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.

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.

So you're really trying to argue the guy that left the kid with his sister in law and f***ed off was still her parent? After he abandoned her? Legally his name was there, but he wasn't, and he sure AF wasn't parenting his child when he dropped her off and left.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife almost died during childbirth. Things looked bleak. I had about 24 hours to think about what I was going to do. I had pretty much made up my mind I wasn't going keep her, so much of that was debating whether I would simply leave them at the hospital for CPS or turn them over a family member. I wanted to the former to let her start life from a clean slate, preferably never learning about her traumatic birthday, but pretty much concluded I'd have to do the latter.

And while I was convinced, at the time at least, that was the right discusion, I also didn't expect I'd be able to live with myself. So I planned my suicide, too.

Obviously I don't know what I actually would have done if my wife didn't evenctually pull through, but I do know I would never judge whatever decision someone makes in that situation.

If I'm understanding correctly you had to make the decision between an unborn child and your wife's life.

This guy had his child for at least a year, by the time the adoption took place longer. Different situation. He didn't want the responsibility of taking care of his own child.

No, the child was born healthy, but my wife's condition continued to deteriorate. She wasn't expected to survive.

And you were experiencing trauma AND new parenthood without having yet bonded with your newborn child whose birth put your wife’s body in distress.

The OP’s scenario is about a dad of a one year old whose wife died and then he subsequently gave their shared daughter up to the wife’s sister to raise.
He was also likely in shock and grieving and did not feel capable of raising his child alone.
To OP—I don’t think this is a horrible person. I think it’s a person who couldn’t cope and shut down emotionally.
The “horrible” part is not that he allowed his DD to be raised by her loving (possibly more stable) aunt, but that he wasn’t able to maintain any connection to his daughter so that she could have a loving relationship with her father. But maybe aunt was married and she does have that with both adoptive parents.
a tragic beginning of life but maybe DD is happily ever after with adoptive family.

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.

A throwback to when men were cared for and fussed over. He definitely does not get the concept of parenting (which applies to both genders) or commitment.

Very sad for the child. I suspect she is better off though.

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?

Isn’t an aunt considered a guardian, not a parent?

The aunt adopted the child, according to the OP.

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.

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?

Isn’t an aunt considered a guardian, not a parent?

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.

Again, this is a common circumstance, and indeed it (*family*) is the most common form of adoption. What world -- or neighborhood-- do people live in that they can't acknowledge this even when there are professionals on this thread who are telling you this? (Including me -- I am a paralegal working in family law the past 17 years.) Dad does not want to -- or can't -- raise the child, so he places the child for legal adoption with a loving family member.

Piece of shit.

I bet that's what your ex says about you, but there are two sides to everything.

What ex? I’ve never been divorced. Sorry.

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.

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?

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.

Again, this is a common circumstance, and indeed it (*family*) is the most common form of adoption. What world -- or neighborhood-- do people live in that they can't acknowledge this even when there are professionals on this thread who are telling you this? (Including me -- I am a paralegal working in family law the past 17 years.) Dad does not want to -- or can't -- raise the child, so he places the child for legal adoption with a loving family member.

Piece of shit.

I bet that's what your ex says about you, but there are two sides to everything.

If you have to resort to personal insults on a thread about a random person, you really have nothing to add here.

Look at the pp-- you don't see the irony of your statement there?

The basis for this whole thread is a personal attack by the Op! We're getting one side of a story by the person that doesn't even know the details.

Well, yeah? It's OPs thread. Relaying a story. We never have both sides on here. That's kind of the point. We can only respond to what OP heard and tells us.

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.

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.

Again, this is a common circumstance, and indeed it (*family*) is the most common form of adoption. What world -- or neighborhood-- do people live in that they can't acknowledge this even when there are professionals on this thread who are telling you this? (Including me -- I am a paralegal working in family law the past 17 years.) Dad does not want to -- or can't -- raise the child, so he places the child for legal adoption with a loving family member.

Piece of shit.

I bet that's what your ex says about you, but there are two sides to everything.

If you have to resort to personal insults on a thread about a random person, you really have nothing to add here.

Look at the pp-- you don't see the irony of your statement there?

The basis for this whole thread is a personal attack by the Op! We're getting one side of a story by the person that doesn't even know the details.