Do you think an AP should return a child to the bio parents if the adoption wasn't legal or ethical?

Question

Say for example, the agency was a shady adoption agency doing something illegal or the adoption wasn't ethical such as the biological father's permission wasn't obtained, and one of the bio parents wants the child back, should they return the child without protest?

I've seen cases like this in the media, and the AP's fought it and dragged the case out in court for years. What do you think the right thing to do would be?

Answer 1

OF COURSE, ...most definitely!

Answer 2

YES

Answer 3

i don't think there is a set answer. it depends on the situation, on the bio parents and the adoptive parents and all sorts of factors. you're really asking an interesting answer. o:

Answer 4

I personally believe the child should have the say. If the child wants to go back to their biological parents let them. I think it is ****** up; when they take children away and tell the parents they can’t see the child or can’t have them back. A child should be the main subject of the issue. The child knows what it wants. If the parents gave the child up and they want the child back after a year, then let the child decide.  If the forester parents don’t like it well **** them. I was adopted and wanting to go back to my dad and my forester parents didn’t let me. I hate my foster parents to this day for it. So let the child decide.

Answer 5

If legal rights were violated then it should be reviewed to see what is in the best interest of the child but just because the bio parents changed their mind should not be a reason.

Answer 6

If the parents gave the child away because they chose to, they shouldn't disrupt the child's life later. They made their choice and they should have to live with it.

If this was a shoddy thing done badly then it shouldn't have taken place at all and they shouldn't have used this agency.

Answer 7

Where is the media when the first mom relinquishes? Why can't we see her agonize and cry? What about when AP's don't honor their "open" adoption? Where's the media coverage? Where are they when the first mom finds out they've moved?

THe first, and most important factor to consider is the child. It's not the fault of the child if someone or angency did something underhanded.

The first thing that should occur is to have a child psychologist mediate and facilitate the best approach. Not a attorneys and judges who have no clue what is best for a child.

Children meet new people all the time in school, church, and when other family members get married and bring in a new mate and their family. So, bringing both families together shouldn't be a big deal. Both sets of parents should be in counseling seperately and with the whole group if necessary, and I would imagine it would be.

It is just beyond me why AP's have so many issues with the first families and contact. It's utterly ridiculous. If they would get over their insecurities, life for the child wouldn't be an issue.

I don't include all AP's in this, there are those 5% who "get it". It's the other 95% that make life h**l on everyone.

Adoption reform can't happen soon enough. I look forward to the day when we can proudly say that we keep families together and there are less than 500 new baby adoptions a year.

Answer 8

YES!

EMPHATICALLY, YES!

IF it didn't feel right to begin with, it prolly wasn't.

IF it wasn't right from the beginning, it won't suddenly 'feel good'.

The right thing is to admit there's been an error, and correct it, but when gov't agencies and courts are involved, errors are costly liabilities, never openly admitted.

Too bad...

Answer 9

well DUH.... yes

Answer 10

I would think it depended on the current state of affairs. First and foremost people who adopt should check and make sure the agency is reputable. Adopters who adopt from non-reputable firms should be scrutinized themselves. Lastly I think it depends on how long the child has been with the parents. If say it has been longer than 7 years, then it's unfair to tear the family apart.

Answer 11

I don't understand why laws aren't tougher on the corruption in the adoption industry, anyway.  Ok, I "understand" why, intellectually (money), but it doesn't make sense to mess around with people's lives like they do.  So, yes, I think the children should be returned to the parents immediately, and the offenders should be in jail answering charges of kidnapping, child endangerment, etc.

Answer 12

Sadly, the most notorious cases of bio parents regaining their rights to THEIR child involved circumstances where there never was a legal adoption.  True to the rainbow farting adoption culture of the US, the adoptive parents who try to keep custody illegally get the sympathy of the media.

I read a disgusting post on a pro-adoption WEB site that advised the illegal adopters of a baby to drag things out as long as possible because "possession is nine tenths of the law".  Sure... rrrriiiigghtt - so tell me again that adoption is not all about buying a human being.

Short answer, for the sake of the child - yes, let the child live with his/her family of origin.

Answer 13

Absolutely!!!

But lets wait to see what Joslin (~~~~~~~~~~) says, after all with her background as an AP, an adoptee, a "birthmother", a social worker, and a feminist, she will most likely have THE definitive answer, at which point we can all just go home and shut up.

Jos?

Answer 14

As an adoptive parent, I would be devestated if I found out that my agency had been involved in nefarious practices and that I had been lied to, just as much as the birth parents.  

However, like it's been already pointed out, if the birthfamily shows up six years later, it's not in the best interest of the child to remove him/her from the only family he/she has known.

I think there should be some kind of statute of limitations so that if the agency did not follow legal procedure, there is a window for the birthfamily to file a complaint within a reasonable time, yet not completely turn a child's life upside-down years later.

Answer 15

yes!!! the child should be returned back to the parents or parent.

Answer 16

In theory yes I would.  In principle, well I just don't know.  How long was I their parent for?  What if it was six years later?  What is best for child at that point?  Hmm, good question.  This is why best to go through state and foster programs, so we know that everything was done by the book and the children we are adoptiong are free and clear before we ever came in the picture.

Answer 17

It depends if it was known early on I would say yes, but if this is something that comes out years later after they have had the child/baby. Then no it would be more harmfully to rip a child away from the only family they know, and give the kid to those who may be bloodkin but are strangers nonetheless.

Answer 18

Yes, the child should be returned.  It should be done immediately.  Yes, i've seen those stories too and i'm on the first families side.  If the children were returned universally, i think it would motivate adoption agencies and pap's to have their adoptions done ethically and legally.

I'm no expert, its just my opinion.

Answer 19

It depends on what the child wants to do.

Answer 20

YES, they should!!!

If there was no unethical doing on the adoptive parents behalf, I would hope that they would to a slow integration of introduction back into the childs life to whatever parent the child was entitled to be with.

I would also hope that the ap's would be allowed to be in the childs life after the transfer.

Answer 21

Why would an Assistant Principal of a school be involved in child custody issues?

Answer 22

The adoption is usually uncontested,

if the service is as shady as you claim it is, the courts would return the child to the Parent that wants the child!

Answer 23

hey answer man, I think the AP means adoptive parents not assistant principal, DUH  

From experience, it is a difficult situation, my grandson was given up for adoption by my daughter, the father was from Mexico and unaware of the proceedings.  The father was a good man and wanted to raise his son.  When he found out he fought it and while is was a difficult situation for all involved my grandson is now being raised by his father.  My feelings were and are still mixed as I have not seen my grandson since he was about 2 years old and he is now 18 but I know from correspondence he is doing well.

Answer 24

This is such a heartbreaking situation.  This is why I think adoptive parents need to do everything they can in the process to make sure everything is done ethically.  I can't imagine going through with an adoption without knowing that both biological parents consented and truly consented without coersion.  I think that MOST of the time that this happens adoptive parents are willfully ignorant.  If the adoptive parents truly did everything they could and it still happened, God how awful.  As an adoptive parent I intellectually think, sure, the child should return to their biological family.  But, if I found something like that about my own daughter's adoption, you know all those mother instincts that make a mother attack anything that seems threatening to her child would probably kick in if I'm being honest.  Not, that a biological parent is a threat.  But seeing your child taken from the only family she's known certainly seems threatening.  It's simply a nightmare scenario with no good solutions.  But, whatever the solution, it should involve lots of contact with both families.

Answer 25

yes,as hard as it would be on the couple.it should always be first about the child in any case for thier best interests.