# Which family would you choose?



## 2lilsweetfoxes (Apr 11, 2005)

Hypothetical here. If you had to leave your child with someone else for an extended period of time for some reason (and you have no choice in the matter) and your choices are:
(presume you know all these families and are close to them all and they all adore you and your child)

A--A family that is AP-and-NFL-to the letter, but live on the other side of the country. Your child has only met them once or twice, but not recently. They follow a very different religion from your family and will not guarantee to you that they will even take your child to services or find someone who will, perhaps a friend or neighbor.

B--A family that is very mainstream--public schools, vaccinations and MD visits, good chance the baby will end up being left to CIO, punitive consequences such as spanking for misbehavior, no co-sleeping, adults rule and children expected to toe-the-line, standard American diet. However, they are the same religion as you and have seen your child regularly.

Why would you choose which particular family and what would be the dealbreaker. I'd give up the AP family to have a family that my child knew well and had the same religious practices. If you want, you could even give two opposing viewpoints and say what you'd choose using different criteria.


----------



## Ldavis24 (Feb 19, 2009)

I would choose family A primarily because of the AP thing and I would never EVER allow my child to stay with a family who CIO. As far as being across country and having only met this family once or twice I would say that depends on the age, if this is an infant we are talking about not knowing the family isn't going to make a huge difference. The distance would be difficult but more managable than thinking about my child being left to CIO or be vaxed or being punished in ways I abhor.

Finally, because I have no religion the only thing that would bother me is if they forced my child to adhere to their religious practices. That said if my child wanted to explore family A's religion I would not object at all. I guess if religion is a big part of your life and it is important to how you raise your child the answer would be pretty clear, like I said though that wouldn't make me more inclined to leave them with a family whose parenting I so clearly disagreed with.
Hope that wasn't too confusing!


----------



## mamabutterfly (Jun 23, 2002)

What kind of extended period of time are we talking here? Week or year?


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

I would choose family A, but I would try like hell to give my children a chance to get them know better first. Religion is more mutable, and personal, to me, and while I would prefer my children be raised within my chosen faith, it's not the end of the world if they aren't, as I always intend for them to be able to choose their religious beliefs for themselves. Being raised punitively would have lifelong effects. It would change the way they look at the world, the way they react to adversity, and it would make their lives less joyous. That's a huge thing.


----------



## 2lilsweetfoxes (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabutterfly* 
What kind of extended period of time are we talking here? Week or year?

let's say 6 months to a year.

Another reason I thought of that I'd pick family B--my son is set up with all his autism therapies here. I could not, in good conscience, move him cross-country and then he'd sit there on wait lists to determine whether he qualifies for therapy, then again until he gets into actual therapy. Then again when I return. (We are talking 4-8 months-long waits.)

Family A could only be considered if they are willing to move to my home because of what I wrote above. Then I'd just have a local church friend take my kids for church stuff.


----------



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

We aren't religious but I wouldn't leave my kids for an extended period of time with people who would push religion down their throats. It's very important to me, and it would be a deal braker. Some one who could be mellow and respectful about it, I would be OK with.

Some of the other things really depend on the age of the children. My kids attend public schools, but I wouldn't leave them with people who would hit them. Ever.

I would not leave my child with either of the families you describe because neither one shows respect for the children. If I were asked to care for children that were a different religion, I would try to respect that by finding someone within that religion to help with that. For example, if I were asked to raise a child who was Jewish, I'd be willing to drive the child to Hebrew school even though I'm not Jewish. I'd try to contect with some Jewish families and let them file the roles in the child's life that I can't. I wouldn't try to be EVERYTHING to the child, but help fill in the spots that I'm not. I wouldn't really trust someone who couldn't be bothered to do that. It's about respecting the child and the belief system that they already have in place. It's part of their identity that can get to choose what to do with as they get older.

How well my child knew the person wouldn't be a very high priority to me if I knew the person well. Sure it's easy for the child at the start if they know them, but they will get to know them and it's better if they are with the right person.


----------



## tanyam926 (May 25, 2005)

That is a tough one. Is there absolutely NO other family? There is no way that I would turn my kids over to anyone to be spanked and left to CIO. The other things I could get over but those two are dealbreakers for me bc I consider them abuse.

I would really consider the far away family.

Either way it would be traumatic for my children.


----------



## itsrtimedownhere (Jul 18, 2008)

A.

CIO will damage your baby for life. not going to church for a few months will not.

also, they said that they can't guarantee they will find someone to take him to church. can you set something up ahead of time with another family? it really isn't their responsibility. it would be nice for them to take him, but i don't feel like they should have to.


----------



## MittensKittens (Oct 26, 2008)

The only thing that comes to mind when you talk about a situation when one has no choice whether or not to leave children for 6-12 months is a deployment. If so, I'd go further and consider where I would prefer my children to remain if something happened to me. Providing the only options are those you mention, I'd go for family A. The well being and overall happiness of my children goes far above my personal and religious views. Attending some church services is way less damaging than spanking, IMO







.


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

Family A. Theres no way I would ever subject my child to something so developmentally and emotionally damaging as Family B.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I think I'd find another family. OR, make an effort for the kids to get to know family A. The religion aspect wouldn't bother me as I don't go to church but if I did that would probably be the least of my concerns if leaving them for 6 mos to a year was a reality.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2lilsweetfoxes* 
Another reason I thought of that I'd pick family B--my son is set up with all his autism therapies here. I could not, in good conscience, move him cross-country and then he'd sit there on wait lists to determine whether he qualifies for therapy, then again until he gets into actual therapy. Then again when I return. (We are talking 4-8 months-long waits.)

Are you sure that's the case? Just because the wait list is one length one place, it doesn't mean it will be some where else. If he is already dx and you can plan ahead, this might not be true.

I would really really not leave a an autisic child with people who spank and expect child to tow the line.


----------



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

But for less than a year, the regilous thing would be less important to me.


----------



## ssh (Aug 12, 2007)

Family A. Spanking and CIO do permanent damage. Religion is more than going to services. If a child has beliefs and is respected as a person having a break from services shouldn't make a difference.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

How old is the child? For 10 and under or so, I'd choose Family A and figure out a way for them to get to know one another better first. For 10 and over, I would choose Family B. I'd assume that even the most traditional mainstream parents do not spank children over 10.

Also this is assuming that Family A will not try to force the child to attend services with them, merely refrain from taking the child to services themselves.

Also as I said, if this is an older child with Family B, I would take into account how much the child likes them.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

A

I would _*never*_ consider leaving my child with someone who would assault ("spank") or neglect ("CIO") them.

Religious events can be put on hold.

We have a lifetime to cultivate our faith, and it could take just as long to heal from abuse.

Trin.


----------



## pianojazzgirl (Apr 6, 2006)

If I knew or even thought that my child might be left to CIO or be spanked I would (in my mind) have no choice but to send them to family A. But is it possible, in our hypothetical scenario, to have family B agree not to do either of those two things to my children? The only way I could even consider leaving my kids with anyone is if it someone I really trusted, so I'm assuming that if they promised not to CIO or spank I would trust them to keep their word. Because the one thing that makes me favour family B is that my children already know and trust them. The religion thing is hard for me to figure in to the equation as we are not at all religious. I guess in my case it would mean that family B is also non-religious, and family A is religious. And I do think I'd be weirded out by them (fam A) trying to convert my kids or something. Though then again, by your scenario, they are super AP and all, so likely (maybe???) to be respectful of our different beliefs and not push their religion on my kids??? Hmmm.. a lot to get my mind around. I'm glad I don't have to decide this for real!

ETA beyond favouring family B because my kids knew them well, I'd even more importantly not want their lives to be further disrupted by having to move across the country. I'm assuming that if they stayed here my dd could still go to the same school, and both of them could still see the other people here that they know and love. I seem to think it would be less traumatic (assuming fam B would agree to no CIO or spanking) for my kids to stay in familiar surroundings.

BUT if it was certain, likely or even just possible CIO and spankings then NO WAY would I leave them with that family.


----------



## Maluhia (Jun 24, 2007)

Family A without a doubt.


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

A!


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Hypothetically, how old would the children be in this scenario? And is family B willing to compromise in any way like on spanking and CIO?

I mean on paper, family B sounds terrible. But when I though about it, technically speaking, some people I know and like are like family B other than the spanking. That doesn't mean they sit and let their kids cry for hours on end every night. I mean some of them even fall asleep in the kid's room at night so there isn't any crying. But there have been times when there has been some CIO going on. But, I'm sure they would respect my wishes if I were to leave my kids with them. They are good people, and I trust them.

And there isn't much there about family A, but the AP/NFL "to the letter" part concerns me. I'm all about some AP and NFL, but I find those parents that are rigid about it are not the ones I have a lot in common with. That kind of rigidity just doesn't sit well with me. And they are all the way across the country, and the kids don't know them. That's a big minus.

I dunno. Really, there is just not enough here for me to go on. I wouldn't rule anyone in just because they are into AP/NFL, and I wouldn't rule anyone out just because they raise their kids differently than I do. It would really come down to which parents I trusted most and which situation felt right. And if the kids were old enough to have an opinion, that would count too.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
Family A. Theres no way I would ever subject my child to something so developmentally and emotionally damaging as Family B.


----------



## sisteeesmama (Oct 24, 2008)

It depends on my rleaionships with each family and the age of the child but like a pp said under 10 probably the family A situation and over 10 probably the family B situation.

is this a real life thing? if so I hope you would reconsider leaving a young child with people who you know would leave them to CIO or would spank them if that is a real thing that could/would happen


----------



## hippiemama76 (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty* 
A

I would _*never*_ consider leaving my child with someone who would assault ("spank") or neglect ("CIO") them.

Religious events can be put on hold.

We have a lifetime to cultivate our faith, and it could take just as long to heal from abuse.

Trin.











The (IMO) borderline-abusive parenting of Parents B would be the line in the sand for me. I would never subject my child to that.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Personally, the religious issue would be a dealbreaker. I wouldn't leave my kids with a family who didn't keep kosher, if I had any choice in the matter. There are worse things in the world than "non AP parenting".

If I wasn't religious, I'm not sure which I'd select. I'd want my kids with a family with similar values- but I wouldn't want to disrupt my kids' lives more than necessary. Moving in with people they hardly know (even if they're AP parents) could be more traumatic than moving in with people they already know well. For a young baby I might lean towards Family A, if co-sleeping was still a big deal for the child. But for older kids, I'd want them to stay in the same school, or at least not move too far away from all their friends, if it could be avoided.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Linda on the move* 
We aren't religious but I wouldn't leave my kids for an extended period of time with people who would push religion down their throats. It's very important to me, and it would be a deal breaker. Some one who could be mellow and respectful about it, I would be OK with.

Yes, that. You really need another choice here.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Family A. We aren't a religious family, but we have no problems with out chilren being exposed to others religions. We do, however, have a proble with our children not being treated like individuals with a mind of their own whos needs are just as important as the adults.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *philomom* 
You really need another choice here.

I'd think she's doing pretty good to have two families that she can ask to take her kids for six months to a year _and_ who are willing to do it.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

i would choose family B because my kids are older and the religon thing is important to me. More important than some parenting choices. for a baby it would be different. but I still don't know if i would leave them with A. ....


----------



## Dahlea (May 15, 2008)

I'd pick family A because those things are much more important to me than religion.


----------



## Sol_y_Paz (Feb 6, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2lilsweetfoxes* 
Hypothetical here. If you had to leave your child with someone else for an extended period of time for some reason (and you have no choice in the matter) and your choices are:
(presume you know all these families and are close to them all and they all adore you and your child)

A--A family that is AP-and-NFL-to the letter, but live on the other side of the country. Your child has only met them once or twice, but not recently. They follow a very different religion from your family and will not guarantee to you that they will even take your child to services or find someone who will, perhaps a friend or neighbor.
.

If I hadn't seen them often and neither had my child, I would not know for sure they are what they say they are anyway...


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

nak

The CIO and physical punishment would be a dealbreaker for me. Unless I was sure they would not practice these...well I'd still be doubtful though if that's their accepted lifestyle.

I would think a child could attend different religious services and learn something new, or attend none at all and be okay...Hm, in particular I am thinking of my Catholic faith...the sacrament of communion is typically given at 7 years min. so how young are we talking about here?

Plus, I would consider it easier to ask the caregivers to take DD to a religious service, or even perhaps give her taxi money or some such thing...as opposed to asking someone NOT to CIO/punish. JMO but it seems a person would more easily be able to attend an event if asked, as opposed to stop habitual behavior if asked.

I don't really like the subtle implication here....that my faith might be sacrificed in place of how I raise DD. They are one and the same for me.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sol_y_Paz* 
If I hadn't seen them often and neither had my child, I would not know for sure they are what they say they are anyway...









hmm and that's a good point to consider.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Is the deal with family A that they just don't want to go to the church with your DC, or do they really disrespect the religion and would undermine it?

We are vegetarian. I wouldn't expect people caring for DS to become vegetarian, but I would expect them to offer vegetarian foods to DS, and not laugh at him (OK they could giggle b/c he the way he says it is _so_ cute) when he says "we don't eat chicken b/c we don't want to hurt them."

I would check to see if his therapies for his autism could be set up quickly. Usually the waiting list is for the testing and getting a plan, once the DX and plan are in place simply moving those to a new school district shouldn't be too much of a hardship.

You describe family B as mainstream. Are they hardcore believers in "spare the rod, spoil the child," or are they just kind of every day folks who don't happen to have better strategies for dealing with their own kids? Are they understanding of you DC's special needs? Are they generally flexible and respectful f people having different ways of doing things?

How old is the child? What are the chances that this might end up becoming a permanent situation? If you DC was placed closer to home would it mean they could visit you and/or your family?


----------



## 2xshy (Nov 27, 2007)

wow.

honestly, i would never want to leave DD with anyone who would hit her.
But having said that, right now moving her across teh country away from all her other family, friends, daycare ect i think could be just as damaging.
if i could get family B to assure me that no spanking or harsh punishment would would be used I would opt for them
Also no matter how well i knew someone if i hadn't seem them regularly for long enough periods of time ( as in family A) i would not feel comfortable send my child to live with them. also with family A if they are so AP and into respecting your child surely they could understand how faith is an important part of your lives and work to accommodate that be it finding another person or family your child can attend services with or religious functions.


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2lilsweetfoxes* 
(presume you know all these families and are close to them all and they all adore you and your child)

A--A family that is AP-and-NFL-to the letter, but live on the other side of the country. Your child has only met them once or twice, but not recently. They follow a very different religion from your family and will not guarantee to you that they will even take your child to services or find someone who will, perhaps a friend or neighbor.

B--A family that is very mainstream--public schools, vaccinations and MD visits, good chance the baby will end up being left to CIO, punitive consequences such as spanking for misbehavior, no co-sleeping, adults rule and children expected to toe-the-line, standard American diet. However, they are the same religion as you and have seen your child regularly.

Really wondering how old your child is. There are no siblings, just an only child that will either move across the country or stay in your area, right? Do both prospective families have kids, and does your child like them?

I STRONGLY vote for family B! I was raised in family B (my real family - not after my parents died) and turned out just fine. Family B can be very loving - mainstream doesn't equal cruel! Family B is nearby and adores your child. It is an easy decision IMO.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
Family A. Theres no way I would ever subject my child to something so developmentally and emotionally damaging as Family B.

I know this is MDC, but a good number of us (I'd assume majority) were raised in family B. I was, and have zero problems with the way my parents did things. They vaxxed 'cause they didn't know any better so I won't hold that against them. I was spanked once and don't have a bit of physical or emotional damage from it. Are there other ways that may be better - sure. But family B (whom the OP said "adores her child") does not sound "damaging"...









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
I'd want my kids with a family with similar values- but I wouldn't want to disrupt my kids' lives more than necessary. Moving in with people they hardly know (even if they're AP parents) could be more traumatic than moving in with people they already know well. I'd want them to stay in the same school, or at least not move too far away from all their friends.

I agree! We don't know how old the OP's child is, do we? And especially because it sounds like it is just ONE child - with no sibling going to provide any consistency during this time.

My parents died when I was in junior high (I am the oldest of three). My worst fear was being sent two states away to live with our relatives on one side. We knew them well; they adore us and would have taken good care of us. BUT on top of everything else, to lose EVERYTHING we know - our friends, our school, the path we rode our bikes on; that is just too much to ask of a child who is going through a loss (if even for 6 to 12 months). We ended up in our house with other relatives who robbed us blind and I spent years in court trying to recoup our college accounts, etc. And I STILL think that was better than being forced to move away.


----------



## azgirl (Nov 27, 2006)

What Kirsten said. And actually, I am now reconsidering who we name to take care of our kids if something happens to us. Up until know we were thinking of family members that are "like us" but don't live nearby and who we don't see often. Hmmm.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what we would do. You should follow your gut. In my reading of your posts, your gut says "b" quite strongly. If your kids stayed were you live they not only get to go to the same "type" of church, but the actual same church. This is obviously a hard decision for you and I am very sorry you are going through this. FWIW I could have answered this post with one letter







B. No question in my mind.

Is this a real situation you are in?


----------



## Rosedotcom (Apr 22, 2003)

Family B. I think it would be more jarring to send hypothetical kids away across the country to virtual strangers. Family B may not be the same as you on paper but they aren't going to be getting vaccines or picking schools for your child in this situation. You are the one making the rules. You can say that they don't get spanked.

When you (general you) write out family descriptions of how people live by what they practice it's all very black and white but it's more than likely they are both very loving homes.


----------



## tanyam926 (May 25, 2005)

I don't think anyone is saying that mainstream parenting=bad or damaging parenting.

The ONLY things I would object to when it comes to family B are the spanking (so my kid will be hit on top of missing me and being in a new environment) and being left to CIO (lonely, sad, wants me but needs to go to sleep so is left to deal on their own).

Take out the spanking and CIO and I would totally pick family B. However, since the op said there is a "good chance" that her child would be spanked and left to CIO, on top of being away from mommy and their home, no way.

FTR I was also spanked growing up (not beaten) and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's bad enough when it's your own parents but being hit by others while missing your mom? So sad.

The op said it was hypothetical so I hope this isn't an impending situation. I would search high and low if those were my only two options though. Like a relative who may not do everything I would do but who wouldn't spank or CIO. (I think for me these 2 issues speak to a larger lack of understanding and respect for the child as a person of equal worth as the adult KWIM? I am in no way saying that parents who spank are horrible parents. We do the best we can w/what we have at the time).


----------



## KristyDi (Jun 5, 2007)

I have questions.

How old are the kids here?

What is the family dynamic in Family B? Are the generally loving people? Does CIO even apply to the kids in this situation or are they past that stage? Would the family be receptive to not spanking your kids? I would honestly be surprised if most spanking families felt comfortable spanking someone else's kid, even if that kid was living w/ them. What are their kids like? Are they healthy, cheerful, independent kids or are the cowed little automatons?

The religion thing would be very big for me. Exactly how big would depend on the age and personality of my kid and the level of respect for our faith in family A. Could you ask your place of worship if they know of a place of worship in your religion near family A? You could contact them and see if someone there would be willing to pick you kid up for services. I believe a community of faith is an important support for a young person of faith.

Is there a way for your kid to develop some kind of relationship with family A before this happens? Being sent away to virtual strangers and losing mama would be pretty traumatic.


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

I would never leave my children with people that would hit them and let them CIO.


----------



## pauletoy (Aug 26, 2007)

I am leaning toward family B because the child already knows them well.

I would also like to know how old the child is.

If these people know you and love you and your child, why wouldn't they respect your wishes regarding spanking?


----------



## darien (Nov 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty* 
A

I would _*never*_ consider leaving my child with someone who would assault ("spank") or neglect ("CIO") them.

Religious events can be put on hold.

We have a lifetime to cultivate our faith, and it could take just as long to heal from abuse.

Trin.

What she said!


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

I think I'd go with the family my child wanted to be with, really. In another thread I read that your son is 6, is that right? And that you've spent a year away from him a few years ago. Who took care of him then? If that person or family is available I may also go with the same people he stayed with the last extended time apart from you. Thats a toughie! I think I'd go crazy w/o my kid for that long! Hope you find someone you are satisfied with, best luck.


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

The autism thing really puts things into perspective so please take that into account, future posters!

To take a kid with autism and move him across the country to live with people he doesn't know, away from his therapies, is almost a guarantee of disaster. Consistency is really important, esp with his therapies, and with routine and familiar people. So I'd go with family B, with the caveat that you meet with them to discuss sensory issues/behavior issues/discipline that does NOT involve spanking, since that is particularly inappropriate for a child with special needs. Set up a behavior plan with them and then talk regularly via phone, e-mail, if necessary, to help them follow it.


----------



## wendybird (Jul 21, 2007)

Family b would be completely discluded...I see spanking someone's child, especially someone else's child as abuse. While I can see the autism and upheaval being Very difficult I would still choose family A and try to contact a church in the area to see if I could arrange for spiritual guidance that would not burden the hosting family.


----------



## 2lilsweetfoxes (Apr 11, 2005)

Interesting. This was a complete hypothetical, as I do not know a "family A" IRL. When I was gone, the older two kids stayed with their dad (the infant was conceived and born after I returned.). But, looking at it, DH is "family B". (He is their dad, also, not step-dad).


----------



## SuzyLee (Jan 18, 2008)

I would choose A.

But religion is low on my priority list. I figure I could undo whatever "damage" was done, since this isn't a permanent arrangement.


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2lilsweetfoxes* 
Interesting. This was a complete hypothetical, as I do not know a "family A" IRL. When I was gone, the older two kids stayed with their dad (the infant was conceived and born after I returned.). But, looking at it, DH is "family B". (He is their dad, also, not step-dad).

I'm not sure I understand. Surely, if your dh is all of your children's biological father and he's involved with them day to day, it would be the logical choice to leave them with him instead of (hypothetical) strangers? My dh would never dream of co-sleeping with the kids (he can't sleep with little squirming bodies in bed) and he has left them to CIO when we were both too frustrated to constructively soothe a child. I wouldn't even consider leaving them with someone else, especially strangers accross the country where he couldn't see them for a year, if I had to leave for that time period. Just because his parenting can seem harsh in some situations to outsiders, doesn't mean he doesn't love and cherish his children with every fibre of his being. I know for a fact that it would _kill_ him if he couldn't see them for a year. Are you concerned that your dh might not be able to properly care for your children during that year?


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Quote:

Interesting. This was a complete hypothetical, as I do not know a "family A" IRL. When I was gone, the older two kids stayed with their dad (the infant was conceived and born after I returned.). But, looking at it, DH is "family B". (He is their dad, also, not step-dad).
This would have been good to know a little earlier.

Trin.


----------



## Adamsmama (Oct 24, 2003)

That is a hard one but my religious beliefs are more important to me than my AP/NFL beliefs. I would have the toughest time with the diet and the CIO aspect of the family B... Oh and I wouldn't feel comfortable with this family spanking my child.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *itsrtimedownhere* 
A.

CIO will damage your baby for life. not going to church for a few months will not.









I had a lot of religious experiences as a kid and it's really a personal decision. I can't say attending another religion's services as being that terrible on a short term basis.

But then again I can never conceive of being in a situation like this. Luckily, my family is super-crunchy and about 50 people would offer their homes in a heartbeat, and my in-laws are more traditional but do NOT CIO or anything like spanking, so they would be fine, too. Thank the gods.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Provided this wasn't an immediate decision to make, I'd start looking around to try and get connected with families that were more likeminded in all areas.

Neither option sounds good to me. I'd probably go with the family across the country, if I knew they would respect our religion in front of our child, *but* I wouldn't be comfortable with it at all, especially with my child not knowing them well.









On the other hand, it would be perfectly reasonable to have an agreement with the other family that they *not* spank your child. If they were just stricter than us but still a loving family, I could go with them. They shouldn't spank another person's child anyway with out express written permission. Doing anything else could get sticky for them, and they probably know that.


----------



## pauletoy (Aug 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2lilsweetfoxes* 
Interesting. This was a complete hypothetical, as I do not know a "family A" IRL. When I was gone, the older two kids stayed with their dad (the infant was conceived and born after I returned.). But, looking at it, DH is "family B". (He is their dad, also, not step-dad).


This is pretty important here. If you are talking about the child's father, I don't see how you could possibly take his child away from him and give the kid to a virtual stranger. I believe most people here thought you were talking about sending the kids to live with extended family or a family friend not chosing between the kids' father and someone else. Sorry but a child being with thier father (who as you stated loves them) trumps AP and NFL in my book.


----------



## peainthepod (Jul 16, 2008)

I consider spanking and CIO to be abusive so I would choose A no matter what. But if "Family B" really means the child's biological father, it's sticky. My husband would do anything to prevent being separated from our son for so long. Even if we were divorced, I'd never even think of keeping them apart that way. Then again, spanking and CIO are abusive in my book and I consider vaccination a complete dealbreaker, right up there with circumcision.

A tough one.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

Wait a minute....I just read through this....the family B is the dad? Why wouldn't you leave your child with his own father who has been there for him forever? Unless he was really, really abusive or something.

I mean, I would rather leave my ds1 with the father of my 2nd baby, who he knows well, than his biological father who he does not really know at all, because even though we (2nd baby's dad & I )have definitely had our issues relating to parenting and he does certain things very differently (i.e. he does a sort of CIO thing and is not opposed to spanking, definitely the "family B") when I really did have to be away from my ds, instead of taking advantage of the situation to start parenting ds the way he thought it should be done (and which we had very frequently argued about), he went out of his way to make arrangements for ds that he knew *I* would feel were best for ds, and then followed up to ensure that ds was being cared for the way I would have wanted.

Before this happened I was sure that he was a control freak on TOP of having what I thought were sub-par parenting skills. After seeing how he handled the situation I am convinced that although he may have made mistakes (like we all do) when it came down to it he had ds's best interests at heart. Ds asks for him all the time.

I say that to say that knowing what I have seen now I would much, much rather see a child go to someone who you know loves them dearly, no matter how different their parenting style may be, than someone who doesn't know them as much and isn't as vested in the situation. That person in spite of their different parenting style, if they love the child as much as you say they do (whether it's dad or just a good friend) will adjust to do what's in the CHILD'S best interests.

I think that's what it boils down to, way more than whether the family eats organic or goes to church.


----------



## rubidoux (Aug 22, 2003)

I'd go w the AP family. I would feel like leaving my child w the cio family would be like abandoning them emotionally. I spent a llot of time away from my mother (didn't know my father) when I was young and it was such a terrible heart ache.







I would really want someone who could be there for my little guys to help them with that. That's really by far the thing I'd be most concerned about in your hypothetical. They could feed the kids twinkies every day and take them to services for 12 different religions and even go crazy visiting the doctor and I'd still pick them if I felt like they could take care of my kids' emotional needs and make them feel really cared for. I do not think the cio family could do that.


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

This thread just makes me feel sad. It's so awful that mamas would just let their children be hit and neglected, even if it's the father doing it.


----------



## RockStarMom (Sep 11, 2005)

Family A. I wouldn't even leave my daughter with a family like B for a few hours.


----------



## mamadebug (Dec 28, 2006)

Hard to know if they are hypothetical people....but, I think it has to do with varying degrees of what they do. If it is a super parent dominant house where the kids are spanked or threatened with spanking throughout the day (as I have sadly seen), I would never leave my kids there. If they do CIO starting as a newborn and never go to the kiddo, even when sick, etc - again, I'd never leave my kids there.

But, there are families that I, for the most part, really like. They may not make all the same choices as I do, but I think they are overall great families. I can think of one friend who did rarely give her kids a spanking - one swat on the bottom. I don't think it is the best parenting strategy, and I have never done it, but it is far from beating a kid. I have another friend who did resort to CIO after a year and a half of sleep deprivation. Again, I don't think it is the greatest choice, but at that point, I think she did what she had to do. If my kids were overall really comfortable with these people, I think the risk of emotional trauma from one swat on the bottom once a year is less than the risk of being transplanted and left with people a kid doesn't know and having to form new bonds with them, even if they are really gentle people. But, again, hard to know unless you have real people with real examples of behavior! Glad you don't have to really make that choice!


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty* 
A

I would _*never*_ consider leaving my child with someone who would assault ("spank") or neglect ("CIO") them.

Religious events can be put on hold.

We have a lifetime to cultivate our faith, and it could take just as long to heal from abuse.

Trin.

This precisely.


----------



## Birdie B. (Jan 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadebug* 
Hard to know if they are hypothetical people....but, I think it has to do with varying degrees of what they do. If it is a super parent dominant house where the kids are spanked or threatened with spanking throughout the day (as I have sadly seen), I would never leave my kids there. If they do CIO starting as a newborn and never go to the kiddo, even when sick, etc - again, I'd never leave my kids there.

But, there are families that I, for the most part, really like. They may not make all the same choices as I do, but I think they are overall great families. I can think of one friend who did rarely give her kids a spanking - one swat on the bottom. I don't think it is the best parenting strategy, and I have never done it, but it is far from beating a kid. I have another friend who did resort to CIO after a year and a half of sleep deprivation. Again, I don't think it is the greatest choice, but at that point, I think she did what she had to do. If my kids were overall really comfortable with these people, I think the risk of emotional trauma from one swat on the bottom once a year is less than the risk of being transplanted and left with people a kid doesn't know and having to form new bonds with them, even if they are really gentle people. But, again, hard to know unless you have real people with real examples of behavior! Glad you don't have to really make that choice!

I totally agree with this.

What a strange hypothetical scenario - why do you ask?


----------



## 2lilsweetfoxes (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Birdie B.* 
I totally agree with this.

What a strange hypothetical scenario - why do you ask?

I was giving extremes--then put a "dealbreaker" on both the one that looks good on paper and "something important to you" on the one who does not. So, having to choose the lesser of the two evils, if you will. The old "to get A, you have to give up B". (I honestly do not know anyone who does not spank in real life.)


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2lilsweetfoxes* 
(I honestly do not know anyone who does not spank in real life.)

I know very few who do. It's cruel. You'd assume more people would move beyond medieval methods of child rearing by now seeing how it harms children and families.


----------



## BunniMummi (Jan 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liliaceae* 
This thread just makes me feel sad. It's so awful that mamas would just let their children be hit and neglected, even if it's the father doing it.

I think that is reading more into the words than was there.

Not everyone who has let their kids CIO is neglectful. Some people support it because they had easy kids that it worked quickly on. If you had asked me about CIO when I only had DS1 I would have been totally appalled, he was one of those kids that it simply wouldn't have worked on without inflicting permanent emotional damage on all of us (no it was never seriously tried). Then DS2 came around and on the nights I was alone with them there were times I had to put him in his crib, do something with DS1 and then go back to him. I wasn't intentionally picking CIO as a strategy but you know what? He generally cried for like 2 minutes and then zonked out. I didn't even have time to get back to him and do the normal bedtime routine. Had I been a first time mom with more mainstream ideas I might be saying "CIO works! Just try it!". That doesn't mean in a million years I would be able to listen to a kid cry for hours without responding to them.

Also spanking isn't a good strategy either but again it's one word that spans a whole spectrum of possible applications. Growing up my mother had a wooden spoon in a drawer than she would threaten to get if I was acting up. I was a pretty easy kid and the warning was enough for me but it wasn't until I was an adult and a parent that it occurred to me that she had never actually used the spoon, ever. Was I bare hand swatted a few times? Probably, I don't actually remember. I would still leave my children with my parents because I know them and have seen firsthand their reactions and judgment calls.

I'm not in any way advocating CIO or spanking, just saying that they aren't terms that have only one possible meaning. On the subject of family A, I wouldn't anymore leave my children with someone I don't really know (like day to day have seen their actual lives) because they read the same parenting books than I would let someone vote for me because we belong to the same political party. It's not a cut and dry choice between good vs. evil, and as a theoretical question is impossible to answer because it's hard to have a "gut feeling" about people that don't exist.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

I haven't read all the replies, but this is not hypothetical. This is my life. If something happens to DH and myself, our kids go to Parents A. DH and I are both atheists. Parents A are his brother and wife, who have three children already. They are deeply religious, which I do not have a problem with, but it is such a huge part of their life that it colors everything else and they would raise our children this way, regardless of our beliefs, and ascribe their own actions to the will of god.... all of which I do have a problem with. But much more important than the religion, they are warm, generous, honest people. They are gentle, loving parents, and respect the individuality of their children - all traits that I think make a healthy child grow into a happy, healthy adult.


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

closed for moderator review


----------

