Is there a time that comes where you just have to say enough?

Gaia Raain

In a perfect world, parents would become what their kids need. Which means, natural parents would NEVER stop fighting, tooth and nail, no matter the cost, to become what their children need them to be. I don't think anyone should ever give up. You had the child, now you've got a job to do.

And of course, AP's should be overjoyed for their child if the natural parents are able to be in the child's life! If the child was not removed due to abuse or neglect, and the parents want the child, the child should automatically go back to the natural parents. If the child WAS removed due to abuse or neglect, then it's up to the caseworker whether or not the parents' rights are terminated, and the AP's shouldn't have any say in the matter (and they should, again, be overjoyed for the child if the parents are able to care for him/her). If the natural parents gave the child up and the adoption has been finalized, and the natural parents change their minds, then I think it needs to go on an individual basis. Ideally, both sets of parents would set down all their fears, and become what their child needs them to be. Maybe the best thing for the child would be for all four parents to become co-parents. Maybe it would be best for the natural parents to visit, but the child stay with the AP's. Maybe it would be best for the child to transition back to the care of his/her natural parents. Whatever is best for the CHILD is what should happen.

tish

what's sad about this question is the fact that it has to be asked. recently, i delivered my son, and the thought of not having him with me is madness... hence, i can't even imagine what a firstmom who wants to contest an adoption must experience.

personally, i would NEVER say enough. especially if there is an inkling of a thought that the adoption was unethical or executed under duress, or coercion.

hence, another reason why pre-birth matching and aparents being invovled pre-birth or immediately after birth is so problematic.

julie j

Hi Camira,

This is when I believe "enough is enough" :

When either natural parent is willing & able to raise their child, & makes that known within the legal window of time, then it should be considered that the child is no longer available for adoption.

Adoption is for children who do not have homes & families. There are so many children who truly do need homes, there is no acceptable reason to fight over the children who already DO have parents!

I assume you are not referring to cases that have already been finalized in court. If a child is only in the physical custody of a PAP, that is NOT the same thing as being legally adopted! Some people may mistakenly believe that just because a child might be living with someone, that means they are officially adopted. They are not. It takes at least 6 months of living with the child, before PAPs can petition the court for a finalization. Until an adoption is finalized, PAPs should not even consider themselves adoptive parents yet.

To answer your other question, being an adoptee is hard enough on its own. To find out someone went through the adoptee experience when they didn't have to in the first place, would be even worse. Yes, I would be extremely resentful if I found out the people who illegally adopted me refused to let me go back to my parents who loved me & wanted me. I would feel violated, stolen, and it would make me feel like a possession. I would feel as though my natural parents had also been victimized by the system & by needy, childless people.

I am discouraged by those people who would disobey a judge's court order to return a child to his/her parent. It just makes things worse to drag it out. Sorry, but "proving you want a child" does not trump natural parental rights! PAPs are not thinking of the child's best interests when they try to trample on and circumvent the parent's rights. They are thinking of their own selfish needs & wants. Those who refuse to surrender over a child in the hopes that they eventually will wear down the natural parents & get to keep their child are equivalent to kidnappers in my opinion.

Those cases disgust me. More than a question of PAP rights vs. natural parent rights, these should be seen as cases for the CHILD'S rights. He/She has a right to be raised by their own family. Who is representing the child in all this? Thanks for asking good questions.

julie j
reunited adoptee

Heather B

Nope. I wish my Momma had never stopped fighting for me. Ever.

'Baby Jessica' doesn't even remember her adopters y'know - even though they made a movie and a huge dramarama over how 'traumatized' she was to be given back to her kin.

If a child is loved and wanted by their kin, people just ought to do the right thing and let them be with their people. End of.

Independ"ant"

The best interest of the child should be the first and foremost issue.
Study after study has shown that its best for a child to remain with their biological families. It shouldn't be about what an adoptive parent feels is best. As a society we should be focusing on fixing the familial problems instead of using adoption to alleviate it. Many families need it, adoption or not. Its is not helping the child to seperate them from their parents unless its a case of abuse. Poverty is never an excuse especially today in our very materialistic society.
I think its criminal to fight for the right to adopt when a child is wanted by their biological parent who love them. These Pap's are selfish and are not looking into whats best for the child. I can't begin to understand why these monsters would use every dirty loophole in the system to keep the children away from their parents. Attorneys are just scum to take on these cases. Too many A-parents are doing it and legislation needs to change to prevent them from doing so. I think its disgusting when the AP's try to drag it out as long as possible and then say that the child will be better off in the their home because of the timeline. Children are not commodities or pets. In these cases they have biological parents that want them and a-parents shouldn't have the right to "keep" them for whatever reason.
Too bad you put your money, time, heart and energy into the child. Its unfortunate, but the fact is they are not your children despite what a piece of paper says or whatever demented unethical judge is allowing you to continue to drag it out. Enough is enough. Give the children back to their parents and stop damaging and causing pain to another human being.

tiny dan

if you sign a huge stack of papers in front of a bunch of lawyers and give away your child there is nothing you can do to get the child back ... the thing i dont like about adoption is the lawyers make a ton of money basically selling someones baby and the real parent gets zero money (its illegal to recieve money from the adopting parents) the reason half these people give up their babies is because they dont have enough money to properly take care of them , i say give the real parents a couple bucks to hopefully get their lives boosted into a better direction ...

thanks

Minnimouse

I was in this situation and there was a court order, so my natural mum had no choice. It was a difficult situation, she wanted me but she was mentall ill. She had what they thought was schizophrenia at the time but they think it's more bipolar or manic depression now. She went into a mental institute and obviously coudn't take me but she wanted me but the courts decided it wasn't the best. I think if the mother wants the baby after giving it up for adoption then the baby should be given back as long as they will be safe (for instance, the mother isn't abusive or seriously mentally ill). The birth mother should have the power over the adoption. It would be much easier for the adoptee to go back to their natural mother because they would be back to who they belong with and questions could be answered even though the split in the first place was traumatic. Adoptive parents often hide things or just simply don't know or understand the natural parent's feelings or needs.

I wish I could have been taken in by my natural grandfather but he was going through a lot at the time. I tend to think "well so was I, i was ripped away from my mum" but I don't know the situation, it may have been impossible at the time.

So basically, unless through a court order a parent is seen as unfit to care for their child, natural parents must have right to reclaim their babies. Even though it is sad and horrible for the adoptive parents it is really the best for the child and the most unselfish thing to do would be to leave it at that and find another baby or child.

lakechicklet90

wow, well i was adpoted, and my mom left me when i was bout 3 months she was suppose to come back within a month but she didnt .. she never told anyone where i was until i got like 2 , then my grandma came and got me they had to go to court becasue i was already in a home .. where ppl loved me .. and cared .. and i think they should have left me there cuz right now i wud be living a good life and i euddnt be goin thru things i go thru now .. i want to work with social services because i dont think they deal with these things right they dont put the child in the best home according to whats right for the child they go by who makes the most money now days .. i think they should go by who the childs real family is who can give that child the best care, think about when the child grows up and wants to knoe why wasnt my real mom/dad there why im i here ,, and have all the hate in his/her eyes at the world mad because of how they have to be ... and if the parents are denied,, then they shud see if they can work something out with out the legal work .. they should never give up idk wat the case maybe how many years it take .,,, somethangs u can work out with out all the legal work ... it makes thangs alot better and easier .. and yes i wud resent my parents if they tried to fight for me but gave up .. that would mean they didnt want me bad enough. and i resent my parents now for not tryn at all .. and still all of 17 years havent did nethang yet ,, but bring me into a life of pain and hell! ... i hope this answers your question!

Jennifer H

What i think is that some people don't consider AP's actual parents. My BM gave birth to me and was completely SELFLESS in her decision to give me up. A child was all my AM ever wanted. She had been in a serious car accident as a teenager and her internal injuries made it impossible for her to have children. My Am and AD got me when they were in their early 30's and i became their world within minutes of being put in their arms. There is not a chance in you know where that my mom would have given me back to my BM. And i am thankful for that, she loved me, protected me and cared about me from the start like i was her own.
This whole taking the kids back that you gave away thing is the reason so many people now adopt from other countries. A family is not determined by blood people!!! A family is determined my love!!!

Kazi

Camira, this is an excellent question and yet a very difficult one to answer as there are so many variables.

If a first mom changes her mind before the papers are signed, then yes, the child should be returned without any fanfare or court battles.

If the papers have been signed, but the first parents change their minds, say a day or maybe 1 month later and there is evidence that coercion played into their decision, then again, as heartbreaking as it would be for the APs, then yes, I think that they should seriously consider returning the child.

NOW, with all that being said, I do think there should be a time limit. A child is not a yo-yo. After 2 years, then no, I don't believe first parents should be able to gain full custody, however, I would strongly recommend that the APs allow for an open adoption and let the first parents play a very big role in their child's life (this of course would be conditional on the first parent's lifestyle - drug free, no violence or abuse, etc.)

There are so many scenarios that are possible with a million appropriate outcomes. Regardless, I would hope that anyone in this position would always take the best interests of the child to heart.

Dayle

I am a adoptive mom of three wonderful children. My youngest son's birth mom, ask us to take him when he was five days old, because of a past neglect charge, she burned a baby, I think it was an accident, in her care and lost the rights to her daughter. The state was going to place him in foster care.
We thought we would have him for a short time and mom would prove herself fit to raise him. Wrong!!!!!!!! It was 39 months before her rights were terminated.
She never kept a job, 15 jobs in three years
When he was returned for five weeks, they removed him again, Why? Because there was no food in the house for him
She never paid any support
She lost her section 8 housing
Police were called a number of times because of a abusive boyfriend.
She ended up in a shelter and she was kicked out of there
She was arrested for attacking a neighbor with a knife.
BUT, she said she could not live with herself, if she "gave up",
and signed the paperwork to surrender her rights.
If the parent is doing all they can do, in the spirit of excellence, yes, continue to fight. But if they are not, and just want to hang on to their parental rights, that's wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mykia15

u can aurgeu but not leave them thats abanding them show them that u care

Cindy A

There are so many variables and different situations that there is no definite answer. However, it's my opinion that is if the child was adopted in the first place, there was obviously a reason- the bio-parent chose it. Children in foster care due to abuse or neglect rarely get adopted if the bio parents want them. But I think that if you gave up your child for adoption than you need to stick with the decision as hard as it may be. It's not fair to the child to say "I don't want you now" and turn around in a year or two and "oops- changed my mind"!

Landon's Mommy

I don't think it's right for natural parents to try to get their babies back after they've already signed away their rights. It's just wrong. They made the decision to give up the baby, it's no longer theirs.

Halo Mom

I think if they singed the papers, they have no right to the child

IF the women lied about who the father was, she should be charge with fraud. She should not be able to come back with the father and sue for custody

I think if the father does not know, and did not give, he should work something out with the adoptive parents. Like shared custody

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: