Teen and Unplanned Pregnancies: Adoption Plans, Safe Havens, and Prevention Efforts (toddler, birth mother)

[susankate]

Originally Posted by Jaded

For the birthmother, is she aware of the pain she will feel afterwards and the time it may take her to accept her decision? And, yes, make the plan before the birth of the child. Because if she changes her mind afterwards, then she really never wanted to plan for an adoption in the first place. This indicates her being uncomfortable with the decision. One's mind about relinquishment should be made prior to the child being born IMO. Because if she felt unfit or unable to care for the baby prior to birth, then how would the birth of the child change this? How have her circumstances changed during the course of the pregnancy to bring about this difference?

And, you see, that is what I find rather bizarre in the American adoption scene. If a girl considering adoption wanted to do so here in Australia, they would go through either the government, Anglicare or Centacare (Anglican & Catholic charity arms) where they would get counselling about their circumstances not just as pregnant women. Thus, by the time they ended up making their decision, they would hopefully be IN BETTER CIRCUMSTANCES and able to make a better decision. It seems to me though from reading many many agency sites, that averse circumstances are something to be exploited rather than something to be changed.

Sometimes, it might not even be financial difficulties but perhaps just fear. For example, perhaps no-one knows. Many agencies would use that as a good reason for relinquishment.

Thankfully, not all agencies are like that, there are great agencies out there that don't take advantage of that. There is one agency that if they have a situation like that, they try to make sure that there is someone the girl can tell (eg like a cousin).

Also, agencies and attorneys etc can encourage a pregnant woman to disassociate herself from the child while pregnant which is not a wise thing, surely?

It's ironic that many birth mothers or birth parents who choose adoption plans would never be approved to be adoptive parents themselves. Yet is is always assumed that because they became pregnant that they are automatically fit to parent. Something to think about.

[/quote]

I don't think all pregnant women are automatically fit to parent at the time they got pregnant. However, one might think it is an idea to actually help a woman prepare for birth and for all outcomes. Part of the problem with a lot of the counselling is that it deliberately makes the pregnant woman feel that because she is not prepared RIGHT THERE AND THEN at say 3 months pregnant, then she can never be prepared. That is part of how the counselling works - it associated UNPLANNED with UNREADY even though with support and help, she can become ready.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by Jaded

So, why then, if a woman knows she wants to relinquish her child, is she "mandated" to wait a set amount of time after giving birth? Why is her mind so "fragile" and "weak" as opposed to a father's? Why this patronizing act of consideration (which I view as an unfair judgement on what women are capable of deciding for themselves)?

Those laws are made in the best interests of mother, child, father, & family for several reasons. NOT because they believe women are weak. It is a minor inconvenience for women to wait even if they don't need to & no rights are being violated. They are not being forced to parent when they do not want to.

If we took all laws at face value and never challenged any of them, this country would be a very dated and non-progressive place. Progress occurs when laws and status quo's are challenged. Think open adoptions vs mandatory closed adoptions. At one time there was NO CHOICE, now, there is CHOICE. This only happened because people challenged the laws.

I agree. But when we were discussing adoptee rights weren't you the one who said adoption laws were created for a reason & it doesn't matter how similar laws have evolved in other countries?

Also I would say these laws ARE the result of progression since the BSE.

Not sure why you believe them to be regressive in anyway -- no choice is being denied here. The women are still free to relinquish their rights.

No post-birth wait time is needed. It is only needed when those who favor biological families at all costs want the birth mother to see, hold, and spend time with the baby in order to coerce her to change her mind and convince her that she is making the wrong decision.

Coerce her to change her mind? So, it is not coercion to counsel women to relinquish her rights prior to giving birth, but it is coercion to have her wait until after birth to sign something? That makes no sense. & as far as I have seen no one said a woman should be forced to hold her babies, see their babies, or keep their babies. If they don't want to, they never have to.

[tiffjoy]

Originally Posted by Jaded

I really don't know where all of the assumptions are coming from that I am against a woman's right to choose. This is hardly the case. And, actually, this is the very reason why I am in favor of a woman being able to choose relinquishment and sign before the birth of her child. It is her right to do so, and in most states, the father (or presumed father) can do just that. In fact, father's are not automically placed on birth certificates. Because of the physical aspects of pregnancy, we always know who the mother of a child is (during pregnancy), and it is because of this that women are left to deal with the majority of the responsibility that pregnancy and child birth brings. A father actually has to acknowledge paternity or be proven by paternity tests. A woman's word isn't good enough.

You are trying to limit a woman's rights by allowing her to relinquish a child before she even has one. This limits her from changing her mind at the point when she actually has the child to relinquish.

You do realize this would be an incredibly aggressive form of contract, one that doesn't even exist for non-human items? This doesn't exist for houses, cars, any large purchases. Contracts to purchase or sell any of those items have limits on when you are able to do legally sign away your rights and include a cooling off period to change your mind. I think a human life is infinitely more valuable and deserves more consideration.

Originally Posted by Jaded

So, why then, if a woman knows she wants to relinquish her child, is she "mandated" to wait a set amount of time after giving birth? Why is her mind so "fragile" and "weak" as opposed to a father's? Why this patronizing act of consideration (which I view as an unfair judgement on what women are capable of deciding for themselves)? If we took all laws at face value and never challenged any of them, this country would be a very dated and non-progressive place. Progress occurs when laws and status quo's are challenged. Think open adoptions vs mandatory closed adoptions. At one time there was NO CHOICE, now, there is CHOICE. This only happened because people challenged the laws.

I agree that when a law is wrong, we should challenge it. However, you seem to be contradicting yourself? Before, you have said laws should not be changed when it came to OBCs.

From the "Adoption Does Save Children and Builds Families" Post #142:

What is frustrating for me is the need to go back and try to change laws that were applicable at the time of passage. Just as adoption has evolved, the access to OBCs has evolved. Semi-open adoptions (which yes, I call closed because that is what "closed" is TODAY) provide current adoptees with more information than their predecessors. This is why I say they are less likely to share the same feelings as adoptees from the 30s through the late 60s and early 70s.

Laws govern for the times they are implemented. Would you expect the same laws that governed women in the 1800s to be applicable today? Then why should states retroactively change laws that were placed on their books 50+ years ago? It is what it is.

When we were talking about working to change the laws that restrict an adoptee's access to their OBC, you basically said that is the law, so deal with it, it's not changing. I don't understand your conflicting perceptions on when it is ok to challenge a law, and when it is not.

By the way, none of these laws are because a woman is viewed as weak and fragile. It is because you should not be able to sign away rights to something not fully in existence yet.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Now, a lot of states allow relinquishment or consent to adopt any time after birth. I suspect that within 20 years or less these states will change their laws like Colorado did and amend them to allow pre-birth consent. Of course no relinquishment is valid or effective without a live birth, so even in the very few states where this is allowed, the consent is not effective until after birth. This makes sense because if there is no baby, there is nothing to relinquish. There is nothing unethical about this.

Exactly. These pre-birth consents do nothing, so why even have them? There is plenty of time for a woman to sign a consent post-birth. Pre-birth provides nothing at all to the mother. It is only for the benefit of the adoption agency and PAPs to use as a leverage tool against the mother changing her mind post birth.

Originally Posted by Jaded

IMO, once the decision to relinquish has been made - in the absence of any coercion - then the expectant birth mother should have the right to sign a consent and practice should be that she signs a consent when she decides, before or after birth. No post-birth wait time is needed.

Signing pre birth in itself can be a form of coercion. There is zero benefit to it; there is no purpose. It can be used by the agency or PAPs, however, to keep a mother toeing the line on her decision when she may want to change her mind. Many people believe pre-birth matching, especially that which occurs months in advance, has this same effect.

Originally Posted by Jaded

It is only needed when those who favor biological families at all costs want the birth mother to see, hold, and spend time with the baby in order to coerce her to change her mind and convince her that she is making the wrong decision. Afterall, she's a woman, and since she's carried the child it is a given that she wants to keep the baby and is capable of parenting. To me, guilting or manipulating a woman into parenting is no different than guilting or manipulating her into adoption. And, yes, it happens more often than one thinks.

I don't "favor" biological families, and it gets old having that tired card played over and over whenever someone disagrees. I "favor" a woman making the best choice for her and her child absent from any pressure or legal, contractual obligations. Just as a note, the major group of women who now place their children for adoption are college age. It doesn't have as much to do with the inability to parent as it does the decision that it is not the right time in their life to parent. Now, that is a valid choice as a reason to place a baby for adoption. But trying to twist things by saying that women who consider adoption are unable to care for their children at any point is just not the case in every situation. It a false assumption that most women who relinquish are homeless, drug-addicts, or very young teens. Most are capable women making a decision based on their point in their lives.

A mother is perfectly capable of never even choosing to see the baby. No one forces her to see the baby, even, and I have never seen or heard of anyone advocating that. What we are advocating is for the mother to be able to meet her child in person, if she wishes to, before making her decision. It's simple. Signing away rights pre-birth means she has given up her rights to someone she has never had the opportunity to even meet.

No manipulation. Just an equal ground for a woman to make her decision.

You are assuming much in your interpretation of what many of us are saying here.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Finally, in states that have mandatory wait times, the consent is usually irrevocable and effective almost immediately. I know in my state a birth mother can waive her revocable time (30 days). On another thread, a Florida woman signed after the mandatory wait time (48 hours) and the consent became effective immediately and was irrevocable. She changed her mind 12 hours later. She did not regain custody. It seems to me that these pre-wait times are not advantageous when no revocable time is given; while pre-birth consent comes with more time to revoke and isn't effective until after birth. Personally, I'd rather have the latter.

Sources:

State Laws and Relinquishment

Adoption Laws by State (2004) Overview only

Child Welfare State Statutes - through 2010

There is no federal law that states it is unethical for a woman to sign consent to adopt pre-birth. Adoption agencies and organizations may have an opinion about this practice, but it isn't unethical.

I favor a time to revoke after the consent is signed. Every major purchase comes with a cooling off period. I cannot fathom why the decision to give up a child doesn't except for the fact that it does not favor the person with the money (APs).

That FL example is completely different. You know there was a lot more going on with that woman, and it was discussed in length on the other thread.

Ethics aren't defined by laws. They are moral principles that define a group's or individual's behavior; the moral compass by which you live your life. Frankly, I don't consider my states laws when determining my own ethical behavior. Some unethical behavior is illegal. MUCH is not. And that is definitely not limited to adoption- it exists in all aspects of life.

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

Those laws are made in the best interests of mother, child, father, & family for several reasons. NOT because they believe women are weak. It is a minor inconvenience for women to wait even if they don't need to & no rights are being violated. They are not being forced to parent when they do not want to.

I beg to differ. If this was the case then similar laws would be in effect for abortions. There are no mandatory wait times when a woman chooses to abort, right? There are only times set when it becomes illegal to have one. Why is adoption any different? What if the woman is pro-life and simply isn't choosing abortion because of this, yet, she doesn't want to parent. How are these laws in her best interest, the child's, or the father's? You do realize that fathers have to accept paternity. Fathers can sign away rights prior to birth in many states...is this in the best interest of the mother and child? Why are fathers treated differently?

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

I agree. But when we were discussing adoptee rights weren't you the one who said adoption laws were created for a reason & it doesn't matter how similar laws have evolved in other countries?

I agree, laws are created for a reason but that doesn't mean that as reasons change the laws shouldn't. I never said no laws should change. What I said was that I do not support laws opening OBCs without any conditions. There are not many laws that grant access to OBCs in the USA without conditions. Those who are challenging these laws have yet to make great headway. I suspect because society has not reached a point where they feel these laws violate human rights.

But back to this topic...how is allowing a woman to sign pre-birth affecting adoptee rights when her signing doesn't take effect until after birth of a live child? She doesn't want to parent. She should be able to make her intentions known when she makes this decision. Just as a woman can obtain an abortion when she makes the decision to not parent.

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

Also I would say these laws ARE the result of progression since the BSE.

And I would say these laws are an extreme way to correct the wrongs of the BSE. Not progress, rather trying to make amends for a past wrong.

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

Not sure why you believe them to be regressive in anyway -- no choice is being denied here. The women are still free to relinquish their rights.

Coerce her to change her mind? So, it is not coercion to counsel women to relinquish her rights prior to giving birth, but it is coercion to have her wait until after birth to sign something? That makes no sense. & as far as I have seen no one said a woman should be forced to hold her babies, see their babies, or keep their babies. If they don't want to, they never have to.

I never said the law was regressive. I said patronizing. I said a sign of progress is to allow for laws to change where they should be as reflected by societal changes. E.g., gay marriage. It isn't that they are not free to relinquish, it is the mandate that tells the woman, this is when WE feel you are ready to make this important decision. With abortion, a very important decision, she is somehow much better prepared? I'll be clear, I am pro-choice. But, when a woman decides she doesn't want to parent, if she chooses to end the life, she may do so immediately, but if she decides to save the life for adoption, she must wait a set amount of time before she can sign away her rights, because she might change her mind. Now I'm confused... Same pregnancy, same hormones.

If a woman changes her mind after an abortion (and I've known this to happen; women regretting their abortion), there is no time to change her mind, she must live with her decision. There are no built-in counseling requirements when a woman seeks an abortion. It's only with adoption that people assume she is incapable of making up her mind prior to birth.

Originally Posted by tiffjoy

You are trying to limit a woman's rights by allowing her to relinquish a child before she even has one. This limits her from changing her mind at the point when she actually has the child to relinquish.

How so? Please explain how you interpreted this from my posts? How does pre-birth signing limit her time to change her mind if she is still given a revocable time period and the signing doesn't really become effective until after birth? If there is no live birth, there is no child to relinquish. All pre-birth signing does is allow the mother to begin the process of relinquishment at the time she makes the decision. If she changes her mind, whatever revocation time allowed is still in effect.

Originally Posted by tiffjoy

You do realize this would be an incredibly aggressive form of contract, one that doesn't even exist for non-human items? This doesn't exist for houses, cars, any large purchases. Contracts to purchase or sell any of those items have limits on when you are able to do legally sign away your rights and include a cooling off period to change your mind. I think a human life is infinitely more valuable and deserves more consideration.

Okay, so, first, this type of contract does exists for non-human items. Contract laws vary state by state. In CA, there is no "cooling off period" with car purchases or other large items unless you sign another contract wishing to have this period and then you still have to pay a fee if you cancel. Second, when we bought our home, it was pre-construction - no physical house existed. After it was built, then all papers signed and a closing was completed. The contract then became effective, but we didn't have to wait for the house to be built to start it. But babies aren't large purchases. They are not non-human items. And, if you value human life so infinitely, then would you support mandated abortion wait times? Mandatory counseling for women seeking an abortion?

Originally Posted by tiffjoy

I agree that when a law is wrong, we should challenge it. However, you seem to be contradicting yourself? Before, you have said laws should not be changed when it came to OBCs.

From the "Adoption Does Save Children and Builds Families" Post #142:

When we were talking about working to change the laws that restrict an adoptee's access to their OBC, you basically said that is the law, so deal with it, it's not changing. I don't understand your conflicting perceptions on when it is ok to challenge a law, and when it is not.

By the way, none of these laws are because a woman is viewed as weak and fragile. It is because you should not be able to sign away rights to something not fully in existence yet.

In all fairness, access to OBCs does NOT compare to relinquisment time periods. I don't know why it's being brought up. I still don't support legislation that would grant unlimited access to an adoptee's OBC without conditions. OBC's being sealed are a result of terminating parental rights and adoption, not the cause. So, we're sort of putting the cart before the horse using the OBC argument.

Originally Posted by tiffjoy

Exactly. These pre-birth consents do nothing, so why even have them? There is plenty of time for a woman to sign a consent post-birth. Pre-birth provides nothing at all to the mother. It is only for the benefit of the adoption agency and PAPs to use as a leverage tool against the mother changing her mind post birth.

No, no, no. Sorry. This is a huge assumption.

Originally Posted by tiffjoy

Many people believe pre-birth matching, especially that which occurs months in advance, has this same effect...

I "favor" a woman making the best choice for her and her child absent from any pressure or legal, contractual obligations. Just as a note, the major group of women who now place their children for adoption are college age. It doesn't have as much to do with the inability to parent as it does the decision that it is not the right time in their life to parent. Now, that is a valid choice as a reason to place a baby for adoption. But trying to twist things by saying that women who consider adoption are unable to care for their children at any point is just not the case in every situation. It a false assumption that most women who relinquish are homeless, drug-addicts, or very young teens. Most are capable women making a decision based on their point in their lives.

Regarding bolded parts. I agree. I don't like pre-birth matching or pre-birth placement, especially in the absence of a pre-birth consent to adopt. They are pointless and this is what actually puts pressure on the expectant mother. There is no baby to match or place and when she feels she has chosen "the ones" to parent, these actions actually manipulate her into feeling like she has no more options but to relinquish.

Pre-birth consent has nothing to do with pre-birth matching or placement. Pre-birth consent just allows a woman to start the relinquishment process prior to birth, to become effective after birth. She hasn't chosen any parents yet and has not agreed to a match. These two latter acts to me should be illegal prior to birth. Relinquishment is just that, voluntarily terminating one's parental rights. She may still change her mind within a revocable period, she may not. Pre-matching and pre-placement - now that's aggressive.

But, let's say she is that bright college student who has been accepted to a university across the country. Let's say the baby is due in the fall - close to the start of the semester - and this bright, smart, capable woman decided at three months (when she discovered she was pregnant) that she was not going to parent. It was not in her immediate future to become a mother and she did not want this type of connection to her high school sweetheart. However, she is adamant about being pro-life. She cannot fathom having an abortion. She wants to initiate terminating her parental rights and is okay with the agency choosing the parents, or, advises them that she can choose them via electronic profiles. She is okay with not meeting them face-to-face, and would prefer SKYPE to talk to the couple. Here's the catch, her state won't allow her to sign the paperwork until 10 days after birth and she is due at college within this same time period. How is this law in her best interest, the child's best interest, or the father's? Signing pre-birth and allowing an agency or attorney to file with the courts afterbirth would not have taken away any choices for this woman. It would have given her more choices. In fact, this law limits her choices.

[Green Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by Jaded

I beg to differ. If this was the case then similar laws would be in effect for abortions. There are no mandatory wait times when a woman chooses to abort, right? There are only times set when it becomes illegal to have one.

That's incorrect.

Counseling and Waiting Times for Abortions (pdf document)

35 states require that women receive counseling before an abortion is performed: 27 of these states detail the information a woman must be given; 8 states have abortion-specific requirements generally following the established principles of informed consent.

 26 of these states also require women to wait a specified amount of time—most often 24 hours—between the counseling and the abortion procedure.
 10 states require that counseling be provided in person and that the counseling take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.

And, yes, there are exceptions -- but these cases are not the norm:

All states waive mandatory waiting period requirements in a medical emergency or when the woman’s life or health is threatened. In Utah, the counseling is waived if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the patient is younger than 15. In Alabama, the counseling requirement is waived in cases of ectopic pregnancy or severe fetal impairment and in Georgia and Rhode Island it is waived in cases of medical emergency.

[Jaded]

Thanks for the link. From what I gathered in the file, it's 24 hours. Not much time.

[dogluvr2012]

Originally Posted by Jaded

But, let's say she is that bright college student who has been accepted to a university across the country. Let's say the baby is due in the fall - close to the start of the semester - and this bright, smart, capable woman decided at three months (when she discovered she was pregnant) that she was not going to parent. It was not in her immediate future to become a mother and she did not want this type of connection to her high school sweetheart. However, she is adamant about being pro-life. She cannot fathom having an abortion. She wants to initiate terminating her parental rights and is okay with the agency choosing the parents, or, advises them that she can choose them via electronic profiles. She is okay with not meeting them face-to-face, and would prefer SKYPE to talk to the couple. Here's the catch, her state won't allow her to sign the paperwork until 10 days after birth and she is due at college within this same time period. How is this law in her best interest, the child's best interest, or the father's? Signing pre-birth and allowing an agency or attorney to file with the courts afterbirth would not have taken away any choices for this woman. It would have given her more choices. In fact, this law limits her choices.

Sounds like you are just against the waiting period after birth to sign. It differs in each state. Some do allow pre-birth signing, some have wait periods of 12 hours, 24 hours etc after birth. I personally don't agree with short wait times or pre-birth signing.

Just wondering if you have ever carried a baby for 9 months? It seems like you think it's a very cold and calculated decision devoid of emotion. I don't really think that one's decision regarding relinquishment would be determined by a school deadline. I also wouldn't think that many women would want the agency to choose the parents. If you have never carried a baby for 9 months or given birth, I don't think a woman really knows what or how she will feel after birth. It's highly emotional and a lot of women say everything is different from what they imagined before the experience. Personally, I think that allowing women to sign pre-birth is a form of deception.

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by dogluvr2012

Sounds like you are just against the waiting period after birth to sign. It differs in each state. Some do allow pre-birth signing, some have wait periods of 12 hours, 24 hours etc after birth. I personally don't agree with short wait times or pre-birth signing.

Just wondering if you have ever carried a baby for 9 months? It seems like you think it's a very cold and calculated decision devoid of emotion. I don't really think that one's decision regarding relinquishment would be determined by a school deadline. I also wouldn't think that many women would want the agency to choose the parents. If you have never carried a baby for 9 months or given birth, I don't think a woman really knows what or how she will feel after birth. It's highly emotional and a lot of women say everything is different from what they imagined before the experience. Personally, I think that allowing women to sign pre-birth is a form of deception.

I have no problem with waiting periods, before or after birth. I have a problem with not allowing a woman to start her relinquishment decision prior to birth. Big difference.

What does carrying a baby for 9 months have to do with anything? Either you want to parent or not. If you are indecisive, then you wait, you decide when you are no longer indecisive. If you're not indecisive, you make your decision and tend to stick with it. This DOES happen you know.

Re bolded areas: (1) This assumption is patronizing to women. Plenty of women feel the same way about not wanting to parent after giving birth as they did prior to birth. The birth doesn't change this. It is a hope for those who want her to keep the baby. It is a belief by some that all she needs is to deliver the baby and see it to really know what she truly wants. (2) Before the experience of pregnancy or the experience of parenthood? Parenthood is very different from pregnancy. And one's imagination about pregnancy is always different once it is experienced. You can't predict how a woman is going to handle pregnancy...it is different for each woman. This is akin to saying kids can save a marriage. It puts too much pressure on the kids and ignores the realities of the issues affecting the marriage.

Furthermore, there are plenty of babies and toddlers in foster care who dispel the myth of "because she carried him/her for 9 months" she will not only want to be a mother, but will be a good mother.

I know many more women who DISLIKED their pregnancies than those who loved them. Being put on bed rest for up to 8 months is NOT fun. So, if you are going to use the "you have to be pregnant" argument, then I'm afraid we'd have a lot more adoption plans made afterbirth if women used their personal experiences with pregnancy to make that determination. But they don't. They usually go through all of pregnancies good and bad side-effects because A) they want to parent their baby, B) they are pro-life, or C) they are a surrogate.

I had to stop myself from laughing at your concealed attempt to bring up my infertility. Yeh, got it. Too bad it's too late...I have already discussed my infertility and am 100% + A-OKay with it.

People, seriously, this debate of ours isn't about pregnancy experiences. It is about a woman making a decision to adopt and being able to do so pre-birth. It is not a foreign concept. It is not unethical. And, in some states, it is completely legal.

If personally you feel it is a form of deception, you have every right to feel so. I personally feel it is not.

But I do have a question for you: How do you feel about pre-birth placements and matches?

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by Jaded

But, let's say she is that bright college student who has been accepted to a university across the country. Let's say the baby is due in the fall - close to the start of the semester - and this bright, smart, capable woman decided at three months (when she discovered she was pregnant) that she was not going to parent. It was not in her immediate future to become a mother and she did not want this type of connection to her high school sweetheart. However, she is adamant about being pro-life. She cannot fathom having an abortion. She wants to initiate terminating her parental rights and is okay with the agency choosing the parents, or, advises them that she can choose them via electronic profiles. She is okay with not meeting them face-to-face, and would prefer SKYPE to talk to the couple. Here's the catch, her state won't allow her to sign the paperwork until 10 days after birth and she is due at college within this same time period. How is this law in her best interest, the child's best interest, or the father's? Signing pre-birth and allowing an agency or attorney to file with the courts afterbirth would not have taken away any choices for this woman. It would have given her more choices. In fact, this law limits her choices.

The law does not limit her choices whatsoever. She can do any of the options you list regarding picking or not picking a family.

She can give birth and never see the baby, she can sign temporary custody over to the adoption agency (who can let the baby go home with the prospective parents) or cradle care and continue on her merry way for the ten days you quote. Then she can sign away her rights.

If she is sure about adoption before birth and after birth - then she will still be sure about it after 10 days.

In the mean time between birth and the ten days - she doesn't have to have anything to do with the baby so what is the problem?

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by Jaded

I have no problem with waiting periods, before or after birth. I have a problem with not allowing a woman to start her relinquishment decision prior to birth. Big difference.

What does carrying a baby for 9 months have to do with anything? Either you want to parent or not. If you are indecisive, then you wait, you decide when you are no longer indecisive. If you're not indecisive, you make your decision and tend to stick with it. This DOES happen you know.

Re bolded areas: (1) This assumption is patronizing to women. Plenty of women feel the same way about not wanting to parent after giving birth as they did prior to birth.

And as shown by the sheer number of threads in this forum alone MANY DO NOT.

Some women feel one way before the birth and then after the birth change their mind. That is a FACT. Additionally the FACT that many women suffer from temporary hormonal induced depression, anxiety, etc while pregnant explains why this is not the best time to make such a monumental decision.

Making sure birth mothers are confident in their decision even after birth do nothing but protect everyone involved.

And yes, given that some 20% of pregnant mothers are suffering from depression, anxiety disorder or both, it is unethical to have them make decisions of this magnitude when we KNOW that severe anxiety and depression can make it impossible to be competent to enter a contract.

Competency and the Capacity to Make Treatment Decisions: A Primer for Primary Care Physicians