Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Forums » GAIA Community » Extended Discussion
<3 </3

Who should adopt the child?

The homosexual couple. 0.625 62.5% [ 45 ]
The heterosexual couple. 0.055555555555556 5.6% [ 4 ]
The single woman. 0.083333333333333 8.3% [ 6 ]
The single father. 0.125 12.5% [ 9 ]
No one. 0.11111111111111 11.1% [ 8 ]
Total Votes:[ 72 ]
Reply
< 1 2 3 4 5 >

Offline
Yoshpet
Lucky~9~Lives
The20
Enkidu Awakened
3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.
Psych evaluation and income aside, does she actually have the time to raise a child?


Are you going to argue maternity leave rights with a six-figure annual income female lawyer?


Maternity leave? Nobody's giving birth in this scenario.


They needn't, at least not in my nation.

Offline
Yoshpet
Lucky~9~Lives
The20
Enkidu Awakened
3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.
Psych evaluation and income aside, does she actually have the time to raise a child?


Are you going to argue maternity leave rights with a six-figure annual income female lawyer?


Maternity leave? Nobody's giving birth in this scenario.


Take it up with the lawyer.
- talk2hand

Offline
Lucky~9~Lives
The20
Enkidu Awakened
3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.
Psych evaluation and income aside, does she actually have the time to raise a child?


Are you going to argue maternity leave rights with a six-figure annual income female lawyer?
Maternity leave for adoption? Also, maternity leave is how long, 2 months? A year tops? A kid requires attention for a little longer than that.

Tipsy Man-Lover

Offline
Fermionic
Enkidu Awakened
Fermionic
Enkidu Awakened
Fermionic


Then each of them, who had previously been only marginally above the poverty line, will now have only 50% of their collective assets each, so presumably would be below said poverty line (especially after considering legal fees).

Would you say that, together, despite their marital conflicts, which have not noticeably affected their previously adopted children (who have made improvements since their adoption by these parents), these two parents have the capacity to successfully raise the child?

Say that they were separated or divorced even after they adopted the child and handled the divorced maturely and in a way that did not adversely affect their children (who remain in their joint custody). How would this affect your decision?

Which is the more influencing factor here? Is it the instability of their marriage or their income?

By the way, I'm just seeing how far I can take this. I did not create this thread with the intention of supporting a specific side.


Perhaps you mistake my point for "I find 1, 3, and 4 the only ones capable of raising a child at all". That is not the case, I'm sure two people with marriage problems could technically raise a child. However, quality of life wise, the care two poor people with marriage problems would be, to my mind, below that of either 1, 3, or 4.

If one of your provisions is "They could provide an equal quality of life", as your increasing number of qualifiers seems to be implying, then by all means this couple will be included in my short list. Your question, however, was to judge the situations for ourselves. A continual shift of the goal posts is, regardless of whatever you assert about your intentions to the contrary, suspect.

If income is a factor, why would you include 4? The income for 1 and 3 is greater.

You said that you would put 1, 3, and 4 in a hat and draw randomly, but 4 does not have the strength of qualifiers of 1 and 3 if income is the deciding factor for eliminating 2.

I'm not choosing a side. I'm just asking questions. ninja


Money is not a deciding factor, so long as they can provide what is required, economically. The issue with two is that their finances are on the knife-edge of acceptability, and intrinsically tied to their unstable marriage, which I'm sure I have clearly presented as the issue all along.

How can we be so sure that the gay marriage will not last as long, though? If your main deciding factor is the stability of the marriage, how do we know that 1 is a viable option? The gay couple has only been for one year. Is that enough time for us to know that their marriage will last?

Unless income is a deciding factor, in which case, 1 is a more viable option because of their ability to support the child in the event of their divorce.

Aged Codger

9,675 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Destroyer of Cuteness 150
Offline
I choose option 5 'cause me alignment tis (probably) Neutral (definitely) Evil and from what I've heard fosta' care tis horrid

Tipsy Man-Lover

Offline
Kaptain K Rool
I choose option 5 'cause me alignment tis (probably) Neutral (definitely) Evil and from what I've heard fosta' care tis horrid

rofl

Offline
The20
Lucky~9~Lives
The20
Enkidu Awakened
3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.
Psych evaluation and income aside, does she actually have the time to raise a child?


Are you going to argue maternity leave rights with a six-figure annual income female lawyer?
Maternity leave for adoption? Also, maternity leave is how long, 2 months? A year tops?


Depends on the legal negotiations involved.

Aged Codger

9,675 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Destroyer of Cuteness 150
Offline
Enkidu Awakened
Kaptain K Rool
I choose option 5 'cause me alignment tis (probably) Neutral (definitely) Evil and from what I've heard fosta' care tis horrid

rofl
Think 'bout it, probably more likely ta' become a criminal and have genaral disdain fer people and th' world around 'em

Has more potential ta' spread more evil. They might even become one o' them politicians!

Offline
Enkidu Awakened
Fermionic
Enkidu Awakened
Fermionic
Enkidu Awakened
Fermionic


Then each of them, who had previously been only marginally above the poverty line, will now have only 50% of their collective assets each, so presumably would be below said poverty line (especially after considering legal fees).

Would you say that, together, despite their marital conflicts, which have not noticeably affected their previously adopted children (who have made improvements since their adoption by these parents), these two parents have the capacity to successfully raise the child?

Say that they were separated or divorced even after they adopted the child and handled the divorced maturely and in a way that did not adversely affect their children (who remain in their joint custody). How would this affect your decision?

Which is the more influencing factor here? Is it the instability of their marriage or their income?

By the way, I'm just seeing how far I can take this. I did not create this thread with the intention of supporting a specific side.


Perhaps you mistake my point for "I find 1, 3, and 4 the only ones capable of raising a child at all". That is not the case, I'm sure two people with marriage problems could technically raise a child. However, quality of life wise, the care two poor people with marriage problems would be, to my mind, below that of either 1, 3, or 4.

If one of your provisions is "They could provide an equal quality of life", as your increasing number of qualifiers seems to be implying, then by all means this couple will be included in my short list. Your question, however, was to judge the situations for ourselves. A continual shift of the goal posts is, regardless of whatever you assert about your intentions to the contrary, suspect.

If income is a factor, why would you include 4? The income for 1 and 3 is greater.

You said that you would put 1, 3, and 4 in a hat and draw randomly, but 4 does not have the strength of qualifiers of 1 and 3 if income is the deciding factor for eliminating 2.

I'm not choosing a side. I'm just asking questions. ninja


Money is not a deciding factor, so long as they can provide what is required, economically. The issue with two is that their finances are on the knife-edge of acceptability, and intrinsically tied to their unstable marriage, which I'm sure I have clearly presented as the issue all along.

How can we be so sure that the gay marriage will not last as long, though? If your main deciding factor is the stability of the marriage, how do we know that 1 is a viable option? The gay couple has only been for one year. Is that enough time for us to know that their marriage will last?

Unless income is a deciding factor, in which case, 1 is a more viable option because of their ability to support the child in the event of their divorce.


In real adoption scenarios, relationships are assessed for stability. If there is nothing wrong, that is fine; any qualms about future stability are not judged, because if such concerns were evident, it would impact upon the current quality.

It's not about being sure, it's about current functionality. That is all that can be assessed, considering that they are magic-time-agencies.

Offline
Enkidu Awakened
The20
Enkidu Awakened
3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.
Psych evaluation and income aside, does she actually have the time to raise a child? You know, that's kinda the point of foster care. That and getting them out of orphanages so the statistics look better.

Edit: Wait a minute, how cn she be a mother and never have raised a child? This is ... this isn't looking good.

She could afford a nanny.
So she pays someone else to adopt and take care of a child. Ok.

Tipsy Man-Lover

Offline
Fermionic
Enkidu Awakened
Fermionic
Enkidu Awakened
Fermionic


Perhaps you mistake my point for "I find 1, 3, and 4 the only ones capable of raising a child at all". That is not the case, I'm sure two people with marriage problems could technically raise a child. However, quality of life wise, the care two poor people with marriage problems would be, to my mind, below that of either 1, 3, or 4.

If one of your provisions is "They could provide an equal quality of life", as your increasing number of qualifiers seems to be implying, then by all means this couple will be included in my short list. Your question, however, was to judge the situations for ourselves. A continual shift of the goal posts is, regardless of whatever you assert about your intentions to the contrary, suspect.

If income is a factor, why would you include 4? The income for 1 and 3 is greater.

You said that you would put 1, 3, and 4 in a hat and draw randomly, but 4 does not have the strength of qualifiers of 1 and 3 if income is the deciding factor for eliminating 2.

I'm not choosing a side. I'm just asking questions. ninja


Money is not a deciding factor, so long as they can provide what is required, economically. The issue with two is that their finances are on the knife-edge of acceptability, and intrinsically tied to their unstable marriage, which I'm sure I have clearly presented as the issue all along.

How can we be so sure that the gay marriage will not last as long, though? If your main deciding factor is the stability of the marriage, how do we know that 1 is a viable option? The gay couple has only been for one year. Is that enough time for us to know that their marriage will last?

Unless income is a deciding factor, in which case, 1 is a more viable option because of their ability to support the child in the event of their divorce.


In real adoption scenarios, relationships are assessed for stability. If there is nothing wrong, that is fine; any qualms about future stability are not judged, because if such concerns were evident, it would impact upon the current quality.

It's not about being sure, it's about current functionality. That is all that can be assessed, considering that they are magic-time-agencies.

If this is the case, would neither 1 nor 2 be as viable as 3 and 4 due to how stable the situation would appear? 3 and 4 have adequate incomes and do not seem to be changing in family make-up any time soon.

Tipsy Man-Lover

Offline
The20
Enkidu Awakened
The20
Enkidu Awakened
3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.
Psych evaluation and income aside, does she actually have the time to raise a child? You know, that's kinda the point of foster care. That and getting them out of orphanages so the statistics look better.

Edit: Wait a minute, how cn she be a mother and never have raised a child? This is ... this isn't looking good.

She could afford a nanny.
So she pays someone else to adopt and take care of a child. Ok.

So time to raise the child is an important factor to you?

Generous Friend

Offline
Enkidu Awakened
You're a social worker, and you must decide on one of five fates for a child in the foster car system. The baby is now approximately one year old. The baby's parents died in a car accident five weeks after it was born.

1) You may allow a homosexual couple who possesses a combined six-digit figure annual income to adopt the child. They have been married for approximately one year. This couple has never had children, but after a psych eval, they have shown to be acceptable candidates to raise a child. One of the parents is a Buddhist, and one of them is an atheist.

2) You may allow a heterosexual couple with an income just above the poverty level to adopt the child. They have adopted two previous children. The children they have adopted were previously in abusive families and had many behavioral problems. One is eighteen and about to graduate high school while the other is struggling through middle school but still making acceptable marks. Psych evals of the couple have shown their marriage to be somewhat dysfunctional but overall no danger to the child because of the way they handle their disagreements in front of their children. They are Catholic.

3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.

4) You may allow a single father to raise a child. His wife died ten years ago, and he has a nineteen year-old daughter who was valedictorian of her high school and now attends college on scholarships. The father receives an income of approximately $45,000 annually. His psych eval has shown him to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. He is Protestant.

5) You may allow the child to remain in the foster care system until it reaches the age of eighteen.

Which option do you choose and why?


Possibly 1 Considering they'd pose no threat and have enough resources to take care of the child, And you left an open enough margin for the implication that they may or may not have friends that have had a child/children to ask for advice.

2: No, Not enough Resources and it doesn't quite really matter about the minor instability in the marriage seeing as how from personal stance I think I turned out to be a decent human being possibly... It'd be easier for a child to be raised with enough resources. That's my main thing for turning down #2 Granted the instability in the marriage could teach the child through life that everything isn't all rainbows and puppy-cats.

3: Enough Resources but Not Enough Time to dedicate to the child, So unfortunately she would be declined in my book; If you want to adopt a child and are single and plan to raise it on your own in my perspective that implies you plan to take care of it Personally and develop a bond with it and not nanny-it-out or leave it with family.

4: Not enough information given on employment status to determine time to dedicate to the child, Resources are iffy so it'd be a To Be Determined basis.

5: Seek Alternate Options.

Offline
Enkidu Awakened
You're a social worker, and you must decide on one of five fates for a child in the foster car system. The baby is now approximately one year old. The baby's parents died in a car accident five weeks after it was born.
1) You may allow a homosexual couple who possesses a combined six-digit figure annual income to adopt the child. They have been married for approximately one year. This couple has never had children, but after a psych eval, they have shown to be acceptable candidates to raise a child. One of the parents is a Buddhist, and one of them is an atheist.
2) You may allow a heterosexual couple with an income just above the poverty level to adopt the child. They have adopted two previous children. The children they have adopted were previously in abusive families and had many behavioral problems. One is eighteen and about to graduate high school while the other is struggling through middle school but still making acceptable marks. Psych evals of the couple have shown their marriage to be somewhat dysfunctional but overall no danger to the child because of the way they handle their disagreements in front of their children. They are Catholic.
3) You may allow a single woman to adopt the child. The single mother is a lawyer and receives a six-digit figure annual income. She has never raised a child, but her psych eval has shown her to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. She is an atheist.
4) You may allow a single father to raise a child. His wife died ten years ago, and he has a nineteen year-old daughter who was valedictorian of her high school and now attends college on scholarships. The father receives an income of approximately $45,000 annually. His psych eval has shown him to be an acceptable candidate to raise a child. He is Protestant.
5) You may allow the child to remain in the foster care system until it reaches the age of eighteen.

Which option do you choose and why?

I can't pick any of them... not for a one-year-old. But leaving the child in the system is unthinkable; therefore, I pick a sixth option: the population of Irkutsk, Russia, as a collective entity. Though constrained to the options, #1 is most likely.

#1's concern is this. What are the incomes, and who's giving up the income to full-time the kid? And are both parents all right with this decision? (Even ignoring future possibilities, I think these need to be known as an effect on the psych-eval in the present.)

#2 has the double problem of being near-poverty and having what sounds like ~a 6th grader (who needs background details, especially being originally from a problem family) Never mind the dysfunction within the family itself.

A vote for #3 may as well be a vote for the population of Irkutsk; because at least the kid would actually be raised by the chosen parent and become a good tovarisch. Even if the kid started older, it'd still be raised more by an au pair than a parent. Successful lawyering isn't a 9-5 job, after all.

#4 had his wife alive for the first nine years of his daughter's life; that's a CRITICAL difference in evaluating him. He won't have time to raise an infant on his own while still having a $45k income - and may be too old (likely early 40s) to make significant adjustments on that front. I can't imagine that he would count his daughter as a potential resource in the effort -- she has a choice of bright futures ahead of her, and becoming mother to her adopted baby sibling should not become a cloud.

----

And yes, time to raise the child is CRITICAL when dealing with an infant. It's pretty much a 24/7 on-call profession.

Hallowed Hunter

Offline
Honestly you can't really decide who should raise a kid based on a series of bullet points. You'd need to meet these hypothetical people in person and get a feel for them.

That said, I'll humour you;

1. Is the only real option. There are two parents, so one or the other should always be available to care for the child, and they have more than enough money.

2. I don't know who in their right mind would give another kid to a people who are in a somewhat syfunctional marriage, on the brink of poverty, AND still have at least one other dependant to look after already.
Also, since none else took the bait, I might as well; No, I wouldn't give a baby to Catholics unless I was certain they had no intention of raising it Catholic. No Baptism, no First Communion, non of it.

3. Doesn't have the time to look after an infant. If the kid was older, sure. Ability to hire a nanny doesn't add any points in her favour.

4. Again, doesn't have the time to look after an infant. And his income is too low. It's possible his daughter excelled primarily on her own merits, not necessarily because of him.
Gaia Forums » GAIA Community » Extended Discussion

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
More
Get GCash
Offers
More
Get Items
More Items
More
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
  • Guilds
    fan clubs for the stuff you love
  • Chat
    chat in real time with other Gaian's
  • Art Arenas
    browse & rate gaian art galleries
  • Clans
    play zOMG with others
More
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
More
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
More
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum
More