# HAPPY update to "Would you let her keep the child"



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Grandma just stopped by with good news!

Her grand daughter gave up her baby for adoption to a family that she chose. An elementary school P.E teacher and her husband They have adopted two other boys and the new baby will have brothers. The teenager is very excited to have been able to choose the family.

She picked the family she most wished she had grown up in, and wanted that for her child. (tissues please)

Everybody is pleased with her choice.

The teenager WILL be going to a group home in a few weeks, she is in a juvenile hall facility right now. Then she's off to a girl's home that is waaaaaaay across town, so she and her boyfriend will not be able to see each other for a while.

I hope this is the help she needs.


----------



## txgal (Jul 16, 2003)

It sounds like the baby will get the loving and stable home that she deserves. I hope the teen mom gets the same too. Such difficult decisions that no "child" should have to make.


----------



## Jessy1019 (Aug 6, 2006)

I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.


Perhaps we can split the difference and call it bitter sweet. We know nothing about how open or closed the adoption is nor the girl's feeling towards it. One can hope that this is at least a new beginning for the young mother (once a mommy, always a mommy in my book...) and gentle, stable and loving home for the baby


----------



## cmhotzler (May 29, 2005)

I think that is wonderful. As sad as it might seem, that child couldn't raise a baby in a healthy enviroment-regardless of how much she loves the child etc. To say that it sounds sad is just plain mean. The baby is going to a
MUCH healthier place, the birth mom is delighted with the family and now she has a chance to grow up and become a healthy adult. Just because the baby is not raised with her doesn't mean it is sad. Just because the birth mom is there, it doesn't mean she is qualified for the job. Good for her to have the strength to let go!


----------



## moonbeem (Sep 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.









:


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
The teenager is very excited to have been able to choose the family.

She picked the family she most wished she had grown up in, and wanted that for her child.

That's the part that pushes it to the happy side.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.

ReallY? I don't see how you can say that. If she continues to raise her child, when she herself can't even get her own life together, what kind of life would this baby have? (The baby's life is important too) He would be about four-ish when Mom ages out of foster care. Then where would they go?

You have to remember, this teenager's entire family is a complete mess. There is NOBODY to take this girl and her son in. Sure, there should be somobody who can fix her problems... but, life doesn't work that way.

So, this way, she is in a secured facility for at least a few weeks or months. When she leaves there, she will go to a girls home, where there is at least a little security. She will have a lot less opportunity to sneak out.

She doesn't belong in foster care. She needs a locked door to keep her safe inside. Hopefully this will give her a chance to focus on recreating herself. When she leaves, she can be whoever she has decided she wants to be.

I am not saying it will be a wonderful experience and she will come out of it ready for college. But, I hope it is a good experience, and I hope she can continue her education. At least high school. (she needs to re-do 8th grade)

As for the baby, he has a stable family who WANTS him. She teaches P.E and is home with all three boys during the summer. He will have a good life, I am sure of it. His mother CHOSE them out of many choices. She wanted them.

I think this is one of the first mature, loving choices she has made, and I am proud of her.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.

I agree. It's too bad the teacher couldn't have adopted the teenager and let her keep her own baby (helping her raise the child, but not taking over). Now THAT would have been a happy update.


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

I feel bad for the teen mom. It seems like everyone who wants to adopt wants a baby, not an older child/teen. She must feel a total sense of loss by giving up her baby, and not being adopted herself. However, I am glad that the teen mom got to choose the adoptive parents of the baby. At least she had *some* say in the matter. Was she heavily pressured into putting up her baby for adoption, I wonder? Poor mom also now can't see her bf, who is/was probably her only support.







: I hope that the baby has a good life growing up. I really hope that the mom gets some help so she can have a somewhat normal life, too.


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
I agree. It's too bad the teacher couldn't have adopted the teenager and let her keep her own baby (helping her raise the child, but not taking over). Now THAT would have been a happy update.


_that's what would of been happy...i don't see anyone "giving up" their child being a happy thing...maybe i'm jaded b/c i've read about forced adoption..._


----------



## Jessy1019 (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
ReallY? I don't see how you can say that.

I say it because I believe that both the mother and her child will experience a tremendous amount of pain from being separated from one another. I think it is absolutely tragic that instead of someone taking in both of them, she was forced to surrender (allowing her to choose his new caregivers doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, and I find it hard to believe that she came to the decision to surrender without a lot of pressure).

Quote:

As for the baby, he has a stable family who WANTS him. She teaches P.E and is home with all three boys during the summer. He will have a good life, I am sure of it. His mother CHOSE them out of many choices. She wanted them.
1. According to your original post, his mother wanted him as well.
2. His mother chose these particular adopters out of several options -- but SHE should have been the first and most encouraged choice to raise her own child.
3. This little boy will certainly have a different life, but that doesn't necessarily mean better. All any of us really know is that it will be different, and that he is not off to the best start.


----------



## MomtoEd (Apr 13, 2007)

I don't mean to be confrontational, really I don't, but I'm having enormous amounts of trouble understanding why you would be so anti-adoption. There are too many variables to assume that any situation will automatically be better than another, but I don't think that a mother's love trumps all. (And in this case the mother's love was coupled with a severe lack of focus at best.) The mother chose to place her baby and chose its home. I'm sorry for her loss, but I feel it's likely that stable mature parents will be a better support system for an infant than a little girl would.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

I think it might be helpful to understanding the situation if people would remember what this young mother's actions have been as late. Go back and read the previous thread. I did. We all know how crucial the early years are. Heck, reading through the other thread, it said this is a family cycle. Wonder why? Keeping them together would have been a good thing... IF she was showing any signs of wanting to make better choices. I'm all for trying to keep the mother and baby together but not at all cost.

She sounds like an angry out of control teen with no fathoming of consequences. At 13 with her background, who can blame her. It can be very difficult to help someone who does not want to be helped. Maybe she will pull it together in a few years. How long must her baby wait until she can be well? Would it be better if he was being shuffled through the foster care system? He has now what is said to be a stable home and parents. That's a good thing, no?

Once again, I do think this sounds like it is probably a more open adoption. She picked his intended parents, knows their names and facts about them. I guess I'd like to think it is so she can still have some contact as she matures. This may be the only good choice she's made in awhile, given the circumstances. In this case, adoption maybe the best choice. Not what would be ideal, just maybe as good as it is going to get.


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GooeyRN* 
I feel bad for the teen mom. It seems like everyone who wants to adopt wants a baby, not an older child/teen. She must feel a total sense of loss by giving up her baby, and not being adopted herself. However, I am glad that the teen mom got to choose the adoptive parents of the baby. At least she had *some* say in the matter. Was she heavily pressured into putting up her baby for adoption, I wonder? Poor mom also now can't see her bf, who is/was probably her only support.







: I hope that the baby has a good life growing up. I really hope that the mom gets some help so she can have a somewhat normal life, too.

I agree. Also, I want to point out that not everyone wants to adopt babies or younger kids, we adopted a 17yo (almost finalized)







We actually only wanted school age or older when we were on the foster/adopt journey.


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grisandole* 
I agree. Also, I want to point out that not everyone wants to adopt babies or younger kids, we adopted a 17yo (almost finalized)







We actually only wanted school age or older when we were on the foster/adopt journey.

Cool! You are the first person I *knew* that adopted an older child that wasn't related to them or their dp.


----------



## RiverSky (Jun 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.

I'm leaning towards this side of the fence, too. I'm not anti-adoption at all, but from the original thread, I remember the girl wanting her baby. I don't really see it as her fault that her life is pretty messy, considering what her family is like. It's a shame that she is now severely punished as a result.

Hopefully it is an open adoption and the mother doesn't come to regret this choice in later years.

Best wishes for the baby!!


----------



## jlmack45 (Jun 18, 2007)

I have some things to note and add to this discussion... Some of you are arguing that she should have been able to keep the baby just because it was hers. What were you like at 13? If I were serious about being a parent at that age I would not be sneaking off at night assuming that my great grandmother was looking after my child. My brother is 13 and I worry more about the music that he listens to than I do about him becoming a parent, and we had HORRIBLE parents. Having a bad home life is no excuse for this type of behavior at any age. Another woman pretty much stated that the girl was a mommy and that took precedence over everything. In my opinion you earn the title of mommy. My mother had a similar past and gave birth to me at 16. She was hooked on meth from my birth until 2 years ago. BTW I am 21 now, and have 2 little brothers that she/I "raised" I had to grow up to save my brothers and I was only 7, what is the difference between that and becoming a birth mother at 13. JLM is my birth mother, but the foster mother who took me in is my mom. In my experience when I was put into foster care at age 12 I was given the chance to change and I was given the stable parents that I had always needed. I was a hellion with no boss, but I changed. I would not blame the foster parents for giving up, there is only so much that you can handle. It was up to her to want to change for the sake of herself and her child. If she was continuing to act out then obviously she did not want to change. It sounds like she only wanted to play mommy, but didn't want the responsability. I can understand her needing a lot of support to be able to care for her baby, but stealing her foster parents car to go for a joy ride with a 12 year old?? UNACCEPTABLE







:


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.

This. Thank you.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Yes, it's sad for all concerned, but the baby will get a stable and loving home.

There's a difference between a generic teen keeping a baby and this particular teen - she's a a highly unstable 13 year old (barely a teenager!), with no parenting models, highly angry, and a greater need to fulfill her own needs/desires than care for her baby. Is it her 'fault'? No. But honestly, does she have the capacity to care for this child? how many years of this baby's life should be sacrificed while she gets her act together? Some teens become capable parents. This child (she really is still a child) had the deck stacked completely against her in terms of being a decent parent.

The girl will get a chance to be in a safe environment where she might get enough stability to get a handle on her life. Her child will be in a safe environment where he can grow.

Maybe they will both break the terrible cycle their family has put them in. I can only pray.

I'm having a hard time believing how anti-adoption people are. I know 4 kids who have been adopted through open adoptions. They are in contact with their birth parents occasionally. They have that avenue open. They also have incredibly caring and capable parents who were unable to have biological children.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
The girl will get a chance to be in a safe environment where she might get enough stability to get a handle on her life. Her child will be in a safe environment where he can grow.

Maybe they will both break the terrible cycle their family has put them in. I can only pray.

Yes, I think it will be much easier for her to build her own life without the responsbility of the baby. She deserves a real chance in life. She is just a child herself.

I'm not generalizing this to ALL teen mothers or anthing like that, but based on everything said in the other thread about girl and her situation, I think she is making the best decision she can.

I also think that there is a big difference between wanting a baby, and having any clue what it means to take care of one 24/7.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.









:







:


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
I'm having a hard time believing how anti-adoption people are. I know 4 kids who have been adopted through open adoptions. They are in contact with their birth parents occasionally. They have that avenue open. They also have incredibly caring and capable parents who were unable to have biological children.

I think there's a difference between seeing the sadness in a woman/girl having lived a life such as this girl apparently has, and being pretty much encouraged/forced to give her child up for adoption and being anti-adoption.

It's not anti-adoption to wish there was a way for all parents to raise their children that they want. It's not anti-adoption to think that being young and vulnerable doesn't equate to bad parenting.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RiverSky* 
I'm not anti-adoption at all, but from the original thread, I remember the girl wanting her baby.


Ya know, I want a clean house. Unfortunetly the only way it is going to happen is if I actually DO it. I read through that whole thread again. Op said the girl wanted the baby and refused to give the baby up. Beyond that, all her actions were contrary to caring for herself let alone an infant. I've always thought actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Interesting thread. How many people here think they could have been a good responsible parent at the age of 13? How many people think they could have done so if they'd been an abused kid? How many people think they could have done so without a support system?

I was an incredibly responsible, mature 13 year old who had the benefit of good parenting and a good support system and I would have had no more business having a baby than I would being a neurosurgeon. I can't think of a single 13 year old I've ever met who would be a decent parent. I can say at the age of 30 with maturity, education, resources and support raising a special needs kid has still been an incredible challenge for me.

Is it sad for this girl that she is going through this? Yes. Will it be a loss for her? Sure. It may also end up being a source of pride that she took care of herself and her baby by allowing for adoption. It is a mature choice and there is every reason to think that the baby will have a good life and every reason to hope she will too.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound particularly happy for either of them. It sounds like a terrible loss.

I agree.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Interesting thread. How many people here think they could have been a good responsible parent at the age of 13? How many people think they could have done so if they'd been an abused kid? How many people think they could have done so without a support system?

I was an incredibly responsible, mature 13 year old who had the benefit of good parenting and a good support system and I would have had no more business having a baby than I would being a neurosurgeon. I can't think of a single 13 year old I've ever met who would be a decent parent. I can say at the age of 30 with maturity, education, resources and support raising a special needs kid has still been an incredible challenge for me.

Is it sad for this girl that she is going through this? Yes. Will it be a loss for her? Sure. It may also end up being a source of pride that she took care of herself and her baby by allowing for adoption. It is a mature choice and there is every reason to think that the baby will have a good life and every reason to hope she will too.


Wow. You realize there are mothers ON THESE BOARDS who post here almost daily who HAVE had their children at damn close to 13. I know a couple of them had them at 14 and 15. Are you saying they aren't or weren't "decent" parents then? Or that they are now, but only because they are close to , in their, 30's now?

What is with the idea that age somehow makes or breaks a parent? I know plenty of crappy 30-40 year old parents. Should they all be "suggested" to give their baby up for adoption? Or would that be rude since they are married, and educated? Is it only the married and educated people with great support systems that should be allowed to keep their children?

Honestly, I'm just really flabbergasted by your entire post.


----------



## maria20 (Jun 26, 2007)

yeah it's good that there is someone to look after teh baby but you should not rely on them completely. the girl need to check on if they are giving the love that the baby needs


----------



## jlmack45 (Jun 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki* 
Wow. You realize there are mothers ON THESE BOARDS who post here almost daily who HAVE had their children at damn close to 13. I know a couple of them had them at 14 and 15. Are you saying they aren't or weren't "decent" parents then? Or that they are now, but only because they are close to , in their, 30's now?

What is with the idea that age somehow makes or breaks a parent? I know plenty of crappy 30-40 year old parents. Should they all be "suggested" to give their baby up for adoption? Or would that be rude since they are married, and educated? Is it only the married and educated people with great support systems that should be allowed to keep their children?

Honestly, I'm just really flabbergasted by your entire post.

Ok, since obviously there are women here that were young mothers let me ask them. When you had your child did you sneak off at night leaving the baby unattended assuming that someone else ( who did not know that you were gone) was watching them? If you were sent to a place that was supposed to provide help and support (FC) would you take advantage of those people and do as you pleased leaving your baby, that you wanted so badly, behind? It would be different if the girl had seriously stepped up to the role of a parent, but she didn't. If you are mature enough to have sex then you had better be mature enough to handle all consequences. Wanting your baby is not enough, you have to make an effort to attempt to provide care for it.


----------



## rabrog (Dec 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmhotzler* 
I think that is wonderful. As sad as it might seem, that child couldn't raise a baby in a healthy enviroment-regardless of how much she loves the child etc. To say that it sounds sad is just plain mean. The baby is going to a
MUCH healthier place, the birth mom is delighted with the family and now she has a chance to grow up and become a healthy adult. Just because the baby is not raised with her doesn't mean it is sad. Just because the birth mom is there, it doesn't mean she is qualified for the job. Good for her to have the strength to let go!

I totally agree with this. A mother is not a mother just because she produced a baby.

Jenn


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Having read the other thread, I agree that this was the best possible outcome.







I hope the young mama gets a chance to get herself together and finish growing up, and I hope the baby gets a stable, reassuring sense of home, and a chance to really break the cycle.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jlmack45* 
Ok, since obviously there are women here that were young mothers let me ask them. When you had your child did you sneak off at night leaving the baby unattended assuming that someone else ( who did not know that you were gone) was watching them? If you were sent to a place that was supposed to provide help and support (FC) would you take advantage of those people and do as you pleased leaving your baby, that you wanted so badly, behind? It would be different if the girl had seriously stepped up to the role of a parent, but she didn't. If you are mature enough to have sex then you had better be mature enough to handle all consequences. Wanting your baby is not enough, you have to make an effort to attempt to provide care for it.

That would be fine. I have a SIL who is an awful mother. We offered to adopt her 1st child since she wasn't up to stop partying and she liked the idea of mom, but really, she's a sh!tty mother.

She does infact leave her kids for days at a time in the middle of the night at some friend or relative's house that she's crashed at with no formula and no diapers. She's had the kids taken from her more than once. Thankfully she's not had tubal, and the family no longer has to cringe about her getting pregnant for a 4th time.

Do I say that all 16-21 yr olds couldn't possibly parent? No because that would be ridiculous. My husband's cousin had her 1st baby at 16 and got married. She is a fabulous mother despite being treated horribly by many people and medical professionals.

Roar said:

Quote:

I can't think of a single 13 year old I've ever met who would be a decent parent.
This and the fact that her entire post came off as of COURSE some one else is entitled to this young woman's baby is what I took offense to. It was agist, and more than just a little bit classist.

Was THIS girl a great mother? No. She didn't really have a great mother role model either though did she? Is is a happy occurance? Well maybe when you look at it on the continuum of the crappy outcomes that COULD have happened.


----------



## Kailey's mom (Apr 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
I agree. It's too bad the teacher couldn't have adopted the teenager and let her keep her own baby (helping her raise the child, but not taking over). Now THAT would have been a happy update.









:


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes* 
Having read the other thread, I agree that this was the best possible outcome.







I hope the young mama gets a chance to get herself together and finish growing up, and I hope the baby gets a stable, reassuring sense of home, and a chance to really break the cycle.

I agree. The anti-adoption tone on this thread is really upsetting


----------



## a_work_in_progress (May 17, 2006)

Odds are she's going to go AWOL and get knocked up again within a year.

I used to live in childrens homes/group homes. I got pregnant at 16. I lived in a group home that's for pregnant and parenting teens. That lasted all of 2 weeks. Those places are HORRIBLE. Group homes ARE NOT the answer. You've heard the saying "One bad apple spoils the bunch"? Yeah, that's the case in group homes. One bad kid will influence the low-self-esteemed, abused/neglected, naive kids.

The best thing is one on one attention, but unfortunately the resources are unavailable.

I wonder, why wasn't the boyfriend allowed to visit? Why was she in trouble for having a lighter? A lot of times teens become defiant because they don't see the point in certail rules. If she was 18, she's be allowed to have her boyfriend over whenever she'd like. If she was 18, she'd be allowed to carry a lighter and nobody would think anything of it. She probably figured having a baby would grant her immediate respect in that she'd be able to do what adults do without being hassled.

Sounds to me like she has had inconsistant rules, ranging from overly permissive to overly restrictive.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
I agree. The anti-adoption tone on this thread is really upsetting









We're all entitled to our opinions.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *a_work_in_progress* 
Odds are she's going to go AWOL and get knocked up again within a year.

I used to live in childrens homes/group homes. I got pregnant at 16. I lived in a group home that's for pregnant and parenting teens. That lasted all of 2 weeks. Those places are HORRIBLE. Group homes ARE NOT the answer. You've heard the saying "One bad apple spoils the bunch"? Yeah, that's the case in group homes. One bad kid will influence the low-self-esteemed, abused/neglected, naive kids.

The best thing is one on one attention, but unfortunately the resources are unavailable.

I wonder, why wasn't the boyfriend allowed to visit? Why was she in trouble for having a lighter? A lot of times teens become defiant because they don't see the point in certail rules. If she was 18, she's be allowed to have her boyfriend over whenever she'd like. If she was 18, she'd be allowed to carry a lighter and nobody would think anything of it. She probably figured having a baby would grant her immediate respect in that she'd be able to do what adults do without being hassled.

Sounds to me like she has had inconsistant rules, ranging from overly permissive to overly restrictive.









:

I was pg at 16, had dd at 17. I was very responsible. Stayed home with her and cleaned my mother's house for board so I could finish my last hs class and bf her. Nobody else raised her, not even her "father". My cousin helped babysit her when I went to class for less than an hour a day a couple times a week.

It really depends on the person for how young pregnancies turn out, I know. I know one girl who had her first at age 12 by a much older (20+) man who disappeared and has had a heck of a life. I got lucky and I was ready because I had already been through so much and raised my brothers. I wish someone could be there personally for this girl and give her a hand.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
We're all entitled to our opinions.

Yes, we are. I find the anti-keeping-baby-with-mama tone really upsetting. I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.

Have you read The Primal Wound? Fascinating book.


----------



## sparklefairy (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jlmack45* 
Ok, since obviously there are women here that were young mothers let me ask them. When you had your child did you sneak off at night leaving the baby unattended assuming that someone else ( who did not know that you were gone) was watching them? If you were sent to a place that was supposed to provide help and support (FC) would you take advantage of those people and do as you pleased leaving your baby, that you wanted so badly, behind? It would be different if the girl had seriously stepped up to the role of a parent, but she didn't. If you are mature enough to have sex then you had better be mature enough to handle all consequences. Wanting your baby is not enough, you have to make an effort to attempt to provide care for it.

I agree. This is beyond neglect and into abandonment. I don't understand how it can be argued that _this_ mom should be parenting with this record. I married this child's baby. I wish that he had been adopted much sooner than he was and allowed to bond with a stable, responsible parent rather than moved in and out of her care repeatedly while she pulled lame stunts like that. What it can do to a person is disturbing and our children are indirect victims as well.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sparklefairy* 
I agree. This is beyond neglect and into abandonment. I don't understand how it can be argued that _this_ mom should be parenting with this record.









:

Please don't think I am anti-keeping-baby-with-mama. I am only anti-keeping-baby-with-_this_-mama.

As for not having a lighter, if she was at a normal junior high, they just aren't allowed. I can not think of a ligetimate (never could spell!) reason why a student would need one in junior high school. Can you? Sure if she was 18 she would be allowed to have a boyfriend. She is not 18 though. She is 13 and her b/f's mom is so upset she is thinking of pressing sexual abuse charges against the 13 year old.

I do not get the feeling that she would harm the baby on purpose. To me it sounds like she was being neglectful in her responsibilities to him. That can have devastating effects on an infant. Isn't that why we sling, feed on demand, don't cio and so on. She is not done being a wild child. She needs help. But how do you help someone who does not want to be helped? I keep coming back to the eternal question of how long must a baby wait for his mother to actually mother him? I really don't know the answer. It just seems in this case, while far from an ideal outcome, the baby being adopted is not a bad thing.


----------



## pumpkinyum (Mar 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
I agree. The anti-adoption tone on this thread is really upsetting










I agree.







: Bizzaro. Sure, she's 13, can't even take care of herself--but give her a kid, cause it's the NATURAL thing to do!







:


----------



## kwren23 (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
I agree. The anti-adoption tone on this thread is really upsetting









i totally agree.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yes, we are. I find the anti-keeping-baby-with-mama tone really upsetting. I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.

Have you read The Primal Wound? Fascinating book.

thismama, i am curious. are you adopted? because you sound very very bitter and i cant imagine why this would bother you so much if you werent adopted and speaking from firsthand experience. if you are an adoptee i am very sorry you had such an obviously negative experience.

there are a lot of adoptees who feel very blessed that thier biological parents loved them enough to find them a stable happy home with parents who loved and cared for them in a way thier biological parent was incapable of doing at the time, even with support.


----------



## anubis (Oct 6, 2006)

The whole theory of The Primal Wound (as I understand it, I haven't read the book but have read quite a bit about it online) is that if a child is separated from his or her mother at the beginning of life, when still in the primal relationship to her, he or she experiences not only a loss of the mother, but also a loss of self, right?

Didn't mother in this particular case already inflict that wound by not being there for the baby? Is it really more important that the mother be the guardian if she doesn't actually do any mothering? She was given the chance to take care of the baby while in foster care. She left the baby for the foster parents to take care of while she sneaked out joyriding. Does the primal wound actually come from guardianship on paper? Or does it come from not being with mother? Would it really be more beneficial for the child to be in that situation, separated from the mother (by her own choice, no less), yet not having a stable parent-figure to take care of him?

I don't yet know what I think of the primal wound theory. I will have to read the book. But from what I gather, in this particular case, the damage would already be done. Can being a mother in the eyes of the law, yet separating yourself from the baby, really be enough to heal that wound? Or would the damage be minimised if the baby at least got a set of constant caregivers?

To me, the way it was handled sounds like the best it can get. Of course it's not ideal. But I can't think of a better way to handle it, the situation being what it is.

And, FTR, I don't give a toss whether the girl's 13 or 33, if you're neglecting your child, something needs to change. And in this particular instance, I honestly don't know what else could have been done.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yes, we are. I find the anti-keeping-baby-with-mama tone really upsetting. I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.

Very well said.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinyum* 
I agree.







: Bizzaro. Sure, she's 13, can't even take care of herself--but give her a kid, cause it's the NATURAL thing to do!







:

Nobody _*gave*_ her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH, and then the young mother could have moved out on her own with the child when she had her full act together (and graduated from school, etc.)

I'm all for adopting orphans. But this baby already had a mother.

This book completely changed the way I look at adoptions:

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Who-Went...2991729&sr=1-2


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Nobody _*gave*_ her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH, and then the young mother could have moved out on her own with the child when she had her full act together (and graduated from school, etc.)

I agree.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Nobody _*gave*_ her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH,


Saying that a teacher was looking out for her own benefit is not reasonable. She has taken on a lifelong responsibility to love and raise a child, and should not be reprimanded for not taking on a troubled teenager as well. People take on as much as they can handle. It sure is easy to judge from the sidelines.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki* 
Wow. You realize there are mothers ON THESE BOARDS who post here almost daily who HAVE had their children at damn close to 13. I know a couple of them had them at 14 and 15. Are you saying they aren't or weren't "decent" parents then? Or that they are now, but only because they are close to , in their, 30's now?

I'm saying exactly what I said. I have not met a 13 year old who would be a good parent. Kids deserve a lot in this world and one of the many things they deserve is to be raised by someone who has the emotional, physical and financial resources to do a good job taking care of them. Clearly this girl isn't ready for that.

If the 13 year old moms want to speak up for themselves I'm eager to hear to hear all about their experiences especially if they had no support system. I'd also love to hear from parents who have adopted.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki* 
What is with the idea that age somehow makes or breaks a parent? I know plenty of crappy 30-40 year old parents. Should they all be "suggested" to give their baby up for adoption? Or would that be rude since they are married, and educated? Is it only the married and educated people with great support systems that should be allowed to keep their children?

There are plenty of 30 and 40 year olds who have no business having kids too and yes their kids lives probably would be better if they considered adoption. Merely getting pregnant and carrying a baby does not make a person capable of being a parent. And, I'll mention one group that gives kids up for adoption are women who are older who kept a baby or babies young. Many realize better what is involved and realize their limitations.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Who-Went...2991729&sr=1-2

As the book title says IN THE DECADES before Roe v. Wade and that was in the early 70s. You can base your view of adoption on what happened fifty years ago when adoptions were closed, girls were sent away in shame and shunned, but that has very little to do with adoption today.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

So those of you who don't believe age matters. I had my period at the age of 9. Is it appropriate in your view for nine year olds to become mothers? You see them as capable of being a parent when they are not even preteens yet?


----------



## gracesmommy (Mar 6, 2006)

Quote:

I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.
Yes, and it would also be great if fairies came and built the girl and her child a gingerbread house to live in, with a graham cracker paddock out back for the flying ponies. But that hasn't happened, the baby is here now and his mother isn't interested in parenting him.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
As the book title says IN THE DECADES before Roe v. Wade and that was in the early 70s. You can base your view of adoption on what happened fifty years ago when adoptions were closed, girls were sent away in shame and shunned, but that has very little to do with adoption today.

Talk to some birthmamas about "adoption today." Or some adult adoptees about adoption in recent generations.

To the PP who asked, no I am not an adoptee. However I see this issue as a feminist and children's rights issue, and one that we need to examine much more critically than we currently do. Many of us seem to have swallowed whole the adoption industry propaganda.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
So those of you who don't believe age matters. I had my period at the age of 9. Is it appropriate in your view for nine year olds to become mothers? You see them as capable of being a parent when they are not even preteens yet?

Well, biologically they are capable, no? If a young woman births a child, she is a parent. The difference is whether she is a parent of a baby with her, or a parent of a baby removed.

Socioculturally we do a LOT to prevent young women from parenting their own children. We would do well to take down these barriers and put some supports in their place.


----------



## Jessy1019 (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yes, we are. I find the anti-keeping-baby-with-mama tone really upsetting. I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.












Absolutely!! This girl needed to be taken in by someone who would have cared enough about her AND her baby to help them stay together. I keep getting the notices in my inbox from this thread and every freaking time, I wish I had known her before she lost her child. They could have moved in with me.


----------



## Jessy1019 (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, biologically they are capable, no? If a young woman births a child, she is a parent. The difference is whether she is a parent of a baby with her, or a parent of a baby removed.

Socioculturally we do a LOT to prevent young women from parenting their own children. We would do well to take down these barriers and put some supports in their place.


Yes, again.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessy1019* 









Absolutely!! This girl needed to be taken in by someone who would have cared enough about her AND her baby to help them stay together.


Actually she was placed with the baby. Not once. Not twice. Three times. She was with her grandma. Then she went to her great-grandma. From there, she was placed in a foster home with the baby.


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

First of all, I am adopted, it was a closed adoption due to the year it happened in...I do have some lasting effects from that fact (ex/ like the 'Primal Wound') Without going into my own story, I will say that I took what was the reality of my life and realized that it may have happened for a reason beyond my knowing. I have been working through the 'issues' and have come through alright.

I'm not going to take a firm stance, pro or anti adoption, basically because I can see *both* sides. Both sides are true. It IS tragic, and it IS sometimes the best thing, and it CAN be at the root of psychological problems later in life (that doesn't mean it has to)

I see this thread threatening to degrade into an unfriendly debate and I'd like to ask PLEASE that we all work hard at keeping things diplomatic, non defensive/reactive and above all, kind.

There is room in life for many different realities to coexist and let's just try and keep it peaceful


----------



## kwren23 (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Talk to some birthmamas about "adoption today." Or some adult adoptees about adoption in recent generations.

To the PP who asked, no I am not an adoptee. However I see this issue as a feminist and children's rights issue, and one that we need to examine much more critically than we currently do. Many of us seem to have swallowed whole the adoption industry propaganda.

i am the one who asked, and i am looking at this from the perspective of someone who is both an adult adoptee (with a birth mother who was 16) and a teen mother herself (i was 17 when i got pregnant with my son, 18 when he was born) i certainly havent swallowed any propaganda, i have my own firsthand knowledge.

nothing is perfect, you do what is best at the time for all parties involved. you have to look at each situation individually.

adoption can be a great good thing for all parties involved. i think this is one of those times.


----------



## moonbeem (Sep 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Nobody _*gave*_ her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH, and then the young mother could have moved out on her own with the child when she had her full act together (and graduated from school, etc.)

I'm all for adopting orphans. But this baby already had a mother.

This book completely changed the way I look at adoptions:

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Who-Went...2991729&sr=1-2


amen!

And to the poster who said giving birth doesnt make you a mother... dam that's a load of adoption propaganda. If we check with any biologist i'm pretty sure giving birth is the very defination of what a mother does. Maybe you meant not everyone is capable of "parenting"

About the dismissivness of the Girls Who Went Away granted the book is about pre-Roe v Wade in the closed adoption era; however it still has relevance today in that some women are deemed unworthy of being mothers and others are deemed more deserving and worthy of parenting so adoption becomes the way for those more priviledged to grow their families. The coersion methods have changed somewhat; no more maternity homes and being sent away; but still there is coersion going on.

That seems to be what this thread has become; one side believeing this separation is "happy" the baby somehow lucky to be taken from his mother and tossing around accusations of anti-adoption and bitter adoptees to those who wish the mother and baby would have been able to stay together. The poor mother has had so much judgement and condenation regarding how she's screwed up and had 3 chance to stay with and mother her baby...(it wasn't the right help for her, obviously) the only praise she's really recieved in this thread is that for making the "loving and mature" choice to allow more worthy people to raise her baby and that is BUNK


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, biologically they are capable, no? If a young woman births a child, she is a parent. The difference is whether she is a parent of a baby with her, or a parent of a baby removed.

Socioculturally we do a LOT to prevent young women from parenting their own children. We would do well to take down these barriers and put some supports in their place.

I am really not unsympathetic to the notion that teens are prevented, by lack of resources, low social expectations, and general apathy toward mothering in general, from adequately caring for their biological offspring.

And I understand that it is this all-round lack that forces a lot of young moms to go with adoption when they would rather not. That the "choice" is largely economically driven, not a true free choice. Kind of like abortion is often a matter of a woman's hand being forced in a rather cruel way.

Still. WTH could anyone in this situation really do? The kid herself is pretty deeply wounded, and the baby can't just mark time till some altruistic person decides to tackle this difficult dyad-- an emotionally damaged 13-year-old and her infant.

I know I don't have the time, energy or resources for such a mammoth project. Have you? Who is this "we" we're talkin' about here, anyway?

If it were _me_ considering taking this pair into my home, I know I would be deeply concerned that I would wind up becoming the child's de facto parent, but not ever a legal parent.

Would I be willing to risk spending the next five years bonding with this baby over 3 AM feedings while simultaneously trying to help the teen hang on by a thread? Would she one day unexpectedly flee into the night?








That doesn't sound like something I could handle. That doesn't sound like something that many people at all could handle.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

So what do we do with 13 year olds, or any aged women, who are pregnant but who do not wish to parent a child? Coerce them into parenting? Compel them with societal pressures into making some half hearted, insincere effort at caring for a child? Making them feel that they are wrong, evil, selfish, poor mothers for recognizing the reality that they are not capable of raising a child at this point in their lives?

Lighten up, people. I'm sorry that forty years ago young women felt like that had no options for single parenthood and were persuaded into relinquishments they felt conflicted over. That's not the reality today and that's certainly not the reality for a thirteen year old girl living in foster care.

Let the child make a responsible decision - for herself and especially for her child - without being cast as either a villian or a victim.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes* 
I know I don't have the time, energy or resources for such a mammoth project. Have you? Who is this "we" we're talkin' about here, anyway?

"We" is the society, the culture. We need more respect, more support from grandparents in these situations, more laws re: the adoption industry to protect the rights of mothers and children, more social programs to provide practical and emotional support for young mamas, and to facilitate their creation of community.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blessed* 
So what do we do with 13 year olds, or any aged women, who are pregnant but who do not wish to parent a child? Coerce them into parenting? Compel them with societal pressures into making some half hearted, insincere effort at caring for a child?

No. If a woman does not wish to parent, if she freely chooses adoption not out of coercion or desperation, that is fine and a valid choice that I fully support.

The sticking point lies in the words "coercion" and "desperation." Look at the title of this thread, even. Smell some coercion? I sure do.

Quote:

Lighten up, people. I'm sorry that forty years ago young women felt like that had no options for single parenthood and were persuaded into relinquishments they felt conflicted over. That's not the reality today
BS. We do not live in a utopian bubble re: this stuff now. Look at the pathetic lack of a social safety net and you will see that real options all too frequently do NOT exist for young mamas and children. Add in the "Give your baby a better life" propaganda we can hear from every corner, including and especially the 'counsellors' at the adoption agency, and we have ourselves a full on unethical situation on our hands.

And that is NOT something to lighten up about.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
"We" is the society, the culture. We need more respect, more support from grandparents in these situations, more laws re: the adoption industry to protect the rights of mothers and children, more social programs to provide practical and emotional support for young mamas, and to facilitate their creation of community.

In this situation, though, where do you propose any of that come from? I know it is easy to say, "the culture, the society" but if we're talking about individuals here, then I think everyone has done what they can do already.

And I am glad that even if the mama is something of a tragic lost soul, maybe forever, at least her child now has a fighting chance.

I kind of think the previous poster who mentioned graham-cracker paddocks for flying ponies might have had a point, albeit a totally tactless one.







I'm not trying to blow off the importance of young mothering-- even I've read the articles on girl-mom, but I think this case really did resolve in the best way it could have, for these individuals.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Anyway, I guess to me, it's kind of like anti-abortion folks who spend all this time talking about how how turrible-evil-bad it is that young women are faced with these hard reproductive/economic/ethical decisions that they would rather didn't exist.

I'm always like, um, WHO, exactly, is going to shoulder the burden for all these children whose mothers aren't ready, and who don't even show any signs of wanting to be ready, for the sacrifices of parenting? I think that's a real question. And it sounds like this mother is NOT READY. Being 13 plays a role in her unreadiness, sure, but that doesn't mean I despise teen moms or am swallowing some sort of white middleclass adoption fetish.

I'm barely hanging in there with my own kids, yk; I certainly cannot deal with a stranger's very complex situation. I would imagine that's how it is for most people.


----------



## cmhotzler (May 29, 2005)

Wow. People here really do have alot of opinions on this. But who cares? We are not here to judge this situation. That child and her baby are doing what is best for them. As for the "The Primal Wound" garbage, I am one of 4 adopted children, raised by wonderful loving parents, none of us feels a "loss" or anything near that sense. It is nonsense to think that a bio mom has more of a connection than an adoptive mom. That thinking is right out of the stone ages. That is like saying a mother is better than a father when you have to make a choice between an unfit/fit parent. The point is, she HAD a chance at a life with the baby, SHE choose to continue to break the rules, SHE choose to not not "grow" up and mother the child the way a baby should be mothered. Will that child have a better life? If the adoptive family is a good one then yes, the baby will not sense a "loss" of it's bio mom. And no, I am not against a teen-ager having a child and keeping it. My dearest friend of 2 decades had a child at 16. She had wonderful support, she raised the child beautifully, continued on to get her masters degree and now has a almost 20 yr.old man who is balanced and wonderful and on the deans list with a major in computer sciencel. The difference is, she GREW UP AND BECAME A MOTHER. Not an immature 13 yr. old who leaves her baby in the middle of the night to joyride-- A mother who assumes someone else is taking care of her child.--A mother who has NO BUSINESS being a mother. To all the people out there who were adopted into bad situations, I am sorry. But anyone who (like myself and 3 sibs) were adopted into a wonderful family, there is no "primal wound". The definition of a mother is not someone who gave us the ability to cry, but the one who dried away the tears and comforted us etc. To say we are "missing out" because we were not "raised" by our bio mom is INSULTING. I'll make sure to tell my 26 yr.old co-worker, who didn't "find" out she was pregnant til 7 mths. and continue to drink, smoke (and do drugs) and talk about how she couldn't possibly raise a child to go back on her decision to give the baby to a wonderful infertile couple (who know the risks of her behavior) because the baby might suffer "primal wounds" because she gave him up. Gee, I just wish there was a magical potion to make every bio mom a good mom--but there isn't. So therefore, as a society, we need to understand that SOME PEOPLE WON"T MAKE GOOD PARENTS. A 13 yr' old with no interest (other than shes LOVES the child) to be a mother could not possibly make a good parent to the child. Sad for the mother? Yes..but she choose that road to be traveled by NOT GROWING UP (or perhaps, by being 13 yrs'old, not having the MATURITY to make good decisions) . Sad for the child? No way in #[email protected]@. The child is better off in a stable, loving family who have the resources (not talking money here) to raise the child. I say again, GOOD FOR HER to have the strength to let go..


----------



## Jessy1019 (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blessed* 
So what do we do with 13 year olds, or any aged women, who are pregnant but who do not wish to parent a child? Coerce them into parenting? Compel them with societal pressures into making some half hearted, insincere effort at caring for a child? Making them feel that they are wrong, evil, selfish, poor mothers for recognizing the reality that they are not capable of raising a child at this point in their lives?

I am anti-adoption and I wouldn't even advocate that. I would advocate guardianship for the child, in a stable loving home, without any amended birth certificates or any of the other trappings of the adoption industry. But that really has nothing to do with THIS mother, who wanted her baby.

Quote:

Lighten up, people. I'm sorry that forty years ago young women felt like that had no options for single parenthood and were persuaded into relinquishments they felt conflicted over. That's not the reality today and that's certainly not the reality for a thirteen year old girl living in foster care.
How dismissive and insulting of you to suggest that modern adoption is free of coercion. I don't know about you, but where I live, women ARE pressured into surrendering their wanted infants and a 13 year old in foster care IS in a terribly precarious position.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes* 
Anyway, I guess to me, it's kind of like anti-abortion folks who spend all this time talking about how how turrible-evil-bad it is that young women are faced with these hard reproductive/economic/ethical decisions that they would rather didn't exist.

Except that they argue AGAINST choice and power for women, while I am arguing FOR it. And I rarely see anti-choicers advocating for more social programs, less coercion of pregnant women.

Kinda polar opposites, dontcha think?


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

I wonder if anyone - anyone - suggested in all seriousness to this girl that she _could_ parent, and could do it well. My guess is that; once she pee'd on a stick, everyone went into a tizzy about her "options" and about the "poor baby" and the "better life" the baby would have with someone else. I would imagine that the pressure to abort ir reliquish was very, very strong. In turn, it makes me wonder if she was ever able to bond with the baby. I know if I thought that my baby would be taken from me when s/he was born (or I was feeling loads of pressure to give him/her up), it would affect my ability to bond - and probably to parent when the time came. I wonder if anyone really asked her what she wanted and really gave her resources to make it happen - or if they just tried to talk her into giving her baby away


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I wonder if anyone - anyone - suggested in all seriousness to this girl that she _could_ parent, and could do it well. My guess is that; once she pee'd on a stick, everyone went into a tizzy about her "options" and about the "poor baby" and the "better life" the baby would have with someone else. I would imagine that the pressure to abort ir reliquish was very, very strong. In turn, it makes me wonder if she was ever able to bond with the baby. I know if I thought that my baby would be taken from me when s/he was born (or I was feeling loads of pressure to give him/her up), it would affect my ability to bond - and probably to parent when the time came. I wonder if anyone really asked her what she wanted and really gave her resources to make it happen - or if they just tried to talk her into giving her baby away









Yep. Insecure attachment goes both ways.


----------



## mama2toomany (Oct 17, 2005)

as someone who was married and had her first child at 16. I had some adjustments to make, But I was given the chance. I was and am a great mother,

and I believe most open adoptions are a joke nowadays especially when the mother is a minor.

I know to many young women who give there babies up in what they think is an open adoption and never get to see there babies again.

I too do not feel too thrilled or joyous over this update.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

You know, I think the thing that has ruffled feathers on this thread is the insistence that this is a "happy" outcome. I can concede that it may well be the best outcome for some of the people involved based on all the circumstances in this case and the realities of the society in which we live - but "best" and "happy" are not equal. It's certainly not happy that the 13 year old has been failed so miserably by her family and by the system that was supposed to protect her. It's certainly not happy that, at 13 years old, she has been written off as a lost cause.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I am just shocked at all the anti adoption posts here. I had no idea there were people who think that the birth mother is a better mother than an adoptive mother. I am not adopted, but that insults me. I have many freinds who have adopted children. Some from here in the states, and some from other countries.

This girl CAN'T raise that child. She never would have been able to raise him.

She left him in the middle of the night and snuck out of the house. She stole her Foster parent's car, and went for a joyride. She has been arrested more times than I can count. She is in juvinile prison. Then she must spend at least a year in a group home for girls. SHE made these choices when she stole the car and a number of other things that SHE chose to do.

YES, she was given a sucky life. Her parents were neglectful, and abusive. Her Grandmother was neglectful of her own kids, it started years ago, and it wasn't fair to this 13 yr old who should have had a better life. The 13 yr old's father and sister are in prison for drugs. Obviously there has been a lot of drugs in her life. It is a rumor (I don't know if it is true) that she was sexually abused by her father's drug friends. Her Mother bailed out on them when she was very little. Mom left her daughters with Dad for a while, then they lived with Grandma. Grandma couldn't deal with them. The schools were calling every week with problems. Grandma wasn't equipped for parenting when her own kids were little. She certainly couldn't handle her Grandkids, much less a great grand baby.

This teenage girl has every right to be mad. She should have had loving, responsible, supportive parents. But, she didn't.

Perhaps if she had been adopted by a loving supportive drug free family at birth. She wouldn't even have to make this decision.

Perhaps by allowing her son to be adopted, she can separate herself from her family one day, and start all over again.

But, in the end, adoption IS the best thing for this little boy. Some of you think that the Bio Mom is the only important person in this story. But, to me, the most important person. Is that little boy. He deserves to be treated like a special and important little baby. He deserves to wake up crying, and have someone go in and get him, and rock him.

Edited to add: She was very happy and excited to have made the choice she made.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
You know, I think the thing that has ruffled feathers on this thread is the insistence that this is a "happy" outcome.

Partly it's the "Happy outcome" update, and partly it's the original title: "Would you *LET* her keep the child?" [emphasis mine].

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*
I am just shocked at all the anti adoption posts here. I had no idea there were people who think that the birth mother is a better mother than an adoptive mother. I am not adopted, but that insults me.

I am sorry you feel insulted. However, I feel there is a lot of insult in the way this thread is set up, and in the anti-young-mama bias.

Quote:

Perhaps by allowing her son to be adopted, she can separate herself from her family one day, and start all over again.
Mebbe. Or maybe she will grieve the loss of her son for the rest of her life. These things, when coerced, can be truly soul destroying.

Quote:

But, in the end, adoption IS the best thing for this little boy.
Dunno.

Quote:

Some of you think that the Bio Mom is the only important person in this story. But, to me, the most important person. Is that little boy. He deserves to be treated like a special and important little baby. He deserves to wake up crying, and have someone go in and get him, and rock him.
Yes, he does deserve that. AND he deserves IMO for that to be his actual MOTHER if at all possible. I think this girl and her son have been failed here, and that they did not get a real chance. That is what I find so disturbing about this story, from the OP assuming anyone but the mama could/should control whether she keeps her child, onward to the "happy" update.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I wonder if anyone - anyone - suggested in all seriousness to this girl that she _could_ parent, and could do it well...I wonder if anyone really asked her what she wanted and really gave her resources to make it happen...

I don't know, did you?

How many pregnant women have you invited to live in your home during gestation and delivery? How many hours per week are you babysitting for free while a struggling mother works or takes classes?

When it turns out that the young mother has personality disorders and is violent and disruptive with you and your family; or substance abuse issues and is stealing from your home or prostituting for money to buy drugs with; or simply prefers to spend all of her nights and evenings partying with friends, then sleeping in all day rather than sitting with a kid cleaning up vomit and diapers, are you going to stick it out for the next 18 years so that she has a roof over her head and a bed for the baby to sleep in?

There is no government policy or subsidization that can make any meaningful difference in the life of a parent who is unsupported, unprepared and unequipped to deal with life - much LESS raising a child. No social worker or counselor or program or cheap housing or boxes of free food or check in the mail is going to be anywhere close to what it takes to parent a child. Otherwise our nation's foster care system wouldn't be overflowing with damaged, traumatized children.

Adoption is a solution that, while imperfect, works, and works very well. Unless you've got something else - something realistic, something implementable, not just some glorified exaultation of the beauty of parenthood - then children are going to be continued to be best served by responsible decisions for their lives, including consideration of the solution of relinquishment.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blessed* 
There is no government policy or subsidization that can make any meaningful difference in the life of a parent who is unsupported, unprepared and unequipped to deal with life - much LESS raising a child.

Completely false. Here where I live we have some programs for young mamas and their children that are really great. Housing, income, emotional support, and community of other young mamas. Those things make a HUGE difference for people and whether they are able to parent. HUGE.


----------



## mama_b (Dec 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
I agree. It's too bad the teacher couldn't have adopted the teenager and let her keep her own baby (helping her raise the child, but not taking over). Now THAT would have been a happy update.

I agree. I think it's incredibly sad. She lost her baby.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Completely false. Here where I live we have some programs for young mamas and their children that are really great. Housing, income, emotional support, and community of other young mamas. Those things make a HUGE difference for people and whether they are able to parent. HUGE.

We have those here too. But, she can't be in that situation.

You guys don't get it. SHE IS RUNNING AWAY AT NIGHT AND STEALING CARS! These homes where they train young mothers to take care of their babies, and teach them how to feed, bathe, financially support their babies is for women who WANT to do these things.

They are run by wonderful giving adults who spend their time and energy with these young people. It's a lot of work, and I commend them. They live with these young women 24/7.

Those of you who think that there should be more done should DO it. I'm not being sarcastic. You could take in one or two young pregnant girls and teach them how to parent. There are organizations who help Moms by giving them a place to live while they are pregnant, then help them get on their feet.

OR you could be a foster parent, and specifically only foster young pregnant women who can't decide what they want.

There is a Christian organization called CRISIS PREGNANCY. They buy homes and several young Mothers live there together with their babies. They have supervision, and support.

You could offer free childcare to young mothers so they can finish school. By doing that, you could also mentor them, and be there for the late night ear aches when the Mom isn't sure why the baby is crying.

There are a lot of things you can do to help out.


----------



## kwren23 (Jul 28, 2006)

just loving your baby is not enough to be a parent! you have to take care of that child and put its needs before your own.

as an adoptee i am finding this thread incredibly insulting.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kwren23* 
just loving your baby is not enough to be a parent! you have to take care of that child and put its needs before your own.

Very true. And it is clear that was not happening in this situation. However, it also sounds like it may have been a set up from the very beginning, and that energy was focused on controlling what this girl chose re: adoption, where it could have been directed toward support and encouragement.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, biologically they are capable, no? If a young woman births a child, she is a parent. The difference is whether she is a parent of a baby with her, or a parent of a baby removed.


No the difference is are they going to be a competent parent who will be able to nurture and care for the health and development of their baby OR are they going to sneak out in the middle of the night, leave the baby unsupervised and risk the basic health and survival of the baby.

I'm waiting to hear from the other posters - nine year olds are capable of giving birth? Should they be have custody of their children to raise them? Are they capable of doing so?


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Talk to some birthmamas about "adoption today." Or some adult adoptees about adoption in recent generations.

Yes, I have. There are folks who are very pleased with the way adoption has worked out for them and for the children involved. I wonder why it is important to some folks to ignore that? And, in the process to heap a load of crap and shame on people who recognize that giving birth doesn't mean they have the desire or capability to do a good job raising a child.


----------



## kwren23 (Jul 28, 2006)

thismama you may very well be right about this girls situation. this whole topic hits a little too close to home for me to be objective about it... not only am i an adoptee and a teen mom but i am also the mother of an almost 13 year old! i realize that there are plenty of 13 year olds that have forced to grow up far too fast, but i look at my son and think NO WAY! there is no way my kid could be an adequate parent at this point, no way. he is still too much of a child.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Very true. And it is clear that was not happening in this situation. However, it also sounds like it may have been a set up from the very beginning, and that energy was focused on controlling what this girl chose re: adoption, where it could have been directed toward support and encouragement.


Remember, she lived with a Foster family. She was pregnant when she moved in there. They gave her support and tried to teach her basic childcare. She had the baby, they brought them both back home and took care of both of them. They were helping her and mentoring her. But, in the six months after the baby was born she did nothing to show that she wanted to take care of this child. She was angry and resentful of their rules, and she broke them constantly. Leaving her sleeping infant in his bed while she left the house to go party.

SO, the foster parents decided that it was not in the best interest of her other children to allow her to stay in the house.

I _THINK_ (but, I don't know) that they had one more foster home before she stole the car. But, it could have all been at the same foster home. That was just the impression I got.

She has a long record of theft, and other offenses. So, she HAS had many chances.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Yes, I have. There are folks who are very pleased with the way adoption has worked out for them and for the children involved. I wonder why it is important to some folks to ignore that?

Nobody is ignoring that. Nobody here is saying that adoption is e-val and should never occur.

What is being said is that the climate of non-support, coercion, and desperation is not okay, and that the adoption industry as it now stands is ethically corrupt.

Mamas should get to make a real CHOICE about adoption. Babies should get to be with their mamas if it is feasible. Young mamas should get the support that we all need!!! to mother well and raise their children well.

I don't see what is so controversial about that.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

There are a number of threads of thought going on here- one looking specifically at the individual case of the 13 year old as described by the op and one looking at adoption in a larger context...

This whole thread seems to be a lost cause on so many levels.

Unsubbing.


----------



## mama2toomany (Oct 17, 2005)

There are plenty of mother's out there that break the law... they are still good mothers... actually there are mother's out there getting to keep there children with them most of the time they are in jail....

So if she would have been allowed to have her child with her through this mess she is into who's to say it wouldn't have changed her? Or given her the chance to learn how to be a better women?


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Just another story supporting adoption...

My best friend's daughter got pregnant at 19. Not really young, I know, but she was not a responsible person. She was what she called a "Screw up". She wasn't all that bad, she just didn't make good decisions.

She had Alex (name was changed). Not long after Alex was born, he started to show signs of a flat head. It kept getting flatter and flatter. The Doctor had her take him in for a helmet. She was too busy to keep her apppointment. Turned out, she never took him out of his car seat, so his head just molded to the car seat. She even propped his bottles in his mouth while he was in the car seat.

Eventually he learned to walk and crawl. She called him "A bad baby"

One night, a neighbor complained that he was crying hysterically and seemed to sound exhausted. So, the police were called. SHe had left him alone for over 24 hours with only a sippy cup of spoiled milk and a few bowls of cheerios that she had scattered throughout the apartment. The reason they knew it had been over 24 hours was because she had been arrested the night before, and was still in jail, because she never called anyone to bail her out, or go get Alex.

Alex was taken away, and given to the Grandma for six months til Mom took parenting classes.

WHen he was two, she was caught giving him Pot, so he would sleep, so they could party. She was arrested, he was taken away and sent to live with Grandma for six months while Mom went to rehab and took parenting classes.

When he was five, he went outside the apartment and didn't come back when she called him. Mom got mad. She told him she hated him and he ruined her life. Then she took a gun and shot herself in the head in front of him. But, not before she told him it was his fault.

He is six now and lives with his Grandma.

Nobody could have known this would happen. But, she was talked INTO keeping him. She wanted to give him up for adoption, but everybody she knew said, "No, keep the baby, I will help you raise him." None of those people were there five years later.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

So that is a story of an abusive mother. Proves what, exactly? I could come back with a story of an abusive adoptive mother. Abuse sucks, is the meaning of that anecdote.


----------



## mama2toomany (Oct 17, 2005)

sad story... but this is opposite situation.. this girl wanted her baby.


----------



## mama2toomany (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
So that is a story of an abusive mother. Proves what, exactly? I could come back with a story of an abusive adoptive mother. Abuse sucks, is the meaning of that anecdote.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
You guys don't get it. SHE IS RUNNING AWAY AT NIGHT AND STEALING CARS! These homes where they train young mothers to take care of their babies, and teach them how to feed, bathe, financially support their babies is for women who WANT to do these things.

This actually sounds strikingly similar to the young mother in the story just given.

Quote:

Those of you who think that there should be more done should DO it. I'm not being sarcastic. You could take in one or two young pregnant girls and teach them how to parent. There are organizations who help Moms by giving them a place to live while they are pregnant, then help them get on their feet.

OR you could be a foster parent, and specifically only foster young pregnant women who can't decide what they want.

There is a Christian organization called CRISIS PREGNANCY. They buy homes and several young Mothers live there together with their babies. They have supervision, and support.

You could offer free childcare to young mothers so they can finish school. By doing that, you could also mentor them, and be there for the late night ear aches when the Mom isn't sure why the baby is crying.

There are a lot of things you can do to help out.
Enough said.


----------



## runnerbrit (May 24, 2006)

Wow. I don't even know where to begin so I apologize for rambling right up front. I have been following this post since it began and have been very shaken by the whole thing. I come from a family where I am the only biological child and have 11 adopted brothers and sisters. My parents have been foster parents for 27 years. That being said....

This girl does deserve more support; but have you ever had a child in your home that was so destructive that it put the rest of the famly in jeapordy (not neccesarily physical but emotional)? I have. It is horrible. It is very easy to act as a Monday morning quarterback in this situation, and share all the if onlys. But, in the real world many times we just all do the best we can. That includes the family that adopted the baby, the bio mom and yes, even CPS. CPS by the way is largely made up of people who became social workers to make a difference in their commuinty and in the lives of children, who are often over-worked and under paid. Who have seen horrible situations that children are in and know that their decisions will radically alter the life of a child and family. If you think those decisions are made lightly you are wrong there is a reason the burn out rate is high in the profession. If you knew some of the horrible things that a person who gives birth to a child is capable of you would not make the blanket statement that giving birth makes a mother or parent. (Getting off the soapbox)

From what has been described by the OP this child was placed in a home while pregnant she was given support by the foster family and chose not to take it. After giving birth to her child the behaviour continued and escalated to the stealing of the families car. Why should that foster family have kept her and her baby in that home when what she brought with her was hurting everyone else in the home? Some people may not feel that this thread was named appropriatly but for the baby it sounds as if it is a happy ending. This baby now has the opportunity to break out of the vicous cycle that the family has been in (from the description given by OP) for several generations.

Just for the record: An adopted child can be loved just as much by the adopting family as a bio child who was born to that family is.


----------



## sugarmoon (Feb 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH, and then the young mother could have moved out on her own with the child when she had her full act together (and graduated from school, etc.)

Would-be adoptive parents have no more obligation than the rest of us to take in teen parents. I see this sentiment expressed frequently by the not so pro adoption folks and it makes me crazy. I am *all* for reform of the adoption industry, starting with taking the industry out of it, but providing support to teen moms and other struggling moms who WANT to keep their kids is something we *all* need to take responsibility for. I am a foster parent, and just this week, I returned my precious 3 month old foster son back to his mother, now that she is living in a residential program for teen moms. Do you have any idea how hard it was to love and care for a newborn for 2 months, then hand him back to someone who, at *best* will be a mediocre mother to him? I doubt it. What are *you* doing to support teen moms in your community?

Also, I sincerely doubt that the adoptive mother in this situation had a desire to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. I imagine that she, like all of us, wanted to be a mother.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gus'smama* 
Do you have any idea how hard it was to love and care for a newborn for 2 months, then hand him back to someone who, at *best* will be a mediocre mother to him?

um. wow. I get that it would be hard to care for a baby for 2 months and then return him. But to decide out of hand that his mother will be "at *best* mediocre" ?!? wow.


----------



## miche28 (Sep 16, 2006)

I read this thread a few days ago and it's stayed with me - I feel compelled to post. I think there's a clear bias in the tone here that suggests that adoption is never really the best solution - but given the facts in this case, I don't get it.

This is a 13-year old child who has significant issues and no family support. By putting her rights first, you're condemning this baby to years of institutionalized care, interventions by CPS and stealing his chance to form an early and secure attachment to a competent and loving mother. How can people who believe so strongly in the power mother-child bond suggest that it can be deferred until a mother has gotten her act together?

I am an adoptee and I have children of my own now - I can tell you that the genetic bond I have with my children is not a iota stronger than the one I have with my own mother. What's more, I have no question that I am better off for having had the family I do - perhaps my birth mother isn't, but that's not the point of the child protection system.


----------



## pearlgirl (Jun 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Talk to some birthmamas about "adoption today." Or some adult adoptees about adoption in recent generations.

To the PP who asked, no I am not an adoptee. However I see this issue as a feminist and children's rights issue, and one that we need to examine much more critically than we currently do. Many of us seem to have swallowed whole the adoption industry propaganda.

There are children adopted that were not wanted by their birthmother or birthfamily. Not at all. It was no one's choice but the mother's and she didn't want them. Sadly there are children that are not adopted and will remain unwanted their whole lives. People who fight the "adoption industry" are fighting homes for these children with their generalizations. I understand where you are coming from, but it is incorrect to generalize all of adoption as many people seem to do. There are some cases, many, many cases where adoption is the best for EVERYONE involved when left to pick up the pieces and it is hurtful and damaging when that is not recognized.

Sarah


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pearlgirl* 
There are children adopted that were not wanted by their birthmother or birthfamily. Not at all. It was no one's choice but the mother's and she didn't want them. Sadly there are children that are not adopted and will remain unwanted their whole lives. People who fight the "adoption industry" are fighting homes for these children with their generalizations. I understand where you are coming from, but it is incorrect to generalize all of adoption as many people seem to do. There are some cases, many, many cases where adoption is the best for EVERYONE involved when left to pick up the pieces and it is hurtful and damaging when that is not recognized.

Sarah

Nobody is generalizing adoption as all bad, or saying mothers should keep their children against their will. People are critiquing the adoption industry's corruption, and the coercion and lack of support birthmothers experience which may force them to give up children they very much want to keep.


----------



## moonbeem (Sep 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gus'smama* 

Also, I sincerely doubt that the adoptive mother in this situation had a desire to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. I imagine that she, like all of us, wanted to be a mother.


Confusing sentiment...an adoptive mother *IS* raising someone else's child, (and lots of adoptors feel they were the rescuers.) There are other ways to express nurturing, loving, mothering behaviors than gaining someone else's _baby_

As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reminds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gus'smama* 
I am a foster parent, and just this week, I returned my precious 3 month old foster son back to his mother, now that she is living in a residential program for teen moms. Do you have any idea how hard it was to love and care for a newborn for 2 months, then hand him back to someone who, at *best* will be a mediocre mother to him?

I'm sure that was painful - almost as painful as it was for the baby's Mom to hand it to you in the first place. But, why do you say that she will be at best a mediocre mother to him? You have no way of knowing that - isn't that why she is in a residential program for teen moms, to learn how to be a good parent? On what are you basing the idea that she will be mediocre?

I don't think there are any perfect solutions in these cases, and there is no sure fire predictor of who will be a good parent, and who won't. There are many mediocre parents out there, should the children be removed from all of them and reallocated to "approved" parents?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonbeem* 
Confusing sentiment...an adoptive mother *IS* raising someone else's child, (and lots of adoptors feel they were the rescuers.) There are other ways to express nurturing, loving, mothering behaviors than gaining someone else's _baby_

Like what? Mothering is mothering...it's not teaching, or running a daycare or whatever. What other way than mothering is there to be a mother??

Quote:

As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reminds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.
An adult adoptee above posted that she finds the same strength of bond between her and her genetic children as between her and her adoptive mother. Since men who had their foreskins taken as babies aren't ever going to have a similar piece of anatomy to compare to, I don't see how you can draw this parallel. I'm not sure why anybody would want to make a case that an adoptee's childhood wasn't as happy or his/her bond with his/her parents not as close, as said adoptee feels it was/is. Surely, a happy adult adoptee has as much right (if not more) as anybody else to comment on how profound the effects of adoption are for the child.

In terms of being a mother, I really don't care about the mom in this story breaking the law or stealing cars. I do, however, think the neglect issue says a lot. She may have wanted to be a mother, but she wasn't _being_ one.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Like what? Mothering is mothering...it's not teaching, or running a daycare or whatever. What other way than mothering is there to be a mother??

You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

I just wanted to say that this whole thread has been a *very* eye opening read for me.

Also, I had no idea that some people were 'anti-adoption' or that there was an anti-adoption movement.

Apparently I have some reading to do.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.

So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, _then_ put the child up for adoption?

I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zoesmummy* 
I just wanted to say that this whole thread has been a *very* eye opening read for me.

I am so glad to hear this. I think more of us need to open our eyes, take apart the propaganda, and start looking at this issue critically. I foresee some big changes in the adoption industry in the coming years.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, _then_ put the child up for adoption?

It is not a foregone conclusion that young mothers will do that, any more than it is with other mothers. By that logic we should take everyone's baby away in case they neglect them in the future.

Quote:

I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?
I get what you wanted, and no it's not worthy of condemnation. It's the method by which that dream is fulfilled, yk? And who gets harmed along the way.

I think there are ethical ways to find homes for children who need them, children for would-be parents who want them. I don't think what is currently happening is ethical, and I don't think it's the only way we can do things.


----------



## miche28 (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonbeem* 
As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reminds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.

NOT the same - I don't miss my mother because she lives down the street. The woman who gave birth to me is an individual I have chosen not to have contact with. That might not be your experience - but it's mine.

Michelle


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *miche28* 
NOT the same - I don't miss my mother because she lives down the street. The woman who gave birth to me is an individual I have chosen not to have contact with. That might not be your experience - but it's mine.

Michelle

And that is fine. Your experience is worthy of respect. But it does not negate the views of those who feel they *were* harmed by adoption. Just because it doesn't harm everybody does not make it okay.


----------



## miche28 (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.

Yes - and my hats off to those parents who have the fortitude to heal the damage of neglect and abuse in older children who have to be removed. There are many more families who can't do that. Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *miche28* 
Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.

Are you suggesting that CAS/CPS should be more aggressive about removing children from their homes?







:


----------



## miche28 (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
And that is fine. Your experience is worthy of respect. But it does not negate the views of those who feel they *were* harmed by adoption. Just because it doesn't harm everybody does not make it okay.

The problem is that it doesn't get respect - all the language is really hiding an underlying belief that my mother is not really my mother.

I know there are differences in people's experience - my sister is actually interested in meeting her birth family and that's her choice which I support (as do my parents).

But over the years, I've met a lot of adoptees - the notion that I'm an extreme minority in this group doesn't get born out. The reality is that those of us who aren't troubled by this don't speak up b/c it's not an issue for us - let's just not forget that we exist.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, _then_ put the child up for adoption?

I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?

I don't think that it is a good idea to remove a child from her mother on the chance that she might not be a good mother due to age, to provide another woman with a baby and the "experience" of raising one from infancy, that all. I DO believe that younger mothers are pressured to give up their babies, especially if they are in the foster care system.

My sister became a mother for the first time at 16, but she was already more than capable of being an excellent mother at 13. She was SERIOUSLY pressured to give up her child, and in fact allowed her DS to be fostered for 3 months while she got a place to live and a support system. She then got him back from foster care despite being called all sorts of names by the foster mother and the social worker, raised him and had another as well. He is now 25, very happy, has a great job - and is VERY happy his mother fought to keep him.

These things are not black and white. I guess for me, I don't see that it is someone else's duty to give up their child so you can have an experience.


----------



## moonbeem (Sep 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *miche28* 
Yes - and my hats off to those parents who have the fortitude to heal the damage of neglect and abuse in older children who have to be removed. There are many more families who can't do that. Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.

The attitude that eventual abuse may occuar is completly dismissive of the primal wound which is caused by disrupting the continium of the birth/infancy stage. That is an emotional wound which forever effects ones relationships and developement. (like circ is a physical wound that forever effects the penis function) A mother's pregnancy prepares her baby to be attuned to her movements, smell, taste, her voice. Newborns recognize their mothers. Only her body is primed to provide the perfect breastmilk for that baby. An infant is capable of bonding only with his mother. After that attachment is secure trusting others will be the next progression. Some are better able to bond to substitutes than others, but it is a loss when mother/baby separation occuars. No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonbeem* 
No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.

Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.

It is a social construct that people who can bleed, become pregnant and give birth are considered 'children.' And if we constructed it, we can deconstruct it.

Many, many young mamas are fabulous mamas. Some are not. This is true of mothers of ALL ages. I'm seeing some serious age discrimination here.

I think if we want to improve the odds of children having good childhoods, we have to as a society provide supports to their families. Constant messages that young mothers suck and should give up their children do NOT help with that.


----------



## miche28 (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.

Thank you - in case anyone is worried, my primal wound has healed up just fine with a lifetime caring and compassionate parenting that I have been able to use as a model to build my own family with my loving husband.


----------



## runnerbrit (May 24, 2006)

thismama: Have you ever been involved with the foster care system? Not read about it, not commented about it, but experienced it? If so, you would know that most often the primary goal is re-unification. That a child will be returned to its bio home over and over again in the hope that the parent/parents will do better the next time. (This does not occur as often now as in the past) Many times this is to the detriment of the child.

I am not saying that the system does not have flaws; but as many flaws as it has it is also the only thing like it at this time. The public system itself is still young having only been around since the 1960's. Up until that time child abuse was legal and in severe cases the parents were tried under animal cruelty laws. That being said the public adoption system has come a long way and is still learning, changing, and evolving. To wholly condemn it based on its past instead of realizing the strides that have been made and the lives that have been saved, well.....

Here is a link that provides some information on the public system, it takes a look at both sides of the issue that has been discussed on this thread.

http://www.futureofchildren.org/info...m?doc_id=75337

To play devils advocate to some of the posts here. What does the public system have to gain by unjustly removing the baby from this child? Did they score points with the adoptive family? No, there is nothing gained here except for by the baby. If the family that adopted that baby were looking for the "perfect infant" they would not have gone through the public system they would have sought a surrogate or private adoption where they could ensure proper prenatal nutrition, no drug use, no neglect, etc, etc. Note: this is not to see that children who go through the public system are "damaged", however, there is an increased likely hood for issues to arise due to abuse or drug use.

I have been very pleasantly suprised at the passion that people have exhibited on both sides of this issue. It really shows that whatever side of the fence you are on you truly want what is best for everyone in the situation.

Here is a link that provides the latest stats available on the public sytem, it includes: # of children in system, median age, race, sex, length of stay, % w/ goal of reunification

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

My stepmom gave up a son for adoption when she was 15. She knew and chose the family, they didn't live far away. She was happy and GRATEFUL that there were people out there who could give her son the life she was unable to provide for him. I think this is a happy situation and I hope the young woman turns her life around. There is no way this girl would have been able to properly care for her child, I think we can all agree on that.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 

Many, many young mamas are fabulous mamas. Some are not. This is true of mothers of ALL ages. I'm seeing some serious age discrimination here.

So, do you see any age at which someone won't be a good parent? You have no feelings of age discrimination whatsoever? Nine year olds can give birth so okay they are ready to parent?


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
As the book title says IN THE DECADES before Roe v. Wade and that was in the early 70s. You can base your view of adoption on what happened fifty years ago when adoptions were closed, girls were sent away in shame and shunned, but that has very little to do with adoption today.

Read it before you judge it.

The setting may be decades old, but the themes are timeless.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
So, do you see any age at which someone won't be a good parent? You have no feelings of age discrimination whatsoever? Nine year olds can give birth so okay they are ready to parent?

Can nine year olds really give birth? I've never heard of it, IRL, so I think it's a bit of a strawman.

I would say there is no age at which I think it is okay to remove a baby from its mother, becoz we have decided arbirtarily that she is "too young."

I think if we want children of young mothers to have good childhoods, we have to provide the supports to help that happen. It is not ethical to remove children from their mothers via non-consent or coercion. I see it as a very basic human rights violation, for both parties.

If we get nine year olds becoming pregnant, well I could see that being a really good area of specialization for social workers. The ethics around how we approach it, what constitutes consent, what supports to child-mothers need, etc etc. Splitting up families becoz someone is young or poor is not okay. This very quickly turns the young and poor into babymaking machines for an industry which sells babies to the rich and 'upstanding.' Kwim?

It's a real and serious ethical issue IMO.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Read it before you judge it.

The setting may be decades old, but the themes are timeless.

To say it is timeless is to suggest it makes no difference that we now live in a culture where:
women are much more likely to be accepted as teen parents.
open adoption is a possibility.
the most frequent reason women lose custody is for drug problems rather than "shame".
access to birth control and abortion are legal.

If you think it makes no difference then yes, what was happening in 1950 is totally relevant to right now. I'd suggest though that it is a lot more complicated than that.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Can nine year olds really give birth? I've never heard of it, IRL, so I think it's a bit of a strawman.

Yes, nine year olds can give birth. Girls get their periods younger and younger and it is unfortunately not that uncommon for preteens to be sexually active.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I would say there is no age at which I think it is okay to remove a baby from its mother, becoz we have decided arbirtarily that she is "too young."

Is any understanding of child development arbitrary? Is it artibitrary that we don't hand the car keys to a seven year old and tell them to feel free to take a drive? Is it arbitrary that we don't want ten year olds having sex? No, this is based in a meaningful and honest understanding of child development.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I think if we want children of young mothers to have good childhoods, we have to provide the supports to help that happen. It is not ethical to remove children from their mothers via non-consent or coercion. I see it as a very basic human rights violation, for both parties.

What about having the mothers have a good childhood themselves? It sort of sounds like folks are suggesting that girls are babymaking machines. We have to protect these newborns against a "primal wound" from separation but what about the 10 or 11 year old? Do we owe her no protection? I'd suggest that girls who are getting pregnant that young more than likely DON'T have a decent support system.

Please explain to me what support we need to provide to a young girl to make it so she can be a parent when she's not developmentally ready to be one?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
open adoption is a possibility.

Open adoption is not legally enforceable. Aparents can say they will do open adoption, and then reneg. Mama has no recourse. This has happened to one of our own mamas here.

Quote:

the most frequent reason women lose custody is for drug problems rather than "shame".
The social system is paltry, pathetic, and in shambles. Mamas who are forced to rely on it must live in desperate poverty, leave their babies to do workfare, and are called welfare queens despite all that. I'm willing to bet that is one of the most frequent reasons women *give up* custody. It is not a very walkable road.

Quote:

If you think it makes no difference then yes, what was happening in 1950 is totally relevant to right now. I'd suggest though that it is a lot more complicated than that.
Yes it is more complicated. And yet it is the same, yk? The way it plays out has changed some, but the themes remain.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 

The social system is paltry, pathetic, and in shambles. Mamas who are forced to rely on it must live in desperate poverty, leave their babies to do workfare, and are called welfare queens despite all that. I'm willing to bet that is one of the most frequent reasons women *give up* custody. It is not a very walkable road.


Absolutely which makes me wonder why you want to sentence the baby of this 13 year old who isn't ready to parent to that life. It is a hard enough life for someone who is ready to parent and who wants to make it happen.

This makes me wonder why instead of directing your attention to reforming the welfare system you seek instead to bash adoption and the many people who are pleased with having placed a child for adoption or having been an adoptee.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Yes, nine year olds can give birth. Girls get their periods younger and younger and it is unfortunately not that uncommon for preteens to be sexually active.

True, theoretically. I just don't ever hear of it actually happening, in any kind of numbers at all. So... kind of a strawman IMO.

Quote:

Is any understanding of child development arbitrary? Is it artibitrary that we don't hand the car keys to a seven year old and tell them to feel free to take a drive? Is it arbitrary that we don't want ten year olds having sex? No, this is based in a meaningful and honest understanding of child development.
It is based in a meaningful, honest, and *culturally biased* understanding of child development. Women all over the world become mothers in what we call the teenage years. It's a social construct that teenagers are big children. Which is fine, until we use it to violate their human rights.

Quote:

What about having the mothers have a good childhood themselves? It sort of sounds like folks are suggesting that girls are babymaking machines. We have to protect these newborns against a "primal wound" from separation but what about the 10 or 11 year old? Do we owe her no protection? I'd suggest that girls who are getting pregnant that young more than likely DON'T have a decent support system.
It's pretty much the end of childhood to get pregnant, grow a life in your body, give birth, and then have your child, that brand new being, taken from you against your will or coerced away, or to be forced to give up that new being becoz of guilt or deperation.

As I have said many times on this thread, I am in no way advocating forcing young mothers to keep babies. I simply assert that it should be a CHOICE she gets to make free from coercion or desperation.

Simple as that. I'm shocked there is an argument really.

Quote:

Please explain to me what support we need to provide to a young girl to make it so she can be a parent when she's not developmentally ready to be one?
Not developmentally ready is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Fact is, as I said, women around the world give birth at ages we consider scandalous.

I have already listed the supports I believe we should provide: Income, housing, educational and employment opportunities, support to stay home with babies during the early years, respectful non-coercive counselling, and the opportunity to participate in and co-create community with young mothers and others.

If we care about the babies as we all assert we do, allowing their mothers a free choice, and providing supports to them as they grow, is really the least we can do.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Absolutely which makes me wonder why you want to sentence the baby of this 13 year old who isn't ready to parent to that life. It is a hard enough life for someone who is ready to parent and who wants to make it happen.

This makes me wonder why instead of directing your attention to reforming the welfare system you seek instead to bash adoption and the many people who are pleased with having placed a child for adoption or having been an adoptee.

If that is what you are reading, you are misreading me.


----------



## gracesmommy (Mar 6, 2006)

I haven't heard anyone mention the role of the babies' fathers. It used to be that if you got "in trouble" it was shotgun wedding time. Now that has turned into single motherhood as the default, which is less ideal financially.

Of course, at one point a kid with a high school education or less could go to work in factory and earn enough to support his little family, and that ain't happening now. And there was a stigma if he didn't do the right thing, which doesn't seem to be there anymore. Still, why is this only a mother's problem?

Now I have to go sing my DD the "C is for Condom" song. Maybe if I start early...


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Good points gracesmommy, both about fathers, and how hard it has become to just get by.


----------



## Sarahbunny (Jun 13, 2006)

I'm confused. Did this 13 year old WANT to parent? From what I have seen in this thread, in the op post, she did not. So why do people seem to feel she is mature enough to parent (though it appears she didn't want to) but not mature enough to make the decision she made? I know this thread is all about a certain 13 yo, but some posts seem at such opposites with one another that I had to check twice to see if there were 2 situations - 1 with a mama who was trying to parent and 1 with a mama who was not.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonbeem* 
Confusing sentiment...an adoptive mother *IS* raising someone else's child, (and lots of adoptors feel they were the rescuers.) There are other ways to express nurturing, loving, mothering behaviors than gaining someone else's _baby_

As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reinds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.

I agree with the first half of your quote Moonbeem. DH and I are raising OUR child - DH's, mine and DD biomama's child. She's a part of all of us and will gain both good and bad things from all of us.

I don't understand the second half of your post though. Could you clarify?


----------



## Sarahbunny (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
If we care about the babies as we all assert we do, allowing their mothers a free choice, and providing supports to them as they grow, is really the least we can do.


I agree that every mama should have a free choice - and not be looked down upon for whatever decision she makes.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I do not know if this 13 year old was able to parent. I know she said she wanted to. I know there seems to have been some neglect. I also know that it seems people did not exactly rally around with practical support and encouraging messages, and I wonder if the outcome could have been vastly different had that occurred.

That is where I am coming from. I'm not: Oh no THIS particular mother should DEFINITELY have kept that baby. Which is what ppl seem to be wanting to hear.

These conversations can get a lot more polarized than they actually need to be, methinks.


----------



## anubis (Oct 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonbeem* 
The attitude that eventual abuse may occuar is completly dismissive of the primal wound which is caused by disrupting the continium of the birth/infancy stage. That is an emotional wound which forever effects ones relationships and developement. (like circ is a physical wound that forever effects the penis function) A mother's pregnancy prepares her baby to be attuned to her movements, smell, taste, her voice. Newborns recognize their mothers. Only her body is primed to provide the perfect breastmilk for that baby. An infant is capable of bonding only with his mother. After that attachment is secure trusting others will be the next progression. Some are better able to bond to substitutes than others, but it is a loss when mother/baby separation occuars. No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.

I asked this before and got ignored (the story of my life







):
How exactly does a mother that isn't there with the baby not inflict that wound? Assuming the primal wound theory is valid (I haven't read enough to have a proper opinion about it, but I'm assuming it is an issue that some adoptees have, I've met enough people who talk about it), how does a mother who neglects the child help protect from that wound? I mean, bio-mother who chooses not to bond vs. adoptive mother who does bond. I don't really see how the bio-mother is creating a secure attachment here, in this particular case.

I mean, you say it's a loss when mother/baby separation occurs. Okay, we'll go with that. The mother in this case chose to separate herself from the baby. She chose to neglect the baby and sneak out to go joyriding or whatever. The separation has occurred. Loss has occurred. Wound has been inflicted. Being the mother in the eyes of the law hardly matters to the baby. She was not acting like a mother. She was not bonding. How is giving the baby a stable family that will bond with him, will not neglect him, a bad thing? Would it be better to keep the baby waiting until mother comes around, if ever, when she hasn't shown any interest in making that change? Or would the wound heal better if there was a constant set of caring parents in the baby's life?

I mean, the primal wound theory isn't about being united with a set of adoptive parents. It's about being separated from the bio-mother. That separation had already occurred. The adoption is more the consequence, not the reason.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anubis* 
I mean, bio-mother who chooses not to bond vs. adoptive mother who does bond. I don't really see how the bio-mother is creating a secure attachment here, in this particular case.

You are assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mama and baby, and then assuming a healthy one between adoptive mama and baby.

I don't think anyone is saying it is better for a baby to be with a neglectful bio-mama than a loving and attentive adoptive mama. I think we are questioning the assumptions generally re: young and poor mamas and whether they can be good parents. And specific to this situation, I think we are questioning whether this young mama might have done a better job had people rallied around her.

I also don't think adoptive parents are necessarily always fabulous. I think they can be just as dysfunctional as everyone else. Adoption does not automatically = a fabulous life and perfect parenting.


----------



## Sarahbunny (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I do not know if this 13 year old was able to parent. I know she said she wanted to. I know there seems to have been some neglect. I also know that it seems people did not exactly rally around with practical support and encouraging messages, and I wonder if the outcome could have been vastly different had that occurred.

That is where I am coming from. I'm not: Oh no THIS particular mother should DEFINITELY have kept that baby. Which is what ppl seem to be wanting to hear.

These conversations can get a lot more polarized than they actually need to be, methinks.

Oh. Thank you for clarifying and I agree that it can get polarizing. Like I said, I think any mama who wants to and is able to parent should be encouraged and supported. No disagreement from me there.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

I am stunned that mamas would advocate that this baby should stay with this mama. Seriously, I wouldn't even want her to babysitt my kids. Judgemental- you betcha. *I just keep coming back to how long the baby should have waited for the mama to grow up or even make some attempt at parenting.* Please, give some me some idea. Does she have to leave him, no one realize and he gets physically hurt or worse? Since when is leaving a baby ok? \

And anyone who says that the system is flawed and does not do enough, that the adoptive parents should have taken them both in, she deserves another and another and another chance (which she does but not at the expense of her baby's welfare)- please act upon those beliefs. Take in a teen mom and her baby. Make sure it is one who has been in at least other settings. Make sure she has no respect for the consequences of her actions. Make sure her mouth is as foul as a sailor

Anyone who says the world is slanted to adoptive parents- go read the adoption forum here. It hardly seems like they are snatching babies from poor unsuspecting teens. They are going out of the country. They are adopting foster children. They are using private adoption. All are waiting and hoping that they are finally chosen. Not the other way around where they are chosing which birthmother they want to take a baby from. You should see all the paperwork and personal questions... and home visits that are involved.

In my line of work, it is often that there is pressure to keep a baby at all cost. You should hear what is said to the *very* few that choose to place their children with other parents. It can get pretty bad. And yet, it is not the same the other way around. Keeping the baby is the default now.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
You are assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mama and baby, and then assuming a healthy one between adoptive mama and baby.

Actually, I think it is an unhealthy attachment or no attachment between mom and baby *BASED ON* the details given by the op. I am assuming the adoptive parents will be able to bond well with the baby due to the fact the baby is still so young. Time does become important when it is used to set up an untrusting relationship with a baby. Each new wound goes deeper.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I don't think anyone is saying it is better for a baby to be with a neglectful bio-mama than a loving and attentive adoptive mama. I think we are questioning the assumptions generally re: young and poor mamas and whether they can be good parents. And specific to this situation, I think we are questioning whether this young mama might have done a better job had people rallied around her.

Young and poor does not equal a bad parent. Being neglectful does. I do know a few moms who were moms at 13. They did ok by their kids. They stayed in school, connected to the many social services avaliable, and relied on support groups to learn how to be a good parent. I know it can be done... but only if there is effort put forth by the mother. You can lead a horse to water but...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I also don't think adoptive parents are necessarily always fabulous. I think they can be just as dysfunctional as everyone else. Adoption does not automatically = a fabulous life and perfect parenting.

LOL- nothing does. That said, it is a very lengthy process that if it goes correctly, works to weed out unfit people. I sure didn't go through that when I became a parent.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
True, theoretically. I just don't ever hear of it actually happening, in any kind of numbers at all. So... kind of a strawman IMO.

The suggestion was that to consider age is discrimination, period. The bond is from birth and by giving birth someone is a mother. Okay, is there a limit to that? People want to defend that 13 years are ready to be moms. What about 9 year olds? If you want to be consistant about it and not be discriminatory based on age then you need to support any girl capable of giving birth as being ready to parent.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
It is based in a meaningful, honest, and *culturally biased* understanding of child development. Women all over the world become mothers in what we call the teenage years. It's a social construct that teenagers are big children. Which is fine, until we use it to violate their human rights.

How silly. The suggestion isn't that in all civilizations in all times that age is fixed. Rather that we operate in the here and now for people in the culture they live in. What happens to 10 year olds in the Amazon isn't really particularly relevant. What I'm concerned about is does this individual have what it takes to function as an adult in this culture in order to be able to provide a safe, nurturing home for this child. Her behavior clearly suggests otherwise. Knowing that some 13 year old in some other culture in some other time could do it has zero to do with the wellbeing of this baby.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
It's pretty much the end of childhood to get pregnant, grow a life in your body, give birth,

Most of the time with preteens and young teens who get pregnant there is some degree of sexual exploitation involved in that. Curious, do you consider when the girl gets raped the end of childhood or just when she gives birth.

If anything rather than railing against adoption, I'd think that some of this energy would be better spent speaking out against the sexual exploitation of children.


----------



## anubis (Oct 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
You are assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mama and baby, and then assuming a healthy one between adoptive mama and baby.

I don't think anyone is saying it is better for a baby to be with a neglectful bio-mama than a loving and attentive adoptive mama. I think we are questioning the assumptions generally re: young and poor mamas and whether they can be good parents. And specific to this situation, I think we are questioning whether this young mama might have done a better job had people rallied around her.

I also don't think adoptive parents are necessarily always fabulous. I think they can be just as dysfunctional as everyone else. Adoption does not automatically = a fabulous life and perfect parenting.

I'm assuming an unhealthy attachment between bio-mother and baby based on the information we've been given of this particular mother's actions. There are certainly reasons she is behaving that way and I'm not saying she's some sort of an evil monster or anything, just that at this point it wouldn't in my opinion be in the baby's best interest to let him wait for the mother to come around. I do hope that the mother gets suitable help. I also hope that adoption was the right choice for her. Nevertheless, I can't say I don't see this as the best choice for the baby, given the options available.

Yes, I would like to see better resources for young mothers (heck, I was raised by a young single mother). It would be great if someone could take in both the mother and the baby, turn the mother into a different direction, "save" them both, as it were. However, there are precious few people willing and able to take on a task that huge. I know I could not do that. Would I like to be able to do it? Yes, I would love to give the people involved the help they need. That would be ideal, obviously.

Sadly, what is ideal is not always practical. And sacrificing a child's wellbeing just to be idealistic isn't something I'm comfortable with. I fully agree that in an ideal world things would go as many have suggested in this thread. In reality, the resources aren't there. And given then circumstances, given the resources available, I still can't help but think this might just have been the best way things could have worked out for the baby.

I do see your point that if she had been told she could do it, things might have turned out differently. I agree, they might have. She should have been encouraged in her decision, no matter what it was. I can't remember anyone out and out saying that she was discouraged, but it's a fair assumption, there is a definite bias against young parents. That might well have played into why she made the kind of decisions she did. I mean, I subscribe to the theory that people do what is expected of them. If she was told that she'd be a crappy parent, it's no wonder she did what she did. I suppose I did overlook that earlier, it just seems like such an old-fashioned way of talking about young mothers. Where I come from (Finland originally), the support system is fairly good for parents, young or old, single or not. The stigma has faded. I guess I filtered the story through my own background and experiences. It must depend so much on where the whole thing takes place.

Heh, I started this post disagreeing and ended up agreeing (well, to a certain extent anyway). With thismama of all people, that's a first


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
The suggestion was that to consider age is discrimination, period. The bond is from birth and by giving birth someone is a mother. Okay, is there a limit to that? People want to defend that 13 years are ready to be moms. What about 9 year olds? If you want to be consistant about it and not be discriminatory based on age then you need to support any girl capable of giving birth as being ready to parent.

I've already addressed what I think should be done for 9 year old mothers, if they in fact exist. So I won't re-hash.

Quote:

How silly. The suggestion isn't that in all civilizations in all times that age is fixed. Rather that we operate in the here and now for people in the culture they live in. What happens to 10 year olds in the Amazon isn't really particularly relevant. What I'm concerned about is does this individual have what it takes to function as an adult in this culture in order to be able to provide a safe, nurturing home for this child. Her behavior clearly suggests otherwise. Knowing that some 13 year old in some other culture in some other time could do it has zero to do with the wellbeing of this baby.
What I am saying is that we create the climate based on our beliefs. And our beliefs about what age someone is developmentally ready to be a mother are subjective, biased. Then we construct a reality in which it is very damn difficult to be a mother, becoz nobody believes young women can do it, so supports are not there, trust and encouragement is not there, role models are not there.

Unless you look for them. Then they are there in spades. www.girl-mom.com comes to mind, what a fabulous network. But social programs are not there, that is the concrete reality.

I am saying this woman's behaviour does not exist in a vacuum. It is clear there was not enough support for her to parent her baby. Also clear she neglected the baby. I wonder if the support had existed, would we be seeing a different outcome now? Maybe. And tragic that we cannot know that.

Quote:

Most of the time with preteens and young teens who get pregnant there is some degree of sexual exploitation involved in that. Curious, do you consider when the girl gets raped the end of childhood or just when she gives birth.
I don't believe that for a minute. Yes women of all ages get raped, sadly. But I do not believe that teenage women are not sexually autonomous beings, but mere passive victims of others sexually. I do not think most teenage mothers became so via rape.

Quote:

If anything rather than railing against adoption, I'd think that some of this energy would be better spent speaking out against the sexual exploitation of children.
You choose what you spend your energy on, and I shall choose where I spend mine.


----------



## pearlgirl (Jun 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 

I think there are ethical ways to find homes for children who need them, children for would-be parents who want them. I don't think what is currently happening is ethical, and I don't think it's the only way we can do things.

This is in no way an attack on you specifically thismama, but just a good example of what I was saying when I said there was generalizations going on that some one said were not being made. Generalizations are being made. This statement is one of the types of generalizing statements that is hurtful. "I don't think what is currently happening is ethical". Our adoption was ethical. When some one talks about adoption and says what is currently happening isn't ethical without specifying the adoption situations they find unethical, their generalization hurts the children that need families. They insult the families built through completely ethical adoptions. There are many differing adoption experiences, many different reasons a child might find themselves in the position to be adopted. Ethical adoptions do happen and they happen more frequently than not. Do certain areas of the adoption world need reform? I think so. But it doesn't negate the parts that are working fine, just like the drunk woman who rolled on her baby and suffocated it doesn't negate co-sleeping being a perfecting acceptable and safe way to night-time parent. The term "Anti-Adoption" does not differentiate and there are distinctions to be made.

Sarah


----------



## pearlgirl (Jun 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonbeem* 
An infant is capable of bonding only with his mother.


What I would like to say in response to this wouldn't be appropriate so I'm just going to say that I disagree.

Sarah


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pearlgirl* 
This is in no way an attack on you specifically thismama, but just a good example of what I was saying when I said there was generalizations going on that some one said were not being made. Generalizations are being made. This statement is one of the types of generalizing statements that is hurtful. "I don't think what is currently happening is ethical". Our adoption was ethical. When some one talks about adoption and says what is currently happening isn't ethical without specifying the adoption situations they find unethical, their generalization hurts the children that need families. They insult the families built through completely ethical adoptions. There are many differing adoption experiences, many different reasons a child might find themselves in the position to be adopted. Ethical adoptions do happen and they happen more frequently than not. Do certain areas of the adoption world need reform? I think so. But it doesn't negate the parts that are working fine, just like the drunk woman who rolled on her baby and suffocated it doesn't negate co-sleeping being a perfecting acceptable and safe way to night-time parent. The term "Anti-Adoption" does not differentiate and there are distinctions to be made.

Sarah

Okay. Point taken.

I think there is much corruption within the adoption industry and that it compromises the ethics of adoption generally to a certain extent. I also think it is hard to have free choice in a culture where there is a huge lack of social services, and where the bio-mama/baby bond is not adequately respected. And I think over-respect for money and higher socio-economic status, and guilting mothers on that basis, complicates it further.

So in that way I tend to see adoption in general as being ethically compromised. Kwim?

That said, of course I don't know your individual situation, and I can think of adoptions that IMO were extremely ethical, as ethical as can possibly be given the context in which we are all operating.

If I were an adoptive mama, (and I may someday be), it would be very important to me to know exactly what went on with my child's adoption. What were the issues, why was the child relinquished or taken, who is profiting from this adoption, what level of contact is desired by the birthmama and available to my child. I would also make sure to fulfill any promises I make to the birthmother, and to support a reconnection when my child and the birthmama are ready.


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Okay. Point taken.

I think there is much corruption within the adoption industry and that it compromises the ethics of adoption generally to a certain extent. I also think it is hard to have free choice in a culture where there is a huge lack of social services, and where the bio-mama/baby bond is not adequately respected. And I think over-respect for money and higher socio-economic status, and guilting mothers on that basis, complicates it further.


There may be some pressure by some people to place the baby with adoptive parents but please show me the numbers. How many place their baby v. how many parent? Like I said before, most the young mothers I work with experience just the opposite. That is why there are over 40 waiting parents for every 1 (white, healthy of course







) baby.

If there is a lack of social services in our society (I think there is), it could be argued we are all at the same disadvatage. I'm sorry this girl was not able to use what was avaliabe to her. If I was her and I was a young mom but not 13 and I wanted to do right by my baby, I would have taken advantage of every possible resource I could find. She seemed to have no problem finding time to party. Maybe she should have used some time and energy to do some research on good parenting. If she is not capable of that, how then is she capable of advocating for her baby's needs?

ETA: there were over 138,000 adoptions in America in 1999. The adoption "industry is about 1.4 billion dollars. Figured out over those 138,000 adoptions, that is on average about $10,100 per an adoption. That is really not so much money that average people can not adopt.


----------



## sugarmoon (Feb 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
I'm sure that was painful - almost as painful as it was for the baby's Mom to hand it to you in the first place. But, why do you say that she will be at best a mediocre mother to him? You have no way of knowing that - isn't that why she is in a residential program for teen moms, to learn how to be a good parent? On what are you basing the idea that she will be mediocre?

I don't think there are any perfect solutions in these cases, and there is no sure fire predictor of who will be a good parent, and who won't. There are many mediocre parents out there, should the children be removed from all of them and reallocated to "approved" parents?

I'm basing my assessment that the best I can hope for is for her to become a mediocre mother on the "care" she gave her older dd for the 2 years that she "parented" her. Her most basic needs, food, shelter, human contact, adult supervision were not met. The mom had many many supportive people around her, offering physical help and financial help, connecting her with great resources in the community. She was working with an intensive parent educating program (not live-in though) that time around too. I'm also basing my assesment on the relationship I have developed with her over the last year of having her dd in my home as my foster daughter. I like this mom well enough as a person. But seeing how she acts and reacts to her kids leaves me very little hope that she will ever be more than just good enough. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

And, just to be clear, when I agreed to foster the baby I *knew* it would likely be very short term, as they were trying to get her into this program and I *knew* I would likely get my heart broken. I also knew that it would be best for the mom, and her family, if her 2 kids could be in foster care together, if she only had to deal w/ one foster mom etc. So I did it. That's my point -- not how painful it is for me, but that I do want this mom to have a chance, so I got involved.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonbeem* 
An infant is capable of bonding only with his mother. After that attachment is secure trusting others will be the next progression. Some are better able to bond to substitutes than others, but it is a loss when mother/baby separation occuars. No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.

Imagine that infant's psychological deconstruction when the person she is trying to bond with is emotionally unavailable, handles her with detachment or roughly, with angry, impatient hands. Imagine when her cries are unanswered, when she lies in her own filth until her skin breaks down. When she learns - forever - that there is no use in trusting or loving or reaching out or having needs. These children become the shattered adults who tragically mishandle their own lives and go on to procreate with no capacity to understand or implement parenting.

Then imagine that same infant cuddled, and cooed over, and snuggled. Fed immediately and fully. Clean and warm and loved. Consistently. Forever.

Infants bond completely with their caregivers, be they father, mother, distant aunt or anyone loving and attentive.

Sorry moonbeem. You're just wrong.


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

This has been an interesting thread. It has been closed but left on the boards in case anyone wants to read. This thread will be under review and may be removed depending on the number of UA violations. Thank you.


----------

