.

She was abandoned with no parent, and someone else stepped in to raise her. Aunt wouldn’t be her parent if she hadn’t been left without one. You clearly understand and acknowledge this and are arguing semantics.

That's not the way adoption works. As described by the Op, the child was never abandoned without a parent.

You're desperately trying to avoid backtracking since you've seen how unpopular it is to suggest adoptive parents don't count as parents. But they do. And as such, the child always had a parent.

No one is saying adopted parents aren't parents. You are desperately trying to invent something that never happened. This child was abandoned with no parent. I'm glad that someone else stepped in to become her parent and raise her.

If adoptive parents are parents, then the child always had a parent, and thus was never abandoned without one.

Your refusal to see basic logic is baffling. I'm assuming you're an adoptive parent and are somehow taking offence at this statement, but it's not about you. Honestly the rabid dog with a bone mentality just makes you look petty and childish.

Again, if you're so convinced the child was "abandoned without a parent" then you should be able to identify a point in time where the child did not have a parent. So if you'd like to continue digging, when was that?

Are you not able to read?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

No, then the child had an adoptive mother- i.e., a parent. You keep saying the child was abandoned without a parent. When did the child lack a parent?

After the childs mother died, and after her father abandoned her. That's when.

Then you're saying the adoptive mother doesn't count as a parent. Otherwise she always had a parent. Legally that's obviously the case. And practically, the OP had never claimed there was a period of time inbetween the biological father acting as a parent and the aunt acting as an adoptive parent.

Again with the semantics. There is obviously a point where dad abandoned the child (no parent) and aunt adopting the child (now their parent). You acknowledge this, you just don't like the term being used. Again, it's not about you.

No, there's not. Legally you remain the parent until the adoptive parent gains custody. If you want to put the legal semantics aside and look instead at who was practically acting as the parent, then the OP never claimed a gap between the biological father and the aunt.

None of us know exactly how that occurred, but in these situations there is often a gradual transition from one to the other before the formal adoption paperwork is completed.

This is the gap that you acknowledge. Why do you say no there's not, and then admit that there is? You can't even keep your own story straight. Aunt wasn't her parent until after Dad abandoned her. She was absolutely left without a parent, thankfully Aunt stepped in to become her parent.

Now you're saying she was abandoned because she had two people acting as parents for a period of time?

You don't seem to know what the word "abandoned" means.

Lol, so sad you refuse to grasp such a basic concept. Your obvious distain for reality is bizarre. This child was abandoned without a parent. Poor girl.

A toddler knows the difference between the Aunt, and mom and dad. The child was abandoned by her dad. The Aunt wasn't ever going to be called mom because the only mom died. Mom didn't place her for adoption compared to mothers that place their infants for various reasons. This was clear abandonment by the father.

The child was never abandoned. The child was relinquished to a member of the family for temporary custody of a minor until that designation was changed to adoption of said minor. This is so common I cannot believe the poster has never come in contact with such a situation. She must live a sheltered life. Or, maybe because I work for a social services agency, I see it every day.

I agree this is the same poster repeatedly who has never sought therapeutic care for her issues -- having either personally experience or fear of a future experience with her spouse.

Now you pretend to be a psychologist as well lol. An aunt or uncle raising the deceased parent's child is still the aunt or uncle. The father who left is still their father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like he realized his limitations and was wise enough to formalize an adoption by family who would love the baby. Seems better than the alternative.

Maybe so, but then all those men who leave their families could be labeled the same. Let the mother, or family who would love the child more. Doesn't it excuse someone who is choosing to be irresponsible, to leave a more carefree life?

[Anonymous]

Sorry, no. Get help.