If a natural mother regrets her decision to put her child up for adoption, up to what age should she be....?

Question

allowed to get him or her back? I'm talking theoretically and not legally. Please do not give an answer based on the law but only on your own personal opinion.

Is there an age limit where the child would be traumatized by being sent back to the natural family? What is the age where they wouldn't really pick up on the situation?

Would you give your adopted child back if the natural family became able to raise him/her several years down the road?

I don't think I could, but I base my decision on the lifestyle my son's natural mother lives. How about you?

Answer 1

If someone has given a child up for adoption and that child has gone to a family the biological parents should not be allowed to have the child back, no matter how old the child is.

Not only is it traumatic for the child, but the new family as well. When people adopt a child they are usually desperate for a child and put their heart and soul into the child they adopt and generally deserve it a lot more than most people.

It is completely unfair on everyone involved to just turn around and say "Oh, I made a mistake, can I have my baby back now". Should have thought about that before you signed the paperwork.

Answer 2

There is no point in time when a child will not be affected by being shuffled around.  They are even affected by the emotions of their birth mother, and others around her, while they are in the womb.  Hopefully, this fact is considered by the birth mother before making any decisions.  Even children adopted as infants are affected by abandonment issues (although not universally).

Edit:  BTW, this was not meant as a judgmental statement.  Sometimes, the trauma the child will go through is well worth making that choice.  I'm just saying that the affect on the child should be considered before making any decisions.

Answer 3

hmmm...

i think the fundamental issue in what you're suggesting, is that the child probably should not have relinquished in the first place. so often, when f/n/bmoms change their minds, it's because there was ambivelance over placing.

this is why i am a HUGE supporter of giving all options.

and i agree that pregnant women are emotional, as someone stated.  which is why i think all the pre-birth matching, aparents in the delivery room, couselors hovering over the woman, buying gifts aparents taking the baby home from the hosptial, 72 hour relinquishment period is simply stank!

i'm for legal guardianship.  this way, the baby is provided for (usually with the mother involved) until the final decision can be made.

if all of what i proposed were the case, i believe that 6 months-1 year is sufficient to reverse an adoption order.

this is why i believe full-disclosure, non-biased counseling is so important BEFORE the baby is born.

Answer 4

Wow- I can't imagine that you'd think there is EVER an age that you could "give them back" or "get them back".

I'm a birthmom- once I gave my baby up, I gave her up.  That's it- she was with her family from then on, I would NEVER dream of taking her away from them, and never considered it, even if it might have been possible.

Answer 5

I am adopted & I feel that they have no right once they have given up the child.  People do not realize how damaging 'taking back' a child they gave up for adoption can affect the family that adopted that child.  Where the child may not remember it why remove them from a place that has been providing a family for them?

If that birth mother needs to think it over it needs to be done in that time frame prior to letting that child go.  Now if you're talking about placing a child in a home before the babe is actually adopted & you feel that you can take care of that child then I would agree with you being able to take back that child if it has not been adopted yet.

Answer 6

I don't think there is ever a point after say, the first two weeks of life where the child won't be at least slightly traumatized by the event.  However, infants are incredibly resiliant.  I think the grace period for "retracting" an adoption should be some where between 6 and 9 months.  I think after 9 months the baby is aware enought that the trauma would be high.  That is also when you cross the line as to "who had him longer".

Answer 7

The pediatric institute of psychology states that removing a child from it's primary care giver after and between the ages of 6-18months old can/ will cause severe emotional trauma.

Answer 8

She shouldn't get any grace period after terminating parental rights.  The adoption should be final as soon as the adoptive parents take the child home.  I'm not actually sure that these always take place at the same time, but I believe that they should.  It's not right to remove a child from its home after placement.  The birth mother should have thought long and hard before placing the child for adoption.

Answer 9

I think at least 6 to 9months, if the birthparents feel they want the child back.

“Would you give your adopted child back if the natural family became able to raise him/her several years down the road?”

h**l No! Adoption is not a temporary foster care.

As far as what age a child would be more traumatized. I feel that any age above (5months) you could have some trauma when you rip a child away from the only family she or he has known and give him or her to what may be genetic family but are strangers to the child nonetheless. That said a child who was younger would adjust better then an older child.

Answer 10

I'd say that the limit should be six weeks.  After that the baby would be too attached to the adopting family and taking him or her away would do harm.

Answer 11

Six months.  Even that is sort of pushing it to me.  The child will still be young enough to recover from any trauma emotionally.  But this is just my opinion.  I can understand if others do not share this view.

Answer 12

Unless the mother was neglectful, abusive, or an addict, I think she should be able to regain custody up to 18 mos.  After that, it could be shared custody, aka a true open adoption.

As for the child being 'traumatized' (he already was once being separated from her) I believe he would be better off in the long run with his bio family.

Answer 13

The biological mother should take a long time to think about her decision before she puts the child up for adoption.  Any time after the adoption has taken place and the child is bonding with its new family is too late to avoid damage to the child.

Answer 14

No less than 6 months, but no longer than a year.  The child's life should not remain 'temporized.'  On the other hand, the mom shouldn't be given less time than a consumer returning a lawnmower.

Several years down the road? No.  However, if the father had not signed off and wants to raise the child, the child should go to the father (as the law is now starting to do).  

According to the nationalized baby letter situations, it seems that kids up through 4 have had no trauma at all.  I don't know about older kids.

Answer 15

I don't know, but I've wondered the same question - At what point would it be more harmful than good for a child to return to their biological family?  I suppose it depends on the child, because different children attach to their adoptive parents at different rates and I suppose to different degrees.  If I had to say one general time frame I'd say maybe about a year.

Answer 16

For us she had 18 months and I think it was an adiquate amount She had made her decision, and wanted some closure to the process, no pending court dates or counceling.

Had she become able to care for him and wanted too during that 18 months, I would have done what I could to make it a smooth transition. It would have been heart breaking and difficult for everyone, but it would be what's right.

Would I let him go now.... NO, NEVER. he has suffered enough.