Tell me about adoption

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted DD from foster care. The reason DD was in foster care was that her biological mother simply didn't feed her daughter enough and left her child on its own for many hours at a time. It saddens me to think of a baby frequently left hungry and alone. To give you an idea, DD weighed the same amount at 4 months than she did at birth. Money wasn't the issue. This was a middle class family. A doctor and her/his staff seized DD from the biological mother at the four month check up. What pushed the decision was the biological mother's lack of concern for her own daughter. The biological mother was charged with cruelty. DD then spent 10 days in hospital after her seizure, where she was helped to overcome Failure to Thrive. Even after all that had happened the biological mother was given the opportunity to resume being a fulltime mother. But she had no interest as evidenced by missed appointments and lack of engagement in a children and family services program. PP has to understand that not every biological mother wants to mother their child or is good enough at it that the child isn't in danger. It is sad but true. (DD is now a happy and healthy 3rd grader). No money changed hands and the biological mother wasn't coerced. The biological father didn't step in, but had the option. Adoption was the best outcome for this child.

I am a completely new poster on this thread. Your comment makes my blood curdle. What you are describing is PPD. Was this women offered treatment before you STOLE her baby from her and concluded that she just wasn't good enough?

^ I have to agree with this.

Quite an assumption to say she had no interest in being a mother. How old was she? Sounds like she was young since PP mentions the "family" was middle-class and had means.

Based on what was written, the baby was forcibly taken from the mother at 4 months, she was then charged as a criminal, her family/birth father wasn't supportive, and then she got penalized for missed appointments which she may have not had transportation to.

IMO, the whole scenario seems to be a bit too tightly justified (money wasn't an issue, doctors had to "sieze" baby from her, mother wasn't coerced and had oh so many opportunities to become a "good mother" but didn't because she wasn't interested, father wasn't around, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted DD from foster care. The reason DD was in foster care was that her biological mother simply didn't feed her daughter enough and left her child on its own for many hours at a time. It saddens me to think of a baby frequently left hungry and alone. To give you an idea, DD weighed the same amount at 4 months than she did at birth. Money wasn't the issue. This was a middle class family. A doctor and her/his staff seized DD from the biological mother at the four month check up. What pushed the decision was the biological mother's lack of concern for her own daughter. The biological mother was charged with cruelty. DD then spent 10 days in hospital after her seizure, where she was helped to overcome Failure to Thrive. Even after all that had happened the biological mother was given the opportunity to resume being a fulltime mother. But she had no interest as evidenced by missed appointments and lack of engagement in a children and family services program. PP has to understand that not every biological mother wants to mother their child or is good enough at it that the child isn't in danger. It is sad but true. (DD is now a happy and healthy 3rd grader). No money changed hands and the biological mother wasn't coerced. The biological father didn't step in, but had the option. Adoption was the best outcome for this child.

I am a completely new poster on this thread. Your comment makes my blood curdle. What you are describing is PPD. Was this women offered treatment before you STOLE her baby from her and concluded that she just wasn't good enough?

^ I have to agree with this.

Quite an assumption to say she had no interest in being a mother. How old was she? Sounds like she was young since PP mentions the "family" was middle-class and had means.

Based on what was written, the baby was forcibly taken from the mother at 4 months, she was then charged as a criminal, her family/birth father wasn't supportive, and then she got penalized for missed appointments which she may have not had transportation to.

IMO, the whole scenario seems to be a bit too tightly justified (money wasn't an issue, doctors had to "sieze" baby from her, mother wasn't coerced and had oh so many opportunities to become a "good mother" but didn't because she wasn't interested, father wasn't around, etc.)

I'm a parent of our DD. For scenarios such as this one, a doctor has the ability, and the responsibility I believe, to seize a child if the doctor believes the child's life to be in danger. The doctor saw the baby girl was grossly underweight and with a skin condition that I suspect was caused by not being changed frequently because DD was left alone for hours at a time. I did not know about any of this when it was happening and only learned several months later. I didn't seize DD and I certainly didn't steal DD. I didn't charge the BM with Cruelty. After her release from hospital, DD went into what is known as kinship care, which is where the child is placed with a family member, in this case the BM's mother. (Kinship care sounds like a good idea in theory, but it isn't always a good idea in practice). The BGM hoped her daughter would come around to idea of motherhood and the BM was given the time and the opportunity to do so. She chose not to. It's that simple. And the BF didn't want to know either, despite having the opportunity to become his daughter's fulltime father. DD was in kinship care for 8 months. (It has nothing to do with whether or not she had transportation - Besides some of the appointments she missed were in the house she grew up in and where her mother lived). The BM would have been either 22 or 23 years old at the time, btw. I honestly believe this baby girl would have died of neglect if the doctor hadn't intervened and brought in Social Services when he/she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted DD from foster care. The reason DD was in foster care was that her biological mother simply didn't feed her daughter enough and left her child on its own for many hours at a time. It saddens me to think of a baby frequently left hungry and alone. To give you an idea, DD weighed the same amount at 4 months than she did at birth. Money wasn't the issue. This was a middle class family. A doctor and her/his staff seized DD from the biological mother at the four month check up. What pushed the decision was the biological mother's lack of concern for her own daughter. The biological mother was charged with cruelty. DD then spent 10 days in hospital after her seizure, where she was helped to overcome Failure to Thrive. Even after all that had happened the biological mother was given the opportunity to resume being a fulltime mother. But she had no interest as evidenced by missed appointments and lack of engagement in a children and family services program. PP has to understand that not every biological mother wants to mother their child or is good enough at it that the child isn't in danger. It is sad but true. (DD is now a happy and healthy 3rd grader). No money changed hands and the biological mother wasn't coerced. The biological father didn't step in, but had the option. Adoption was the best outcome for this child.

I am a completely new poster on this thread. Your comment makes my blood curdle. What you are describing is PPD. Was this women offered treatment before you STOLE her baby from her and concluded that she just wasn't good enough?

^ I have to agree with this.

Quite an assumption to say she had no interest in being a mother. How old was she? Sounds like she was young since PP mentions the "family" was middle-class and had means.

Based on what was written, the baby was forcibly taken from the mother at 4 months, she was then charged as a criminal, her family/birth father wasn't supportive, and then she got penalized for missed appointments which she may have not had transportation to.

IMO, the whole scenario seems to be a bit too tightly justified (money wasn't an issue, doctors had to "sieze" baby from her, mother wasn't coerced and had oh so many opportunities to become a "good mother" but didn't because she wasn't interested, father wasn't around, etc.)

I'm a parent of our DD. For scenarios such as this one, a doctor has the ability, and the responsibility I believe, to seize a child if the doctor believes the child's life to be in danger. The doctor saw the baby girl was grossly underweight and with a skin condition that I suspect was caused by not being changed frequently because DD was left alone for hours at a time. I did not know about any of this when it was happening and only learned several months later. I didn't seize DD and I certainly didn't steal DD. I didn't charge the BM with Cruelty. After her release from hospital, DD went into what is known as kinship care, which is where the child is placed with a family member, in this case the BM's mother. (Kinship care sounds like a good idea in theory, but it isn't always a good idea in practice). The BGM hoped her daughter would come around to idea of motherhood and the BM was given the time and the opportunity to do so. She chose not to. It's that simple. And the BF didn't want to know either, despite having the opportunity to become his daughter's fulltime father. DD was in kinship care for 8 months. (It has nothing to do with whether or not she had transportation - Besides some of the appointments she missed were in the house she grew up in and where her mother lived). The BM would have been either 22 or 23 years old at the time, btw. I honestly believe this baby girl would have died of neglect if the doctor hadn't intervened and brought in Social Services when he/she did.

No one is saying a child should be neglected and of course physicians are mandated reporters.

But don't you agree that most people find it very strange that a grandmother from a middle class family would willingly let her infant granddaughter be fostered out and eventually adopted outside the family after 8 months? I don't think it's as simple as you proclaim and would be interested to hear the family's side of the story. How do you know fine details like she did not have transportation issues but yet you aren't even sure of BM's age? Your defensiveness is somewhat telling.

I think we can both agree that there are two sides to every story, right?

[Anonymous]

No one is saying a child should be neglected and of course physicians are mandated reporters.

But don't you agree that most people find it very strange that a grandmother from a middle class family would willingly let her infant granddaughter be fostered out and eventually adopted outside the family after 8 months? I don't think it's as simple as you proclaim and would be interested to hear the family's side of the story. How do you know fine details like she did not have transportation issues but yet you aren't even sure of BM's age? Your defensiveness is somewhat telling.

I think we can both agree that there are two sides to every story, right?

I don't find it strange at all that a older middle aged woman, who had raised her own family and had been unsuccessful at getting her daughter to take an interest in parenting, would decide that the best course of action for both her daughter AND her granddaughter might be adoption. The assumption in the quote above is that every grandmother would be thrilled at the opportunity to be a full-time parent again. Being the full-time single parent of an infant is exhausting AND expensive. It is unreasonable to expect that every grandmother wants to start that process all over again. Some grandmothers might, and some might be resentful as all get out (a friend was raised by such a grandmother).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one is saying a child should be neglected and of course physicians are mandated reporters.

But don't you agree that most people find it very strange that a grandmother from a middle class family would willingly let her infant granddaughter be fostered out and eventually adopted outside the family after 8 months? I don't think it's as simple as you proclaim and would be interested to hear the family's side of the story. How do you know fine details like she did not have transportation issues but yet you aren't even sure of BM's age? Your defensiveness is somewhat telling.

I think we can both agree that there are two sides to every story, right?

I don't find it strange at all that a older middle aged woman, who had raised her own family and had been unsuccessful at getting her daughter to take an interest in parenting, would decide that the best course of action for both her daughter AND her granddaughter might be adoption. The assumption in the quote above is that every grandmother would be thrilled at the opportunity to be a full-time parent again. Being the full-time single parent of an infant is exhausting AND expensive. It is unreasonable to expect that every grandmother wants to start that process all over again. Some grandmothers might, and some might be resentful as all get out (a friend was raised by such a grandmother).

You focused on the wrong quote(s).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We adopted DD from foster care. The reason DD was in foster care was that her biological mother simply didn't feed her daughter enough and left her child on its own for many hours at a time. It saddens me to think of a baby frequently left hungry and alone. To give you an idea, DD weighed the same amount at 4 months than she did at birth. Money wasn't the issue. This was a middle class family. A doctor and her/his staff seized DD from the biological mother at the four month check up. What pushed the decision was the biological mother's lack of concern for her own daughter. The biological mother was charged with cruelty. DD then spent 10 days in hospital after her seizure, where she was helped to overcome Failure to Thrive. Even after all that had happened the biological mother was given the opportunity to resume being a fulltime mother. But she had no interest as evidenced by missed appointments and lack of engagement in a children and family services program. PP has to understand that not every biological mother wants to mother their child or is good enough at it that the child isn't in danger. It is sad but true. (DD is now a happy and healthy 3rd grader). No money changed hands and the biological mother wasn't coerced. The biological father didn't step in, but had the option. Adoption was the best outcome for this child.

Exactly. People are ignoring situations where both the mother and father are simply not fit to be a parent.

In many cases the best interests of the child involves removing them from their biological family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one is saying a child should be neglected and of course physicians are mandated reporters.

But don't you agree that most people find it very strange that a grandmother from a middle class family would willingly let her infant granddaughter be fostered out and eventually adopted outside the family after 8 months? I don't think it's as simple as you proclaim and would be interested to hear the family's side of the story. How do you know fine details like she did not have transportation issues but yet you aren't even sure of BM's age? Your defensiveness is somewhat telling.

I think we can both agree that there are two sides to every story, right?

I don't find it strange at all that a older middle aged woman, who had raised her own family and had been unsuccessful at getting her daughter to take an interest in parenting, would decide that the best course of action for both her daughter AND her granddaughter might be adoption. The assumption in the quote above is that every grandmother would be thrilled at the opportunity to be a full-time parent again. Being the full-time single parent of an infant is exhausting AND expensive. It is unreasonable to expect that every grandmother wants to start that process all over again. Some grandmothers might, and some might be resentful as all get out (a friend was raised by such a grandmother).

Often these grandparents are in their 70's/80's and many have health and other issues.