The "Quarrel Baby" .

[liriako]

.... Or as previously known 'Two mothers' .

--- I've already brought this particuler adoption case to the M 'n R , however with further devlopments ( and the astounding lackage of morality issudes in M 'n R ) I'd like to bring it up again . ---

Backstory : The biological mother, upon disscovering she was impregnated , had decided to give up the baby for adoption,
( although she now claims to have been pressured by the Child Care Services , and claims they took advantege of her 'fragile mental state'. ) without notifying the biological father of the exsitance of his child .

The baby , 10 days old , was given to the care of an adopting couple , when after near six months, the biological mother regretted her descision , alerted the biological father , married him , and filed for the baby to be given back to her care.

(As far as legal grounds go , the adoptive paretns are subjected to a six months trial period, in which the biological mother can still change her mind .
In this particuler case, the biological mother changed her mind roughly two weeks before the trial period ended. )

Court decided that the baby should be brought back to the biological parents' custody, ( which unlike in divorce cases the adoptive parents wouldn't have any legal grounds for the child , no visitations , no nothing , despite the fact they raised the child most of his life. )

The adoptive parents appealed to a higher court , in which new developments had been discovered such as the adoptive father having a chronical illness that , might , affect his ability to care for the baby .

This discovery was one of the main reasons that lead the three judges assembly to rule the baby be handed back to his biological parents.

HOWEVER - Judge Rotlevi (the minority judge that held the opinion the bab should be left in the care of his adoptive parents )
had, based on the previous trial , formed a team of experts who determind the adopting parents were the baby's psychological parents. (Though the majority part of the three judge assembly felt blood relations were more important then the psychological parents .)

And most importantly , Judge Rotlevi has set up a new precedant , giving the adoptive parents' attorneys , legal grounds in relations to the child, which allows them to present their case in court. (of which the biological parents appealed ,and lost. )

Now the adoptive parents are appealing to the Supreme Court, and the court's descision has been witheld pending the appeal .
The child, now a year and a half old , is living with the adoptive parents , while the biological parents get supervised visitations.

So is psycholgy less importent then blood relations?
The baby had been living with his adoptive parents all his life , yet is he old enough to be attached to his adopting parents , so as it will be against his best interests to be seperated from them ?

And what about the biological father? he was unaware of the child's existance, and definetly haven't expressed his premssion in giving the baby away .

Who do you think should be given dominant custody over the baby? (I don't think there's a viable chance for either side to get sole custody now ).

Also, the adopting parents' trial period had not been over when the biological mother changed her mind , yet they claim the baby had been permenantly attached to them , and recognizes then as his parents , and if so, when do you draw the line on the trial period ? will you shorten it ?
Do biological mother should be given the chance to change their mind, in your opinion ?

Another importent subject is the new precedant made by Judge Rotlive , should adoptive parents get legal grounds in claiming an adopted child , like in this case?
How long should they raise the baby, before they can get such status ?

The father's chronical Illness was a major reason in detemining the resaults of the second trial , however opinions differ if his condition makes it impossible for him to care for the baby. (like he had been doing for the last year and a half.)
Is it moral to alienate an entire group of people from the ability to adopt children ?

Take a bite at it.

(I tried looking for an English version of the article , but I can't find any sweatdrop )

[Wiggly Fae]

Psha the kid is only a year and a half. If he is given back to his blood relatives he wouldn't even remember his adoptive parents. I think the mother should get the baby since she did petition before the time was up.

[The Tonberry]

Quote:

Psha the kid is only a year and a half. If he is given back to his blood relatives he wouldn't even remember his adoptive parents. I think the mother should get the baby since she did petition before the time was up.

I agree. A child can't attatch THAT quickly. O.o Otherwise we'd have malcontented children everywhere. If you have food ((or a boob)) And change its diapers and don't shake it, a baby will love pretty much anyone until it's spent at least a few years in the care of of a parent...Blah.

[Dalem]

Since the mother petitioned before the time was up she would be allowed to get her baby back. The baby might be confused for a little bit, but later in life won't remember a thing. The only issue to consider is if the mother and father are fit to have their child or not. If they are they are allowed to have their child back.

[Deep Vermillion]

I remember the original version of this topic and I stand by my opinion.

The biological mother had around 11 months to decide about whether or not to keep the child and unless the adoption services held a gun to her head, she knew exactly that she agreed to give up her child. Unless there's some kind of mistreatment of the child, I don't think it's right to steal it from the adoptive parents at this point, because even if the child might only subconsciously remember it, the adoptive parents (from what I can tell) loved it as their own for six months.

The biological mother and father could've made their own by now, if they suddenly decide that they want one that badly. Unlike the adoptive parents, nothing's stopping them.

[On Your Six]

Quote:

The biological mother and father could've made their own by now, if they suddenly decide that they want one that badly. Unlike the adoptive parents, nothing's stopping them.

But they dont want a new one, they want THAT baby.
I don't know many parents that will give up their child and not want it back saying "Oh! Well that childs expendable, I can just make a new one!"

What if, instead of being adopted the child died? They have a chance now (as opposed to dead baby #1) to get the child back instead of waiting 9 months for another one when they want the first one.

You can't just tell a parent "well make a new one."

Emotionally they love the first one, and if they made another child, they'd probaly want both.

[Deep Vermillion]

Quote:

But they dont want a new one, they want THAT baby.
I don't know many parents that will give up their child and not want it back saying "Oh! Well that childs expendable, I can just make a new one!"

Other people who adopt, perhaps?

Quote:

What if, instead of being adopted the child died? They have a chance now (as opposed to dead baby #1) to get the child back instead of waiting 9 months for another one when they want the first one.

I don't see how that's relevant.

Quote:

You can't just tell a parent "well make a new one."

You can when a parent has given the child away. You kind of have to, since it's not their child any more.

Quote:

Emotionally they love the first one, and if they made another child, they'd probaly want both.

How can they love the first child when it hasn't even lived with them for the year and a half it's been alive?

The adoptive parents have loved the child and have treated it as their own for a year and a half. The mother entered a loveless (based on the fact that she apparently didn't even care enough about the father to even let him know she was pregnant) marriage just to demand something she had given (after having a long, long time to think about it) away. She wants a child, but she hasn't even spent one whole day with "hers", except for the 10 days at the start (or so the article imples). You're actually saying that she has more right to the child, simply because the adoptive parents aren't "really" related to the child?

[On Your Six]

Quote:

You can when a parent has given the child away. You kind of have to, since it's not their child any more.

Its their child under the care of another couple.

Quote:

How can they love the first child when it hasn't even lived with them for the year and a half it's been alive?

Didn't the thread say she wanted the baby back 2 weeks before the 6 month trial was up?

Quote:

You're actually saying that she has more right to the child, simply because the adoptive parents aren't "really" related to the child?

Situations of "who would give her the better life" aside, yes.

So you're saying that if I lived with someone else, or someone else took care of me when my parents didn't, that makes them my rightful guardian and parent and my parent should have no claim to me?

Yes, me, not some babe. And what difference is there in a babe and an elder person who's still a minor?

[Deep Vermillion]

Quote:

Its their child under the care of another couple.

No, it's their adopted child.

Quote:

Didn't the thread say she wanted the baby back 2 weeks before the 6 month trial was up?

That she wanted, yes. But they didn't get it back, because the adopted parents thought that they didn't quite deserve to have a child they had loved for six months torn away from them. The article says that the only time she's spent with the child is 10 days in the hospital, except for supervised visits after a year and a half of the child's life.

Quote:

Situations of "who would give her the better life" aside, yes.

And those situations shouldn't be considered when finding a home for a child?

Quote:

So you're saying that if I lived with someone else, or someone else took care of me when my parents didn't, that makes them my rightful guardian and parent and my parent should have no claim to me?

Yes, me, not some babe. And what difference is there in a babe and an elder person who's still a minor?

The difference is that you can say where you want to be with words, instead of with behaviour like the child (who in this case, again according to the article, wished to be with the mother and father that didn't give it away).

And if your parents adopted you to the other person, then yes, he would become your rightful guardian. That's kind of how adoption works, kitten.

[On Your Six]

Quote:

No, it's their adopted child.

I meant it is the mother's child who has been adopted by another couple.
The mother birthed it, it is her child.

Quote:

That she wanted, yes. But they didn't get it back, because the adopted parents thought that they didn't quite deserve to have a child they had loved for six months torn away from them.

6 Month Trial Version Baby. Only 19.99.

You know you're only getting it for 6 months should the producer decide to recall its product. They knew the risk of having the mother want it back should said mother decide to want it back within 6 months. Are you saying that as soon as a mom says "Nope, dont want it" they can NEVER EVER EVER have it back?

Quote:

The article says that the only time she's spent with the child is 10 days in the hospital, except for supervised visits after a year and a half of the child's life.

So there's a day limit, "Mother cannot love child or decide that they loved child until they've had child for X days."

Quote:

And those situations shouldn't be considered when finding a home for a child?

I was referring to "Well, adoptive parents should have 'em because they'd give the child a better life."

Or
"the biological parents should have them because they'd give the child a better life."

Quote:

The difference is that you can say where you want to be with words, instead of with behaviour like the child (who in this case, again according to the article, wished to be with the mother and father that didn't give it away).

I lived with people not my parents when I was younger, Faeri was right when he said "she'll be too young to remember later on, for now she'll be confused, but it wont matter in the long run."
Only he said it more eloquently and I'm too lazy for quotes.

Quote:

And if your parents adopted you to the other person, then yes, he would become your rightful guardian. That's kind of how adoption works, kitten.

No no. Missed the point.

If my parents decided they didn't want to take care of me, and you did, should you then become my legal guardian and rightful parent even if my parents decided "Hey, we sorta liked her..."

[Kaioh]

Shouldn't the fact that she gave it up, and then suddenly wanted it back be considered? That doesn't exactly look like the person has very good parenting skills if they get all indecisive about the child.

That so didn't come out correctly.

[Deep Vermillion]

Quote:

I meant it is the mother's child who has been adopted by another couple.
The mother birthed it, it is her child.

That's awfully mean to a lot of adopted children out there, you know.

Quote:

6 Month Trial Version Baby. Only 19.99.

You know you're only getting it for 6 months should the producer decide to recall its product. They knew the risk of having the mother want it back should said mother decide to want it back within 6 months. Are you saying that as soon as a mom says "Nope, dont want it" they can NEVER EVER EVER have it back?

I'm saying she had plenty of time to consider the implications of giving her child away in the nine months she was pregnant. And then if she really regretted it an awful lot, she shouldn't have waited 6 months.

Quote:

So there's a day limit, "Mother cannot love child or decide that they loved child until they've had child for X days."

The mother should at least be able to pick the baby out of a group of five others before she can claim to love anything but the concept of a child of her own.

Quote:

I was referring to "Well, adoptive parents should have 'em because they'd give the child a better life."

Or
"the biological parents should have them because they'd give the child a better life."

Ah.

Why shouldn't that be relevant again?

Quote:

I lived with people not my parents when I was younger, Faeri was right when he said "she'll be too young to remember later on, for now she'll be confused, but it wont matter in the long run."
Only he said it more eloquently and I'm too lazy for quotes.

Don't know enough about the circumstances to apply it to this situation, kitten.

Quote:

No no. Missed the point.

If my parents decided they didn't want to take care of me, and you did, should you then become my legal guardian and rightful parent even if my parents decided "Hey, we sorta liked her..."

If your parents didn't know who you were, figured they didn't want to deal with you and gave you up for adoption and I adopted you and took care of you, then I should be considered the person who takes care of you, yes.

[Greenling]

I'd like to know why it is she thinks she can just spontaneously change her mind like that.

A trial period should be in place in case there's some sort of horrible mistake about the kind of people the adoptive parents are, or if the financial/family situation of either party drastically changes. Not because someone's decided that, regardless of how intelligent or good a decision it would be, she wants oo an ikkle babie. That's what this sounds like.

Someone who, after as long as she had to decide to make this long-term and majorly life-affecting decision, decided to go along with it, then at damn near the last possible second wanted to turn around and do the exact opposite and may everyone else involved just hang, is not the sort of person who should be making long-term decisions for a small child.

[On Your Six]

Quote:

That's awfully mean to a lot of adopted children out there, you know.

What, to say that since they didn't birth the child, that the child isn't their child and only their adoptive child? Its sorta true, they only adopted it...

Quote:

]I'm saying she had plenty of time to consider the implications of giving her child away in the nine months she was pregnant. And then if she really regretted it an awful lot, she shouldn't have waited 6 months.

DV, there is a lot of mental trauma when a woman is pregnant. She might get frenzied and think "OMG! Baby! I no want baby!" but later on realize she really wanted the baby and was just freaking out.

so you're saying that the time that a mother should decide if she wants it back or not is within a few days, or the mother should never get it back? What's the time frame?

Quote:

The mother should at least be able to pick the baby out of a group of five others before she can claim to love anything but the concept of a child of her own.

...did the article really say that the mother couldn't pick the child out?

Quote:

Why shouldn't that be relevant again?

Because we dont know the specific instances of these couples, and I dont beleive that because one parent has the advantage over another parent that parent 2 has to yield their child to parent 1 simply on the fact that parent 1 would give them a better life.

They might make that choice, but they shouldn't be obligated to.

Quote:

Don't know enough about the circumstances to apply it to this situation, kitten.

I'm saying that the child knew the mother first thing, recognized it as its mother, and even though its been with someone else for 6 months (they should've just handed the child over then) the child will be just fine with its biological parents.

Just because a couple loves a child doens't mean they have claims to that child.

Quote:

If your parents didn't know who you were, figured they didn't want to deal with you and gave you up for adoption and I adopted you and took care of you, then I should be considered the person who takes care of you, yes.

Person who takes care of me, yes, that'd be what you were doing, but my parent?

And if they decided they wanted me back, should you have to give me back?

[The Tonberry]

Fairly simple O.o who is more responsible?

The birth mother has made several irresponsible choices, and so therefore isn't trust worthy of having her child back.



The child comes first. I'd say he would be safer with the adoptive parents. I don't know why I thought otherwise.