Infant Staying with Bmom for awhile before relinquishment?

Question

I have seen some people advocate that the infant should stay with their bmom for awhile before adoption. However, if that were the case, wouldn't that make it harder for baby? the baby has really started developing that bond and (i would think) it would make it harder at that point -- the "Primal Wound" would be even deeper, no?

Answer 1

Yes I would say so.

My birthmother did just that. I spent the first two years of my life with her before she decided to relenquish me.

I know have what's called an attachment disorder  I believe because of this.  For me it means that I can cut someone who was once very close to me out of my life and walk away with no emotional reprocussions.

Answer 2

Most infants who go through agencies are placed in a foster home first.  How is that any different?  It is actually uncommon for the baby to go from hospital to a-parents in the US.

Answer 3

Maybe it would make mothers realize that they should stay with their babies--just as nature intended.

Answer 4

I think thats crazy children would experience a trama mom for 6 months then bye no way let go after birth is the kindest way.

Answer 5

I don't think so... babies are exposed to so many people during their first few days of life.... mom, dad, doctors, nurses, visiting relatives, the hospital photographer, and so on. There is no harm whatsoever in taking them away from any of these people. I think the mother would be more likely to feel as though she had really begun to bond with the baby, and would be the only one hurt by this extra time together.

Answer 6

Being a birthmom I think it's better that you spend more time with the baby before you give that baby over to a family. That's the one thing that I regretted when I gave my daughter to her family. I didn't get as much time in the beginning. The baby doesn't really know what's going on. They don't get attached to a person that quickly. Stranger anxiety hasn't kicked in yet and won't for many months. I actually have a very open adoption plan with the adoptive parents. She knows that she is adopted and if it's something that she know from the beginning of her life she will think it's normal. If you tell the child later on in life they are going to think that there's something wrong with it. She's almost three now and has become very interested in being adopted. Her parents read a lot of books to her about the subject. Is it bad for a baby to know the birthmom through their life. I don't think so.

Answer 7

I don’t think 6months I too think this would be harder  for baby and birthmother.  If someone is in doubt about placing their child then they should be given a limited of time to say “test” out parenting , but I don’t think it should be longer then  6weeks and no less then 2 weeks.  6months absolutely not. If a woman knows that this is truly what she wants to do then I don’t think we need to prolong it.

Answer 8

Have you actually read "Primal Wound"?  Or are you merely using the title to make a point?  Or is your question really just rhetorical?

A baby has quite naturally begun to bond with it's mother during the 40 weeks - i.e., TEN MONTHS - it spent growing in it's mother's uterus.  A newborn recognizes the sound of it's own mother's voice, her heart beat, her rate of breathing & her scent - distinguishable to the child from any other woman.  

Part of the purpose of a child staying with it's birth mother might be to ease the transition from her to the adoptive parents, giving the child a chance to form a bond with the adoptive parents.  An argument against this practice is that the mother may change her mind & decide to keep her child.

Wouldn't it be easier on the child to transition to people he/she has come to know, rather than to be placed with complete strangers?  Might that help ease the pain of separating from the primal bond he/she formed before birth?

It seems more useful to acknowledge, understand, and validate the wounds created by the trauma of separation between mother and child rather than to simply deny their impact, don't you think?  

Everyone understands the disappointment the PAP's will feel should a mother change her mind. Yet somehow, no one seems to have the same compassion for the loss the mother will feel.  Why is that? She can "always have another child", right? Can't they always adopt another child, also? (applying the same logic)      

Attachment disorders occur in children who have experienced an abrupt separation from their primary caregiver after about 6 months & before age 3. Usually, these children have also experienced abuse and/or neglect at an early age.  

I was taken from my mother at 1 & 1/2. Per court docs, she was divorced & working as waitress; there was no public assistance. No allegations of abuse or neglect, no criminal record, no drug or alcohol abuse.  I ended up with an abusive adopted mom.  I'm pretty sure that abuse had more to do with any attachment issues I may have developed.  

Hope this is useful...

ETA: Sam, this doesn't apply in your situation, which is just shameful! On the mother, the agency that handled the 'adoption' (kidnapping), the adopters who completely disregarded the father's rights, & the courts that facilitated the stealing of your grandson. MOST mothers relinquish b/c they don't feel they can properly provide for their children, NOT because they don't want them. Or, as it seems in your case, they want to HURT the child's father.  Horrifying!

Hi Sam~Of course, my answer doesn't apply in your situation. SHAMEFUL.  Sad for your grandson!  And the daughter she is raising.  Her response is not normal.  In the rare case that a mother responds to her child in this way, of course it's not  in the child's best interest to consider a transition period. An alternate plan s/b made with the goal of minimizing the trauma of separation on the child.

Sunny, you're absolutely right! That's the reason ppl don't want to allow a transition period, IMHO.

Answer 9

This is just my own personal view, but I DONT encourage it in my work.

I think that TBH the baby should be taken away from the mother straight away. I agree that It would be harder for baby and for mother to let go of the bond. But at the same time, if the baby stays with mother, then mother has time to really think about what she is doing and if it is best for baby.

We offer councilling to all of our bio parents AND adoptive parents. We never encourage anyone to do anything they are unsure. We are not out to make money from anyone as out funding is provided from the government.

I am not sure if there is a right or wrong to this, It is purely down to the individual person.

Answer 10

No the baby should not stay with the bio mom ... in studies it says the adoptive parent should talk to the infant and tell them in a soothing voice, I know I'm not the mom your looking for but I love you just as much, this is supposed to help infant deal with loss ... and the adoptive parent should always reassure the infant ... in no way should the bio mom be near the baby .. because it will be confusing for them.

Answer 11

It would be a lot harder on the mother.  The baby will adjust more easily than mom will.  I don't see any point in having the baby stay with it's birth mom for 6 months if it's going to be adopted out.

Answer 12

I would say HECK YA!!!!  That way the MOTHER has the chance to have her hormones settle down and get back to normal and not have the pressure from an agency, lawyer, adoption worker or pap in her face every single day.

This way the woman can come to a clear decision.

ETA: Totalrec...  it is not at all uncommon.  If it is a prebirth match then the child goes home with the apap's.  It all depends on the state adoption laws.  If we had a family selected then she would have gone home with them.

Answer 13

I have to say strait away that I simply don't believe in the "primal wound".  Too much of history has seen infants who were not raised by their biological mothers simply because so many mothers died in childbirth.  It didn't seem to cause any major problems to most of them - at least from all the literature I've read.  I think "primal wound" is really a way overdramatized statement about natural curiosity.  

On the other hand, I do think that lying to a child about adoption is cruel.  The child should be told, and, if possible, some communication with the biological family should be maintained.  After all, most children were raised by family members, not total strangers, thoughout history.  Family can be anything you want it to be - but answering a child's questions openly and honestly will usually make them feel like they're not "missing" as much.  It also helps forstall the "fairy tales" they might tell themselves about having another family that is SO much better than the one they're living in.  

Still, in the case of an adoption, "strangers" are becomming mom & dad.  Even in an open adoption, the biological mother and father are no longer really parents.  It is crucial that the child be allowed to bond with them as quickly as possible.  Children are remarkably adaptable, but the younger the better.  If the Bmom has any doubts about whether or not she wants to relinquish, then perhaps it is best to let her "experiment" with motherhood for a time (granted the child is safe).  However, if she KNOWS she wants to give the baby up for adoption, then I think it's cruel to everyone involved to prolong the transitioning process.  Think about when you're pulling off a bandaid, or getting into a pool of cold water.  It's much easier to heal and adjust if things are done quickly.  Prolonging them just adds agony to the whole process for EVERYONE involved.  For an infant, in particular, it will cause confusion.  An infant will bond with anyone who cares for it - to make it spend time with a person who does NOT intend to be the primary caregiver is just rubbing salt in a wound.  

And yes, here I am admitting there is a wound.  Initially every baby will experience some disorientation if taken from the person whose womb they've been in.  However, babies adapt quickly!  If you take an infant adopted at birth, and a biological child of a different parent - at 12 months old you're not going to be able to randomly tell which one is adopted and which one isn't.  Infants adapt immediately to their caregivers.  That's why so many rich kids in the past had better relationships with their nannies or nurse's than with their parents.

Answer 14

I wouldn't say stay with the birth mother because she doesn't want the child or she would be keeping the child herself. But I do believe the child should be in foster care until both parents can be terminated.

   I know everybody thinks I feel this way because of my son case. ( I also wish everybody could see what I have in his case and they would call it kidnapping) But if my grandson had stayed with a foster parent until DNA came back then the adoption agency wouldn't have been able to hid this child for 16 long months from the father.

   I know everybody says that the  adopted parents need time to bond with the child but after watching my grandson Even with the couple I don't think it would have mattered. For my grandson is so different from my granddaughter from the same father. What I mean is she loves to be hugged and kissed and even after a year and a half he doesn't like to be touched much even the couple says he's like this.

   My granddaughter was hid from her dad for 7 months and even when they got back together they had a bond.

  Long answer but leaving a child with a mother that for what ever reason feels like she can't raise the child would be unfair to her and the child

Answer 15

what is relinquishment.  i think this is a great experience