U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2013, 07:06 PM
 
Location: California
167 posts, read 153,108 times
Reputation: 177

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Adoption is making the best out of a bad situation, fundamentally.

The ideal situation is a married mother and father, with an upper middle class income, a stay at home mom, and the parents are the biological parents of the child. But since that doesn't always happen, adoption is a viable, good alternative. Well for some teen parents, they can make a good situation out of a less than ideal time to make a family.
Nice post, and totally agree. Besides all that, many loving parents of teen moms would never think of putting up their grandchild for adoption, hence they are for family preservation, the right of the child to be raised in their family of origin, and step up to the plate, and pitch in with their help. Sure beats the alternative, stranger adoption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2013, 05:20 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,837 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Adoption may not always be an absolute ideal option but it depends on the situation. Most of the time it is.
Says who?

Quote:
But, also, the situation you've described above cannot guarantee 100% that the children will be raised "ideally."
Adoption does not 100% guarantee that the child will be raised ideally, either. It is always best to keep a child within its family (except in cases where the entire family is abusive/negligent) than to risk giving a child to strangers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:59 AM
 
9,158 posts, read 9,234,637 times
Reputation: 28677
Quote:
Adoption does not 100% guarantee that the child will be raised ideally, either. It is always best to keep a child within its family (except in cases where the entire family is abusive/negligent) than to risk giving a child to strangers.
"It is always best".

This is an example of how poorly generalizations serve us when we talk about these kinds of issues. I would say there is a huge difference between these two families:

1. Mom and Dad have been married for ten years and have a decent (not necessarily large) family income along with a home in a safe neighborhood. They've completed their education and understand something about raising children (even if this baby is their first). The pregnancy was planned and Mom and Dad are both very excited.

Contrast this with...

2. L. was sixteen years old when her boyfriend made her pregnant. When she told him she was going to have a baby, it was like he fell off the face of the earth. She hasn't seen him since. He doesn't return phone calls. L. is very anxious and until she got pregnant was worried about getting a passing grade in tenth grade English. Her parents are not supportive. Her father was laid off three months ago at work and is struggling to find another job. Her mother also works and has no time to help raise a baby.

Its possible that L. and her family may pull things together and provide a suitable home and environment in which to raise a baby. I don't support forcing her or anyone else to place the baby for adoption. However, you'd really have to be brainwashed to not see a host of problems in the second situation.

I don't accept that #2 fits a generalization like "Its always best to keep a baby in its family". You are free to disagree with me on that point. I don't see myself changing my mind that adoption is probably the best option in such a family. That's true even with the whole host of programs our government provides unwed mothers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 12:39 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,837 times
Reputation: 834
Mark, the second hypothetical scenario you provided doesn't fit what I was saying. So of course it doesn't apply. We are talking about families that are capable of banning together & raising a child in a healthy, loving home. When possible this is of course better for a child than taking the risks that are inherent in giving a baby up for adoption.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 02-06-2013 at 12:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 03:37 PM
 
16,568 posts, read 14,026,756 times
Reputation: 20523
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
"It is always best".

This is an example of how poorly generalizations serve us when we talk about these kinds of issues. I would say there is a huge difference between these two families:

1. Mom and Dad have been married for ten years and have a decent (not necessarily large) family income along with a home in a safe neighborhood. They've completed their education and understand something about raising children (even if this baby is their first). The pregnancy was planned and Mom and Dad are both very excited.

Contrast this with...

2. L. was sixteen years old when her boyfriend made her pregnant. When she told him she was going to have a baby, it was like he fell off the face of the earth. She hasn't seen him since. He doesn't return phone calls. L. is very anxious and until she got pregnant was worried about getting a passing grade in tenth grade English. Her parents are not supportive. Her father was laid off three months ago at work and is struggling to find another job. Her mother also works and has no time to help raise a baby.

Its possible that L. and her family may pull things together and provide a suitable home and environment in which to raise a baby. I don't support forcing her or anyone else to place the baby for adoption. However, you'd really have to be brainwashed to not see a host of problems in the second situation.

I don't accept that #2 fits a generalization like "Its always best to keep a baby in its family". You are free to disagree with me on that point. I don't see myself changing my mind that adoption is probably the best option in such a family. That's true even with the whole host of programs our government provides unwed mothers.
I agree in the general (sort of ironic to use "general" but you know what I mean) sense with the above. Generalizations just don't fit situations as varied as families.

In some cases adoption is the best case, in others staying with the biological family, even if the mother is young is best. I also think it is nearly impossible to quantify. That being said and meant 100%, there is a common view on this forum that adoption is always best and has no associated problems, well at least for the adoptee. Thank you for expressing a differing view point. Also, thank you for saying that teen mothers should not be forced to give up their children JUST for being teens or worse, for being less than 21.

And to be fair, the person you are quoting did qualify their statement with "except in cases of abuse/neglect". Actually that begs the question, do you think there are cases where a biological family member wants to parent and without abuse or neglect where a child should be put up for adoption instead of being with its biological family?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 06:02 PM
 
9,158 posts, read 9,234,637 times
Reputation: 28677
Quote:
I agree in the general (sort of ironic to use "general" but you know what I mean) sense with the above. Generalizations just don't fit situations as varied as families.

In some cases adoption is the best case, in others staying with the biological family, even if the mother is young is best. I also think it is nearly impossible to quantify. That being said and meant 100%, there is a common view on this forum that adoption is always best and has no associated problems, well at least for the adoptee. Thank you for expressing a differing view point. Also, thank you for saying that teen mothers should not be forced to give up their children JUST for being teens or worse, for being less than 21.

And to be fair, the person you are quoting did qualify their statement with "except in cases of abuse/neglect". Actually that begs the question, do you think there are cases where a biological family member wants to parent and without abuse or neglect where a child should be put up for adoption instead of being with its biological family?
I'll start with your question. I think a choice has to be made whether to put the child up for adoption or not. I personally think in that situation the child should be placed for adoption, but I wouldn't directly make it for the family. I would though change the way our system functions and this likely would result in more adoptions.

Now, here's where I'll probably get controversial. I think the welfare system should function differently than it it does in such cases. This is what I would recommend.

1. We keep most of the same programs we currently have. (I might eliminate special schools for teen moms)
2. However, receiving public assistance shouldn't be a right. Each person desiring it ought to have to apply.
3. Social workers should be trained to look at family situation's carefully. If a situation looks problematic (and I think #2 looks very problematic), a social worker should have discretion to deny such a person public assistance. Such an applicant should be told why assistance is being denied. The social worker should suggest if they cannot raise their child without assistance that adoption is their best adoption. In any event, if they don't meet certain criteria, they don't get assistance.
4. On the other hand, if a mother has a supportive family, some maturity and has reasonable prospects of getting a job and being able to support her child with some limited temporary assistance, I'm not against that. If circumstances change, they could be re-evaluated. It might lead to more assistance in some cases and less in others.
5. I would staff agencies with people of all races because I would hope that fact would prevent such decisions from being made based on an applicant's race.
6. Any appeals from denial of assistance would be limited and would be handled quickly.

I think some advantage would be gained just from being able to say "public assistance is not a right" just because you are poor and pregnant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:20 PM
 
16,568 posts, read 14,026,756 times
Reputation: 20523
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'll start with your question. I think a choice has to be made whether to put the child up for adoption or not. I personally think in that situation the child should be placed for adoption, but I wouldn't directly make it for the family. I would though change the way our system functions and this likely would result in more adoptions.

Now, here's where I'll probably get controversial. I think the welfare system should function differently than it it does in such cases. This is what I would recommend.

1. We keep most of the same programs we currently have. (I might eliminate special schools for teen moms)
2. However, receiving public assistance shouldn't be a right. Each person desiring it ought to have to apply.
3. Social workers should be trained to look at family situation's carefully. If a situation looks problematic (and I think #2 looks very problematic), a social worker should have discretion to deny such a person public assistance. Such an applicant should be told why assistance is being denied. The social worker should suggest if they cannot raise their child without assistance that adoption is their best adoption. In any event, if they don't meet certain criteria, they don't get assistance.
4. On the other hand, if a mother has a supportive family, some maturity and has reasonable prospects of getting a job and being able to support her child with some limited temporary assistance, I'm not against that. If circumstances change, they could be re-evaluated. It might lead to more assistance in some cases and less in others.
5. I would staff agencies with people of all races because I would hope that fact would prevent such decisions from being made based on an applicant's race.
6. Any appeals from denial of assistance would be limited and would be handled quickly.

I think some advantage would be gained just from being able to say "public assistance is not a right" just because you are poor and pregnant.
Wow. You do realize public assistance is inherently limited to a sum total of five years worth of benefits right?

You do realize many adoptive parents also get public assistance just because they adopted? Are you also going to deny those benefits as well? Ala Title 1V-e and AAP? The adoption tax credit (much more than the EIC) for the average family?

You do realize people do have to apply for public assistance right? Why are women who are 17 (as opposed to 18) going to be discriminated against by their federal government based on their age? How is that legal?

How can a social work be impelled to tell a teen mother than adoption is the best option when it may not be?

So basically, you are for forcing teen mothers to give up their children but with the caveat that only the poor ones have to do it. Babies born to wealthy teen mothers are allowed to stay with their mothers. Got it.

Edited to add: BTW, since 1996 welfare reform,to get TANF teen moms to have to live with their parents and go to school or work.
http://www.urban.org/publications/310796.html

Last edited by lkb0714; 02-06-2013 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:20 PM
 
Location: California
167 posts, read 153,108 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The social worker should suggest if they cannot raise their child without assistance that adoption is their best adoption.
Disagree. Absent the factors of abuse and neglect, willing, loving and capable parents, who temporarily are down on their luck should be given assistance. A permanent solution such as adoption should not be encouraged for temporary problems where families need a little help from social services. And trust me, I am not a liberal partisan by a long shot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:22 PM
 
Location: California
167 posts, read 153,108 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Wow. You do realize public assistance is inherently limited to a sum total of five years worth of benefits right?

You do realize many adoptive parents also get public assistance just because they adopted? Are you also going to deny those benefits as well? Ala Title 1V-e and AAP? The adoption tax credit (much more than the EIC) for the average family?

You do realize people do have to apply for public assistance right? Why are women who are 17 (as opposed to 18) going to be discriminated against by their federal government based on their age? How is that legal?

How can a social work be impelled to tell a teen mother than adoption is the best option when it may not be?

So basically, you are for forcing teen mothers to give up their children but with the caveat that only the poor ones have to do it. Babies born to wealthy teen mothers are allowed to stay with their mothers. Got it.
Hope he comes back to clarify in the event that we misread, but sadly that's my interpretation of what he posted too. Adoption should be promoted by social workers for poor folk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:46 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,857,322 times
Reputation: 1462
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'll start with your question. I think a choice has to be made whether to put the child up for adoption or not. I personally think in that situation the child should be placed for adoption, but I wouldn't directly make it for the family. I would though change the way our system functions and this likely would result in more adoptions.

Now, here's where I'll probably get controversial. I think the welfare system should function differently than it it does in such cases. This is what I would recommend.

1. We keep most of the same programs we currently have. (I might eliminate special schools for teen moms)
I don't know what programs you have. However, I've always been one for programs that are designed to help a person help themselves rather than just plain handouts so I would try to make most programs more that way if I could. In regards to special schools for teen moms, I would look at the individual schools and judge them on their merits. For example, this school sounds like an excellent school because it seems to helping the girls be self sufficient:

www.catherinefergusonacademy.org | Just another WordPress site
Catherine Ferguson Academy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I like that the classes involves the both mother and child rather than just provides daycare.

It seems to have an excellent academic record:
Quote:
CFA received awards and was the subject of documentaries and media coverage due to its academic success. During 2010, its last full year of operation as a public school, it boasted a 97 percent attendance rate and a 90 percent high school graduation rate, with the vast majority of students going on to either a two or a four year college
Quote:
2. However, receiving public assistance shouldn't be a right. Each person desiring it ought to have to apply.
I was on "the dole" temporarily in the 90s and I had to apply for that. In regards to those applying for the pension because of pregnancy, the best method would be for the social workers to look at each applicant as people and to help them to help themselves improve their prospects for the coming child and hopefully find programs that will help the person to eventually become self sufficient.

Quote:
3. Social workers should be trained to look at family situation's carefully. If a situation looks problematic (and I think #2 looks very problematic), a social worker should have discretion to deny such a person public assistance. Such an applicant should be told why assistance is being denied. The social worker should suggest if they cannot raise their child without assistance that adoption is their best adoption. In any event, if they don't meet certain criteria, they don't get assistance.
If an example like #2 came up, the social worker should look at the girl as an individual and see how she can improve her prospects. This is where the better "mother's schools" come in. For example, if #2 went to the school mentioned above "Catherine Ferguson Academy", there is a good chance she will be able to rise above her family situation. Also, this is where places like Hope House and other homes for disadvantage mothers to be can be of value - they can learn how to be self sufficient. Many of these homes are run by non-government organisations.

Hope House of Colorado :: Hope House News

I suspect also that a lot of these girls who have gone through excellent teen mother programs have ended up being more full of self esteem and more self sufficient and won't need to rely on a man to help her provide for her child.

Quote:

4. On the other hand, if a mother has a supportive family, some maturity and has reasonable prospects of getting a job and being able to support her child with some limited temporary assistance, I'm not against that. If circumstances change, they could be re-evaluated. It might lead to more assistance in some cases and less in others.
Each individual should be judged on her merits. Again, if one can help her find progrrams which can help her to improve her situation, then I am all for those.

In regards to any information about adoption, it must be non-biased. There are some good agencies out there and the best ones are those who truly help the mother look at all options.

Quote:
5. I would staff agencies with people of all races because I would hope that fact would prevent such decisions from being made based on an applicant's race.
I think we can all agree with the above.

Quote:
6. Any appeals from denial of assistance would be limited and would be handled quickly.

I think some advantage would be gained just from being able to say "public assistance is not a right" just because you are poor and pregnant.
Again, as I said earlier, I would try to find programs that can help the applicant become self-sufficient.

When I applied for my OBC in the mid 80s, I discovered that I was born while on a working holiday. I had myself just come back from a working holiday in the UK. Thus, I wondered what I would have done in the UK if I had gotten pregnant (I actually didn't have a boyfriend over there so it was highly unlikely). I worked as a housekeeper/nanny and was paid very little (though more than I was as a typist). When I decided to go home, the new nanny/housekeeper was a pregnant teenager (she was an excellent housekeeper - much better than me lol). Thus, I found out that she could apply for a housing commission flat. So if I had gotten pregnant that option would have been available to me. If I had done so, I would have done my best to be as self sufficient as possible and I would have hoped that if there were any programs that would help improve me to help myself improve my prospects, they would be made known to me. I know that I would have been too scared to tell my mum I was pregnant in case she told me to get lost, so I would have hoped that the social workers would help me find the courage to do so. I am not a person who would have wanted to be on assistance if I didn't have to be but appreciate knowing it is there if I need it.

What I wouldn't want is for social workers to consider my reluctance to tell my parents a bonus. What I wouldn't want is for social workers to consider my unplanned pregnancy to mean I was intrinsically unworthy to be a parent. What I wouldn't want is for social workers to try to sell me adoption as an option because there was a shortage of birthmothers out there providing newborns for families who want them.

I personally feel the best option for a pregnant woman considering all her options is to receive counselling that is holistic. She should keep her options open and should not make the decision to relinquish unless she is in the best shape psychologically. As I've said a long time ago, a good counsellor would say to a person who was considering both parenting & adoption "Both options can be good options but first of all, why don't we look at you and try to help you help yourself get to the best place possible so that you can truly make your decision about your child's future". Even the person is adamant on adoption being their option, there is no harm in helping the person improve their life in general whilst pregnant.

As you can see above, I am not against assistance - I believe that rather than remove assistance, one should try to create programs that encourage eventual self-sufficiency.

Last edited by susankate; 02-06-2013 at 08:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top