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.
you must be missing the point if you are thinking she wants full sole custody or that other "capable" people will be there to do any "parenting" that needs to be done. she does not have to lift a finger, nor should she have to to see or be near her children
NO, I never said that.
As to your last sentence, so if you were 5, you would think it's enough for Mommy to just sit there and sometimes blink and smile? That's enough for you? I highly doubt it.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 03-26-2011 at 04:31 PM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
Those parents were apparently able to communicate and interact in other ways. I'm sure they didn't just blink and smile to everything their child said to them.
There are other ways of communicating, like tactile sign language, and even just touch itself. I have a friend who is deaf-blind and has a deaf-blind son, but her husband is very limited in sign language. They still manage to be a family though. I know that case is distinct from this one, in terms of a deaf-blind parent can physically bathe and dress their children and so on and this woman can't. That's why I specifically never made a comparison to this case. I was just pointing out that many people underestimate disabled people's ability to parent. Even a parent who can only blink can physically be present for her kids and love them.
Anyone who has read up on child psychology knows that the mother-child bond is one of the most fundamental relationships in human psychology and often determines how functional that child will grow up to be. Unconditional love, both from the mother and the child, is crucial during the early years in life. We learn how to feel loved and how to show love from the very first loving relationships we have in our lives. Why would anyone want to deprive a mother or a child of that, just because she can't verbally say "I love you"? There are many ways to show love, and verbalizing it is only one of many ways.
Yes, it is a fundamental relationship. However, at this point, these children do not have a mother, they have a warm body that they understand is "Mommy." She cannot show anybody anything, much less love, unless you think blinking indicates love.
So then what is the point? Everyone here seems to concede that she is not a parent to these children, aside from the fact that they came out of her. The lesson you all want to teach is for the children to cope with injury and illness? That makes no sense. The children want a mother.
They have two mothers so to speak. They will not necessarily consider their biological mother their mother, but more like a friend.
Frankly, the kids of many broken relationships basically grow up with a single parent, regardless of any visits to their other parent. Biological parenthood entitles people to rights unless maybe they have committed crimes etc.
I guess she deserves the right to have to do with her kids (and it is little contact anyway), not least because it is because of them she is in her situation if I got that right.
Who is asking her to parent? What's going to come of spending 5 days? How about knowing they have a mother, being able to bond with her in whatever way they can?
It is naturally assumed that parents will be parents. What the hell point is there then, if she's not being asked to be a mother? Your argument is contradictory.
*sigh* Obviously not. My assessment about the children is not based solely on the fact that she is disabled. It is based on the ramifications of what her disability means in relation to her parenting skills.
Your assessment about these children?? Your assessment?
Have you met with them?
Have you spoken with them?
Have you read the psychologist's reports?
Have you read the entire court transcript?
She can! Having her kids hug her and hold her hand and being together is a form of communication. Words aren't the only way to communicate! Even if she can blink to say "yes" and not respond to say "no", that is communication. How do you think newborns and mothers communicate? Full-blown English? Touch, affection, being together, is communication.
And posting 10 faces is getting pretty emotional if you ask me. I freely admit this hits close to home for me, but I've actually had personal experience with the issue of communicating despite disability. Most people have never experienced that obstacle and may think there is no way to communicate, but as someone who has faced that, I can tell you there are many ways to communicate even if you can't use spoken or even sign language.
No, it's me getting frustrated with having to repeat myself a million times.
Being together is not a form of communication. For some, being together improves their bond. For others, it brings about awkwardness.
Her kids hugging her is THEM communicating, not her. Blinking is done by reflex, how is it possible to distinguish a natural blink from a purposeful blink of saying "yes"? Smiling is the only true form of expressing herself that she has, according to the article.
She cannot show love, she cannot show affection, she cannot show ANYTHING. It's like talking to a wall. How is that healthy for the children?
People, use your brains and at least try to see it from my point of view. What I am saying makes sense, it does not play on emotion, the way all your arguments do.
Wrong. People can express a lot of emotion and love with just their eyes alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
So you want the children to feel sorry for her? That's good parenting.
Did anybody even read the article I posted about attachment?
Yes, I read the article. It's not a matter of good parenting. It's a matter of letting the children know they have a birth mother who did not willingly desert them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
So then what is the point? Everyone here seems to concede that she is not a parent to these children, aside from the fact that they came out of her. The lesson you all want to teach is for the children to cope with injury and illness? That makes no sense. The children want a mother.
The point is you can't re-write a fairly tale history for the triplets. They have a mother who lost a great deal to bring those children into the world and it's a history they need to know and they younger they interact with her the better it will be for them and for her. It's far better to know her as she is now than to grow up thinking their mother doesn't want anything to do with them. You can't just tell a kid that, they have to see for themselves why their mother isn't a traditional mother.
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.
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.
Oh, excuse me, she can blink.
What the hell point is there then, if she's not being asked to be a mother? Your argument is contradictory.
faces is getting pretty emotional if you ask me. I freely admit this hits close to home for me, but I've actually had personal experience with the issue of communicating despite disability. Most people have never experienced that obstacle and may think there is no way to communicate, but as someone who has faced that, I can tell you there are many ways to communicate even if you can't use spoken or even sign language.
