Is it right for a parent to reclaim a child they had already given up for adoption?

BLW_KAM

IF the parental rights of both the mother and the father were legally terminated and there was no unethical activity surrounding the termination, my answer is "No, it isn't right to reclaim the child." Although the natural parents may regret their decision for the rest of their lives, what was done shouldn't be undone.

But if parental rights were not terminated or were terminated unethically, my answer is "Yes, it is right."

Potential adoptive parents know there's a risk of an adoption falling through. We know that until the final adoption papers are issued by the courts, the child can be reunited with her/his natural parents or taken into the custody of DCFS. It's a nervous time.

sam22254

Yes if the natural parents do it in a early stage. What happened to my son is that he found out about the birth of his second child 2 days before his birth. The natural mother hid is daughter and their second child's birth so she could give the child to her new boyfriends family for adoption but my son found out. This couple took the child anyway and my son has been fighting for 3 years for his son's return. When that happens everyone is going to be feeling so sorry for these kidnappers. That is what it is called when you know in the hospital that the father wanted his child and you take him anyways.
You think that his case is a rare case but it's happening all over the world. Then these type of couple say it is in the best interest for the child when it's not it's in their best interest. Just look under father's fighting for their children or mothers begging for their child's return. Baby tabitha this is a case where the family went after a child after the child was adopted. The natural mother got the child back after the adopted family were jailed for drugs. True case.
There are going to be a lot of people saying my son needs to leave his son with this couple because they have had him since birth but if your child was kidnapped and kept from you for a couple of years would you walk away. I don't believe so.

kitta

Yes. Keep in mind that children always remain connected to the parents who brought them into existence. DNA connects them. Their heritage cannot be changed, and their family is not interchangeable with another biological family.

Even when the adoption has been finalized in court, the above will still be true. I do not believe in adoption as it is currently practiced in North America, because it is based on the property deed system.

But, children are not objects like land or houses. I believe that children should remain connected legally in some way to their natural families, no matter who has been assigned legally to raise them.

Birth records should be truthful and should never be altered in adoption.

Jennifer L

Well, it depends.

With US infant adoption, there is a "waiting period" where the mother can change her mind and cancel the adoption for any reason. This "waiting period" varies from state to state. It can be as short as 48 hours or as long as 6 months. During that time, the adoptive parents know that the mother has every legal and moral right to change her mind. So in these cases, I agree that it's "right" for a mother to reclaim her child. As I said, she has every legal and moral right to do so.

An adoption can also be challenged if the mother can prove that her rights were violated. Or if the father's rights were violated. Again, I think this is "right" also.

Outside of these cases: the "waiting period" and if rights were violated, then no. I think there does come a point where the adoptive parents are the legal parents of the child and they deserve the right to allow themselves to attach and love their children.

myst1998

Yes. Adoption is not natural; separating a child from his/her heritage, family etc is not natural so yes, it is right for a parent to reclaim their child. Most who do fight, do so in the first months following the consent so the finalisation has not yet taken place.

PAP (prosp adoptive parents) are, in reality, mere strangers to a child they are adopting. In all cases where possible, children should remain with their own families and if a mother has managed to shake off the many coercion and scare mongering tactics a lot of agencies use then good on her.

Adoption is used to often these days for an unplanned pregnancy when if there was more support and information offered to young women they would be looking at parenthood. Women are scared into placing in many instances by being told a numerous bunch of lies and incorrect information.

So, yes it is right for a mother to reclaim her child. It isn't like we are talking about an item etc. People have more rights when it comes to selling a house etc. Adoption is an archaic and barbaric law which origins were all about looking after an adoptive families need to climb the power ladder or someone to care for them in old age.

ETA: In cases like the one mentioned with PAP paying expenses and getting their hopes up about having ANOTHER family's child, I think it is disgusting PAP's are even near pregnant women, paying for expenses and waiting to get the baby. I have no sympathy for the PAP's at all, the baby was never theirs to begin with so they have no right to feeling angry with the parents who decided to parent their own child. Again, the sense of entitlement many PAP's have is utterly sickening.

23 year old texas female married

We are talking newborn/infant adoption, right?

I think a mother or father should have the right to reclaim her or his child. Especially when the parent's rights were violated. When the mother was told to intentionally leave off the father's name from the birth certificate so they could ignore the father's rights to the child.

When a woman is talked into giving up her child for adoption because it is the loving/selfless choice. When a person intentionally uses a woman's emotions against her to obtain her child, yeah she has the right to reclaim her child.

If the adoption isn't final then YES the mother deserves her child back ASAP! I think even after the 10 day waiting period a mother should be allowed to change her mind. Shot you give a mother 6 weeks to return to normal after giving birth. And postpartum depression doesn't always show up in the first few days. Yeah with me it did but I was depressed before I even started the pregnancy.

I think adoption shouldn't be an option unless you can testify that you are a danger to your child and would pose a threat to your child by either forgetting to feed your child, refusing to feed your child, or abusing your child by hitting them, beating them, belittling them.

If adoption is in the best interest of the child shouldn't we make sure that the natural parents are unfit to care for the child before placing their baby up for adoption in the first place?

cantstopLinnyG

If a first Mother can answer "yes" to any of the things on this website, then YES.
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/adoption_coercion.html

Most young mothers do not realize they are being coerced, because the people doing the coercing are PRO's.

I also feel that if a first mother lies about the child's paternity, and the childs natural father shows up and wants his child, the adoption should be overturned. It was illegal, anyway.

I really do not feel any pity towards pap's who find themselves in this position after they have participated in a "pre-birth" matching/scam. They know full and well that the baby does NOT belong to them, and that the mother can change her mind at any time. Sweetening the deal with cash, rent or other things is akin to human trafficking. Period. Sorry for your luck, but you cannot buy a baby. They may not think they are being coercive, but they are.

hannah

if the parent feels they have made aa mistake then yes they should reclaim it i

celtic.piskie

Bottom line, adoption should only happen when it is a LAST resort, in the best interests off the child.

Not the best interests of the a-parents.

IDK!!

Things to ask yourself
1.) has there been an adoption?
2.) were the parents rights protected?
3.) Is it in the best interest for the child to be returned?
4.) What does the child want (in cases of older children)

Dreaming Dragon

How long after are you asking about? I think maybe, if it has only been a very short while. But on the other hand, is a parent who changes their mind several times going to change it again? What happens when they take the child back and 3 months later decide that maybe they should have left the child with the adoptive parents?

How long do parents have to change their mind? Is 6 months with a new family okay if mom decides she wants the baby back? 3 years? When is the bond with the adoptive parents strong enough that it will hurt the child to return it to the birth parents?

I think it is horrible to rip children back and forth because of "blood". Why should a birth mother have more say about a child she doesn't know than an adoptive mother who has held and rocked and nursed a child through illness and milestones and knows the childs needs and personal quirks, strengths and fears?

I know many parents regret putting their child up for adoption but once you do, the child's needs and attachments to their new families come first.

Jenna

No, it is not right. They made the decision to give up their child. Their child is now someone else's child and they have no right just to decide to take it back.

Sarah

For me, there is a line.

If it was say years down the track, then no.

If the child was already very close to their adoptive parents, then perhaps a child specialist should review whether it's in the best interest of the child to suddenly be returned to the parents.

If it was a few days / weeks and maybe even month(s) and it is certain that there won't be any damage done to the child, then yes the parents should have a right to reclaim a child.

Doodlestuff

Yes, if it is within a reasonable time period. Many states do not have reasonable time periods for reclaiming a child (48 hours) vs. other states who have more reasonable times (6 months to a year) for the parent to determine a possible change in living arrangements to support a child. Most mothers giving up children do not have ample opportunity to determine how to amend their situation - it is very difficult if not possible to even get employment if you are obviously pregnant, for instance, or have had no work experience because you are in college. Many mothers who are forced to give up their child have no family support, either emotionally or financially. As often quoted, adoption is often a permanent solution for a temporary situation.

In addition, the father registries are by far, the most heinous legislation introduced. Adoption agencies now move mothers to states that have such registries. If the father doesn't know that she is pregnant and gives birth in that other state, how is he to register when he has never been there?

sarah

I think ALOT would depend on the individual situation and the age of the child. Was the baby given up for adoption because s/he was abused, neglected? Is this still a baby, a young child, a teenager? What does the CHILD want? Have the parents been involved in their lives in any way beforehand, or are they essentially strangers? I think there are just too many factors to have a definitive yes or no answer to the question. If the child is still very small, then definetly. Most times there is a 6mth-1yr waiting period for this precise reason. But if the child is older..? In my opionion your parents are the ones who've raised you... they know every story, every scar, their the ones you run to when your scared or upset. It would be devasting for a child to be left as an infant, and then suddenly years later this person (who is a stranger) comes to take them away from the only parents they've ever known. That being said, theres no reason why the childs biological parents cant be involved in their lives, even share in custody. To force a child away from EITHER set of parents is cruel. If the mother wants the child back, regardless of how long its been they clearly love them, and their adoptive parents do as well. Having more people in this world who love you involved in your life can never be a bad thing. Either way, its the childs best interest that should be considered, not the feelings or upset of EITHER the biological or adopted parents.

Chikitabby

no. they gave up their child and now they want it back?
no, a child is not like an item that they can have when they want to.
if they give up their child, they lost it.

mr.M

For me i think it depends on the child as to where he/she wants to stay with.
As for the parents, They should consider and respect the choice of the child as to where he/she wants to stay either way.

sk8ermom

In most states once you sign, it is over. A few states have a short waiting period. So "reclaiming" is out of the question. It is up to the mom to seek counciling and really make sure she is making the best choice for her before placing her child.

R.M.G!

In my opinion, NO.
Because if they "changed their mind" to want the child back, what stops them from "changing their mind" AGAIN!!??
Children need stability, not "easy come, easy go" B/S!

Sarah

First off, I think that those who are focusing on the coercion only, and not facing facts that it is also a choice that some birth mothers make really need to study up on adoption!
I do not in any way think its right or ethical to place a child back with its birth mother. I cant see any good points at all about that, other than those who talk about blood lines etc.
I think it IS important for the adoptee to have full knowledge of where they came from and who actually gave birth to them!
I think the pros and cons need to be looked at. I also think that the child's best interests need to be looked at too! Yeah its all good for the birth mother, but is it really all that good for the child? mmmmm

'Insert name here'

In my opinion : No. Giving a child away is a selfless and selfish act. You are doing it because you cannot look after a child and want that child to have a better life, but if you choose to give the child away for the childs sake you cannot reclaim the child. It would be awful for the child to have to go through this as well was coping with the fact that the child has lost its birth family.
I have no sympathy for birth mothers who say they have lost their child....NOPE, you gave that child away.

Veronica

No, unless the father was not advised or there was proof of physical force or abuse.

Right now, once the adoption is finalized, the legality of the child belongs to the adoptive parents. It would be extremely difficult to get a child back, but a drawback can be that the adopting family would be very upset to have to give back the child they have begun to love.

But then , in the end, the natural mother would be able to raise the child that she gave birth to.

It's a double edged sword.

Treece

I personally think they should not, they're not even the parent anymore in my opinion. if the child was still a baby then maybe, but if this child is going on into adolescent years and has established his caregivers as parents it needs to stay that way. He can see his bio mother, but she should not be able to TAKE him away from the only people he has known as his real parents. he has a bond with these caregivers and I think it's not onnly detrimental to the child but ALSO the caregivers having to relinquish the child that they love and cherish. Just because mom all of sudden has second thoughts, or the finances 10 years later doesn't mean she should have him. Maybe in an open adoption where the mother has been seeing the child all those years, but only if the caregivers are willing to do so. THis is why I would never have had adoption as an option because I know later on I would regret my decision. If you want to be there for child, have an open adoption, otherwise stay out of it.

butterr.

i dont think it's right or wrong. but an adoptive parent adopts a baby knowing there is a possibility the original mother will want him/her back. it's a risk most adoptive parents take, they go into the process knowing they may not always have the child.
it may be wrong in the sense that the child is forced to endure a lot of changes and pain if his/her biological parents want them back though

brittanydgreen2006

no unless the child wants to know

manda_jns

If the birthparents have already given the child up then they should not take it back. They have plenty of time to make their decision so they will have to live with it. There is no need to mess with a family who has worked so hard to give your baby a home. That's my opinion.

Sunshineinor

My sister went through that. She paid all expenses, was at the birth, had mom and dad living with her. everything was set. or so she thought. 3 days later, she came in to see mom and dad packing up baby and leaving. she had no legal standing. If parents or mom are going to do the adoption, then they need to be 100% sure before agreeing and taking all the bonus things given. A change of heart was devastating to my sister, her children and husband. It was very cruel. Mom had 5 mo to think about it. No, there should not be a reclaim.

i do what i want

yes and no.

yes if the parent wasn't financially stable, but now has a job and everything ready for a child.in this case the parent did the right thing and should by al means be taken back into its mothers care.

no if the child was abused neglected or taken away from the mother because she was a cigarette smoking acohloic idiot with no job and no house.in this case the child would stay at a foster home or orphanage until being adopted by a suitable mother and father.

my personal opinion would be no, if they put the child up for adoption obviously they did not want to deal with it and were to stupid to place the child with a relative until they found a job.there would be in some cases where there were no relatives or friend to take care of the child, the father had disappeared and nobody cared.it really depends on what the child wants.it involves the child so they should pick.

hope i helped. :)

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: