Do You Think This Is A Good Enough Reason?

IDK!!

Last time "I" checked, there is an over abundance of people wanting to adopt.

The reason should read:
" R.C. 3107.15 reflects the legislature's intent to find families for children. If preconditions are imposed on the adoptive parent-child relationship, or if adoptive parents are forced to agree to share parenting responsibilities with people whom they do not know, THE WRONG KIND OF potential adoptive parents will be deterred from adopting."

Which would be a good thing.
Besides, no one is saying that a shared parenting adoption should be forced on the 4 parents, just that if you make a freaking agreement, then KEEP IT!

sunny

I don't know.

All I know is that you are incredible to plow through case law to fight for your baby.

You totally rock, and I pray you get your child back.

julie j

Hi Camira,

That's interesting research you did there. So they want to make everything easier for AP's so they are not deterred from adopting? It's not like there is any shortage of families who want to adopt babies. And the older children already know who their families are anyways. I don't think all AP's think that adoption must be carried out according to their own preferences. And if AP's do wish to sever all contact with a child's natural family, I think that's exactly the sort of family that should be deterred from adopting!

If similar arrangements are made all the time for children of divorced parents, adoptions could also be changed to enforce openness . The challenge is having others see the benefit for the child so they will advocate for it. For example, stipulations can be put in the decree about visitation schedules, how far away each can move, and that they must provide current contact information for the other family. Details can be renegotiated over the years as necessary. Incidently, biological relatives are not strangers either. They are the child's natural family. It is rare when it is not in the child's best interest to have a relationship with them. The only reason it may seem like they could be strangers is because someone has gone to a lot of trouble to try to permanently separate a child from his/her natural family.

As for why father's rights are being stepped on in order to give away his child to someone else, honestly, there is no excuse for this! Adoption is for children who do not have any family members who are able or willing to care for that child. All other children are not legally free for adoption and nobody should even be petitioning to adopt those children! Once it is known a child has family who wants to raise their child, all adoption proceedings should halt and the child should be with them. The PAP's should then direct their efforts towards another child who truly needs a family. There are plenty of children who fall into that category. No reason to go after the children who do have families.

It makes one wonder exactly how old those laws are, and in whose best interest adoption is meant to be. Adoption is NOT a service for adults, it's for children. To answer your question, yes I do believe it would help weed out the people who should not be adopting. That does not mean children will go without homes. It means better parents will be chosen for them.

Good luck with your case, Camira. You have the prayers of thousands of adoptees and first mothers.

julie j
reunited adoptee

Heather B

No, it's not a good enough reason.

Adoption still happens in countries where open adoption, truth and honesty is mandatory for the good of the child (gasp!)

In the US it seems to be a consumers market - what is best for the child gets skewed

Mother of Many

Ok so we are in a situation similar to this. If there are a set of 3 siblings, and 2 are being placed with us (they are my bio-sibling), the other child is 14 and is adamently requesting to stay w/foster parents as they are in same town as bio-mom, courts want all of us to agree to share the parenting responsibilites between all 3 parties, even though bio-mom cannot be left alone w/children due to her lack of being able to protect them, and make proper choices, like not allowing them to play w/match's. My spouse and I do not have faith in the foster parents of keeping the relationship open between the 14 yr old and us, with the two younger children. This is due to actions/comments made by the FP. We are not by any means, 'deterred from adopting' but you cant control other peoples actions or feelings, they may say one thing, and do another, which inevitably will hurt the children involved. I feel it is best to do what is right for the child, not for the adults in the situation. I think mattering on the law, and how it is enforced, there will be people who will not want to adopt. That really makes my heart sad, there are so many wonderfull children out there, and there really are a lot of great familys who could give them a forever home/life & family, while still recognizing the bio-family and their importance to the child.

Felicita1

I see a huge difference here between people who are adopting children removed due to child abuse situations and adoptions that happen when mothers surrender babies at birth with NO child abuse procedures.

It seems that all moms who surrendered children in the latter instance are immediately thrown into the former category of being potential child abusers. I saw this in another question asked of natural mothers where a man jumped in and labeled us all abusers who were unfit to raise our children and who refused to take responsibility for this.

But the law you quote is likely also based on assuming that this difference does not exist. PLUS on the existing legal basis of adoption: the child is legally "as if born to" adoptive parents and the mother is thus legally "as if dead to" the child. In order to be adopted, the child must first be made into a "legal orphan."

The asker of this question should realize that she's going to get answers coming from this perspective, that view all mothers separated from children by adoption as unfit, irresponsibly, and potentially dangerous to children. Responses so far reflect this assumption exactly.

Plus, the fact is that people who adopt have the social power to influence laws, as do adoption lawyers and adoption agencies. Naturla parents do not have a political voice and there are currently no organizations that will represent us as such.

maybe

Adoption is about satisfying the needs of adults, it is not about the needs of the child.

sam22254

I didn't even know about this. Good question but here is what my family have lived through. My son's rights were not taken away he is forced to share joint custody for right now with a couple who wanted to adopt my grandson. They knew all along about my son and his wishes but went a head and took the baby. They knew the expense to fight to get his child was over 100 thousand.
Sharing the child is hard on everyone. Lies can't be told to the child he or she will know exactly who his or her parents are. What needs to change is bio-relatives rights, grandparents rights too. But i can't see this happening. These days the courts don't look into what the best interest of the child if they did then they would include the extended family of the child first like they do in foster care.
If a adopted family really want to help a child they should be willing to share the child.

Nathan

I think it would probably be good if this law were dropped from the types of adoptions where there is plenty of demand (newborn?). This could help lower corrupt practices, like pressuring young mothers to relinquish? However, for children that we expect to have trouble finding adoptive parents for, I think this should still apply for the reasons stated in the case law and for the best interest of these children.

birthdad in hell

I think the money an dpropoganda of the industry is more known than the bio parents plights. most bio dads who do get to court have gag orders slapped on them(like me) so they can't get the truth out there. most potential ap's don't know the truth. they want a child and don't really care what or how they get it. The damage and pain they cause the bio's is not even considered. Laws do need to change but until the truth is more accessable than the industries lies that won't happen.I wish more people would choose other options or open their homes to the children stuck in the system who do need their love but you can't really lie to a 4-17 yr old as easily as you can a newborn. selling children is wrong. nothing will change that. saying i didn't know won't cut it. if you dont know you should find out. laws need to change. aps need to do at least a year of education on the subject instead of just 2 homestudies and a brief 2 hour intro class adoption. there are a million changes needed the real question is where to start.

littleJaina

Well, in many ways, that is the point behind it is "what is best for the child".

The problem is that the state cannot only consider what is best for each particular child. They must consider what is best for "all children". In this case, the putting the adoptions of 100 in order to preserve healthy relationships for 10 of the kids (or even 50 of them) is not in the best interest of children as a whole.

What really needs to be studied is if fewer people really would adopt if visitation could be enforced. The judge here is making a big assumption that preconditions would prevent adoptions. He also seems to be assuming that it is an "all or nothing" situation. Example: letting parents who do not want the preconditions choose only closed adoptions, but let parents who are willing to work within the preconditions choose legally enforceable open adoptions.

In short, if you take what the judge assumes to be a given as true, then yes, the logic makes sense. You don't punish 100 kids so that 10 can have a bonus. However, the law shouldn't be based on such a shaky given. If I was you or your lawyer, it would be the assumption of fewer adoptions I would attack as being an unsupportable opinion instead of a fact.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: