Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why is it when adoption is involved...

Everything should be "the birthmothers choice" down to visitations, what race the couple should be, how many pictures a months she wants etc. But when a family member (mostly grandparents) wants to adopt and she declines and chooses a non related people to adopt her child all of a sudden THEY should have rights to adopt and its NOT their child and all of a sudden her choices don't matter? (i understand legally they DO matter and the gparents have no say, but I'm asking why do people feel like grandparents should be able to adopt when it is NOT the birthparents choice of parents for HER child?)

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 2:23 PM on Jan. 19, 2009 in Adoption

This question is closed.
Answers (20)
  • birthfamily period. mother, father, whatever. The bottom line is that no one is "entitled" to someone elses child.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:04 PM on Jan. 21, 2009

  • I think most people assume a child is better off with their biological family then in a new family is all. Im not saying its right or wrong, just saying thats probably how many people think.
    gemgem

    Answer by gemgem at 2:26 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • I don't believe a child is automatically better off in the family because they share some dna. I've read posts on here where there were kinship adoptions and they turned out just as bad if not worse because there is more than one relationship at stake.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:31 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • I believe it is the bio mothers/fathers choice no matter who they want to pick. (I hate that bio-dad's never seem to be mentioned) In fact, in the event that my husband and I both were to die, our daughter is going to live with my sister and her husband. We would NEVER want her raised by my husbands parents. I agree, blood doesn't mean anything sometimes.
    RentaMom

    Answer by RentaMom at 4:17 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • I agree with SOME of the equations, however the ultimate decision is for the mother to make. It is believed, in MOST cases, if the mother cannot parent the child , in the long run, mentally and socially is best for the child to be raised with relatives. This aleviates the child from not KNOWING whom they are. Adoption is only best for a child in the case a mother cannot protect her child either from herself or others who may bring harm, i.e.- drugs, abuse,neglect etc.,etc. A child should always have the right to know their family. When we relinquish, we do so blindly , in the way we are only promising a DIFFERENT life..not a better one.
    ceejay1

    Answer by ceejay1 at 6:46 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • Ceejay so you are making the blanket statement that everyone relinquishes "blindly"?
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:36 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • Honestly, I think you're mistaken. If a woman is relinquishing voluntarily, then she and only she gets to chose. The only other person that has rights to the child is it's father. The grandparents have no say in the adoption.


    What you may be thinking of is when CPS terminates the mothers rights. In that case they will look for someone in the birth family to raise that child because they CPS that it's best for the child to stay in it's birth family whenever possible.

    onethentwins

    Answer by onethentwins at 7:58 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • As for the question asked....
    It is in the child's best interest to be raised within their biological family (outside of abuse, neglect, drugs, or just flat out being unable or unwilling to take the child). Most of the reasons a mother chooses a non related couple, she is doing so because she cannot bear the thought of SEEING her child being raised by someone else, which is pretty selfish. Her concerns and worries over-riding what is essentially the best interest of her child. I know many will disagree with me, but when a mother chooses stranger adoption over family, most of the time she is choosing her own best interest over the child's.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:03 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • Anon 4:36, I actually agree with Ceejay on the "surrendering blindly" issue. We don't know the people we are entrusting our children to. Not even with that accursed pre-birth matching, you can never know a person well enough unless you've grown up with them. And then you're expected to have faith that the people you trust to raise your child are as good as you hope? If that's not relinquishing blindly, I don't know what is.
    randi1978

    Answer by randi1978 at 8:05 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

  • Thats not what I asked. I asked if that was a blanket statement. That ALL birthmothers surrender blindly.
    And I'm not mistaken. I'm talking about a voluntary relinquishment. Where every one is up in arm about the mother CHOOSING another family to raise her child and the family is upset when it should onlybe her choice in the first place. just because its family? Thats not a good enough reason.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:18 PM on Jan. 19, 2009

close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN