Is there a time that comes where you just have to say enough?

Question

I was reading a few things and talking to one of my friends, who is a SW. It seems that people think there should be a time when natural parents fighting for thier child should say, "enough", and leave the baby where he/she is rather than traumatizing them. Do you agree. If so, how long should the battle go on before the natural parent says, "enough?" What about the PAPs/APs? Is there a time when they should say, "This child is obviously wanted. Enough?" Is taking a 2, 3, or even 4 year old out if their "home" more traumatizing then them growing up and learning that their natural parents wanted and fought for them, but were denied. As an adoptee, would you resent your natural parents if they said "enough" instead of fighting with everything they had for as long as they could?

Sorry for so many questions. I've just really been wondering about this.

Answer 1

There are so many variables and different situations that there is no definite answer. However, it's my opinion that is if the child was adopted in the first place, there was obviously a reason- the bio-parent chose it. Children in foster care due to abuse or neglect rarely get adopted if the bio parents want them. But I think that if you gave up your child for adoption than you need to stick with the decision as hard as it may be. It's not fair to the child to say "I don't want you now" and turn around in a year or two and "oops- changed my mind"!

Answer 2

I think if they singed the papers, they have no right to the child

IF the women lied about who the father was, she should be charge with fraud.  She should not be able to come back with the father and sue for custody

I think if the father does not know, and did not give, he should work something out with the adoptive parents.  Like shared custody

Answer 3

I don't think it's right for natural parents to try to get their babies back after they've already signed away their rights.  It's just wrong.  They made the decision to give up the baby, it's no longer theirs.

Answer 4

WOW!  This question brought out the big guns.  Lot's of opinions, feelings, and advice in the answers.  I love this site.  I'm going to throw my two cents in on this one.  I see the answer to this question falling into the category of fixing the broken adoption process in this country.  I never cease to be amazed that so many children are born in this country that are separated from blood relatives and placed into homes with strangers for years at a time, and then legal battles still ensue over these children.

The children are too young to tell that they have a grandparent who loves them or an Uncle that would do anything for them.  Isn't it the job of the adoption agencies to find all of that out prior to placing the child outside of the family?  I think so.  And so who is at fault here?  The adoptive parents - I think not.  I believe they trusted the agency that told them the child was free for adoption.  The birth parents?  Too complex to answer.  Why is the child up for adoption if the birth parents want them?  Maybe they are in prison or maybe the children were removed for abuse or neglect or maybe their plane went down in the Andes and everyone thinks they are dead all winter.  I have no idea and neither does anyone else.  The blood relatives - I think not again.  Obviously, if they want the child and have any idea the child is being presented for adoption they would come forward and claim the child.

So, who are these people fighting to get these children back?  Clean and sober drug addicts?  Rescued from the Andes?  Grown up teenagers?  I don't know and neither does anyone else.

And who are these adoptive parents that are fighting back?  People who love the child and think they are doing what is in the child's best interest?  Psychopaths who adopt children as pets and abuse them for fun?  People who believe the child will never forgive them if they don't fight to keep them?  I don't know and neither does anyone else.

So, who is at fault here?  Once again we come back to a broken system.  If I have learned anything since I began to visit this site it is that children do not know what is in their best interest and that they grow up happy or unhappy with their lot in life whether they were adopted or not.  Because what it boils down to is that children that were too young to remember the bio parents and are adopted will never know if they would have been better off with their bio parents.  No study or polls can answer that because the person that lives it can't answer it.  They have no basis for comparison.  Either they grew up adopted or not.  How can they possibly know which life they would have preferred?  Children old enough to remember the bio parents and the circumstances surrounding their being released for adoption may indeed be able to tell us which life was better for them.  But it seems to me if they were old enough to know they were better off with the bio parents, then they were old enough to tell that judge they do not want to be adopted by these people.  If it is too late and they are already adopted, they can do what all of the unadopted children can do and turn to a teacher, counselor, policeman or social services to get out of a situation that they don't like.

Fighting and never giving up for your child can as easily be done by the bio parent as it can the adoptive parent.  No one wins - certainly not the child.  It is like a bitter divorce case with a custody battle.  Ugly for everyone involved.

Who should give up and when should they?  Every situation, every single bio parent and adoptive parent are different and the situation that put them at odds is different for each one.  Unless the specifics are known, I don't feel like this question has an answer.  Loving a child and giving it up is heart breaking for the adult.  Loving your parents and giving them up is not only heart breaking, but emotionally scarring as well.  So, what is in the child's best interest?  If that question could be answered there would be no need for this site.

My grandchild wants to live with me.  He is not abused.  He is neglected.  Not to the point of it being illegal, but enough for him to know who he would rather live with.  In his best interest, I discourage him from nagging his parents to allow him to come live with me.  I want him with me and believe I would provide him with a better home, more structure and stability, and more love.  He obviously believes this too.  So, what is in the best interest of this 8 year old boy?  His parents have done nothing illegal.  I have no basis for taking them to court and fighting for him other than who loves him the most.  So, in the best interest of this child, I leave him in a home where his parents could care less whether or not he has clean clothes for school or breakfast or what he does after school.  I leave him there because there is no choice.  I have no control over this issue.  What I do have control over is how I handle it.  I make sure he has clean clothes for school.  I make sure he is fed prior to school and has lunch money.  I know where he is after school.  I go to his plays and games and pay for lessons in guitar.  I am able to do this because I don't p*ss off his parents by embarrasing them and telling everyone he should live with me because they don't care about him.  That is my only weapon.  I use their neglect to protect him and care for him.  As long as it doesn't cause them drama, I am free to come and go and do whatever I please with him.  All they need is to get the credit for raising such a smart kid that is involved in everything and does it well.  His volunteer hours are always met at running the snack bar at ball games, supervising field trips, manning a booth at the Halloween Carnivals.  I meet them.  Somebody tell me what is in the best interest of this child if something happens to me?

So, there is my two cents.  Children are traumatized by the adults in their lives.  Some purposely and some not.  Some out of love and some out of greed and some just out of stupidity.  Who can fix this problem?  No one knows the answer to that.  But, I believe fixing the adoption system would be a good start.

Thanks for a wonderful question and so many great answers full of emotion and the opportunity to vent a little of my own!

Answer 5

I was in this situation and there was a court order, so my natural mum had no choice. It was a difficult situation, she wanted me but she was mentall ill. She had what they thought was schizophrenia at the time but they think it's more bipolar or manic depression now. She went into a mental institute and obviously coudn't take me but she wanted me but the courts decided it wasn't the best. I think if the mother wants the baby after giving it up for adoption then the baby should be given back as long as they will be safe (for instance, the mother isn't abusive or seriously mentally ill). The birth mother should have the power over the adoption. It would be much easier for the adoptee to go back to their natural mother because they would be back to who they belong with and questions could be answered even though the split in the first place was traumatic. Adoptive parents often hide things or just simply don't know or understand the natural parent's feelings or needs.

I wish I could have been taken in by my natural grandfather but he was going through a lot at the time. I tend to think "well so was I, i was ripped away from my mum" but I don't know the situation, it may have been impossible at the time.

So basically, unless through a court order a parent is seen as unfit to care for their child, natural parents must have right to reclaim their babies. Even though it is sad and horrible for the adoptive parents it is really the best for the child and the most unselfish thing to do would be to leave it at that and find another baby or child.

Answer 6

Camira, this is an excellent question and yet a very difficult one to answer as there are so many variables.

If a first mom changes her mind before the papers are signed, then yes, the child should be returned without any fanfare or court battles.

If the papers have been signed, but the first parents change their minds, say a day or maybe 1 month later and there is evidence that coercion played into their decision, then again, as heartbreaking as it would be for the APs, then yes, I think that they should seriously consider returning the child.

NOW, with all that being said, I do think there should be a time limit. A child is not a yo-yo. After 2 years, then no, I don't believe first parents should be able to gain full custody, however, I would strongly recommend that the APs allow for an open adoption and let the first parents play a very big role in their child's life (this of course would be conditional on the first parent's lifestyle - drug free, no violence or abuse, etc.)

There are so many scenarios that are possible with a million appropriate outcomes. Regardless, I would hope that anyone in this position would always take the best interests of the child to heart.

Answer 7

My answer will be unpopular with most posters here, but hey i'll wear the thumbs downs.

I think it depends on how long you have had the child and the circumstances of their adoption.  

But in my situation I would fight for my kids until the very end.  I say this in the safe knowledge that legally I have done everything right in terms of their adoption and to the best of my knowledge am not aware that they have any family at all.  Their orphanage also waited min. 13 months before my kids were made available for adoption, in hope any family members would come to claim them.

Now for example 7 yrs down the track, if someone appeared out of the blue and claims to be my son's family (stating they were unaware of his adoption) and wanted him back.  Do you think I would just give up on my son?  No way. My family is the only family he has known and I am his mother, we are his safe haven in the world and he knows we will protect him no matter what.  He loves and trust us, I would never break that trust and give him up to strangers (and they would be strangers to him no matter if people dispute this), even if they were related to him by blood.

However for my son, I would allow his other family to get to know him, but I will never give up on him.  I don't even think I could have given him up after 1 year with me, he already had my heart them. I may have considered joint custody though, but never give him up.  If I did lose custody though, I would beg for regular visits and would help with him financially if his first parents were not able to make sure he reaches his full potential in life.

Sorry that is how I feel.

Answer 8

Hi Camira,

This is when I believe "enough is enough" :

When either natural parent is willing & able to raise their child, & makes that known within the legal window of time, then it should be considered that the child is no longer available for adoption.

Adoption is for children who do not have homes & families.  There are so many children who truly do need homes, there is no acceptable reason to fight over the children who already DO have parents!

I assume you are not referring to cases that have already been finalized in court.  If a child is only in the physical custody of a PAP, that is NOT the same thing as being legally adopted!  Some people may mistakenly believe that just because a child might be living with someone, that means they are officially adopted.  They are not.  It takes at least 6 months of living with the child, before PAPs can petition the court for a finalization.  Until an adoption is finalized, PAPs should not even consider themselves adoptive parents yet.  

To answer your other question, being an adoptee is hard enough on its own.  To find out someone went through the adoptee experience when they didn't have to in the first place, would be even worse.  Yes, I would be extremely resentful if I found out the people who illegally adopted me refused to let me go back to my parents who loved me & wanted me.  I would feel violated, stolen, and it would make me feel like a possession.  I would feel as though my natural parents had also been victimized by the system & by needy, childless people.

I am discouraged by those people who would disobey a judge's court order to return a child to his/her parent.  It just makes things worse to drag it out.  Sorry, but "proving you want a child" does not trump natural parental rights!  PAPs are not thinking of the child's best interests when they try to trample on and circumvent the parent's rights.  They are thinking of their own selfish needs & wants.  Those who refuse to surrender over a child in the hopes that they eventually will wear down the natural parents & get to keep their child are equivalent to kidnappers in my opinion.

Those cases disgust me.  More than a question of PAP rights vs. natural parent rights, these should be seen as cases for the CHILD'S rights.  He/She has a right to be raised by their own family.  Who is representing the child in all this?  Thanks for asking good questions.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 9

What i think is that some people don't consider AP's actual parents.  My BM gave birth to me and was completely SELFLESS in her decision to give me up.  A child was all my AM ever wanted. She had been in a serious car accident as a teenager and her internal injuries made it impossible for her to have children.  My Am and AD got me when they were in their early 30's and i became their world within minutes of being put in their arms.  There is not a chance in you know where that my mom would have given me back to my BM.  And i am thankful for that, she loved me, protected me and cared about me from the start like i was her own.  

This whole taking the kids back that you gave away thing is the reason so many people now adopt from other countries.  A family is not determined by blood people!!! A family is determined my love!!!

Answer 10

if you sign a huge stack of papers in front of a bunch of lawyers and give away your child there is nothing you can do to get the child back ... the thing i dont like about adoption is the lawyers make a ton of money basically selling someones baby and the real parent gets zero money (its illegal to recieve money from the adopting parents) the reason half these people give up their babies is because they dont have enough money to properly take care of them , i say give the real parents a couple bucks to hopefully get their lives boosted into a better direction ...

thanks

Answer 11

what's sad about this question is the fact that it has to be asked. recently, i delivered my son, and the thought of not having him with me is madness... hence, i can't even imagine what a firstmom who wants to contest an adoption must experience.  

personally, i would NEVER say enough. especially if there is an inkling of a thought that the adoption was unethical or executed under duress, or coercion.

hence, another reason why pre-birth matching and aparents being invovled pre-birth or immediately after birth is so problematic.

Answer 12

These are complicated questions.  What I feel most sick about is when adoptive parents VERY EARLY ON  know about a biological family member's desire to parent but stall and fight, knowing the longer it takes, the more it will be in the "best interest" of the child to stay with them.  With adoptive parents like that, I think it would always be in the best interest of the child to be with their biological family who wants them.

Now, do I think that a child who was legally adopted should be allowed to be removed from his or her adoptive family when a biological relative feels regret years later and wants to parent.  No, that would not distinguish adoption from foster care.  There are so many circumstances that could be debated and it really is hard to determine what is right in some of them.  In those very tough cases, no matter what the legal outcome, the ones that turn out the best are when both families stay involved in the child's life.

Answer 13

Nope.  I wish my Momma had never stopped fighting for me.  Ever.

'Baby Jessica' doesn't even remember her adopters y'know - even though they made a movie and a huge dramarama over how 'traumatized' she was to be given back to her kin.

If a child is loved and wanted by their kin, people just ought to do the right thing and let them be with their people.  End of.

Answer 14

In a perfect world, parents would become what their kids need.  Which means, natural parents would NEVER stop fighting, tooth and nail, no matter the cost, to become what their children need them to be.  I don't think anyone should ever give up.  You had the child, now you've got a job to do.

And of course, AP's should be overjoyed for their child if the natural parents are able to be in the child's life!  If the child was not removed due to abuse or neglect, and the parents want the child, the child should automatically go back to the natural parents.  If the child WAS removed due to abuse or neglect, then it's up to the caseworker whether or not the parents' rights are terminated, and the AP's shouldn't have any say in the matter (and they should, again, be overjoyed for the child if the parents are able to care for him/her).  If the natural parents gave the child up and the adoption has been finalized, and the natural parents change their minds, then I think it needs to go on an individual basis.  Ideally, both sets of parents would set down all their fears, and become what their child needs them to be.  Maybe the best thing for the child would be for all four parents to become co-parents.  Maybe it would be best for the natural parents to visit, but the child stay with the AP's.  Maybe it would be best for the child to transition back to the care of his/her natural parents.  Whatever is best for the CHILD is what should happen.

Answer 15

u can aurgeu but not leave them thats abanding them show them that u care

Answer 16

I am a adoptive mom of three wonderful children.  My youngest son's birth mom, ask us to take him when he was five days old, because of a past neglect charge, she burned a baby, I think it was an accident, in her care and lost the rights to her daughter. The state was going to place him in foster care.

We thought we would have him for a short time and mom would prove herself fit to raise him. Wrong!!!!!!!! It was 39 months before her rights were terminated.

She never kept a job, 15 jobs in three years

When he was returned for five weeks, they removed him again, Why? Because there was no food in the house for him

She never paid any support

She lost her section 8 housing

Police were called a number of times because of a abusive boyfriend.

She ended up in a shelter and she was kicked out of there

She was arrested for attacking a neighbor with a knife.

BUT, she said she could not live with herself, if she "gave up",

and signed the paperwork to surrender her rights.

If the parent is doing all they can do, in the spirit of excellence, yes, continue to fight. But if they are not, and just want to hang on to their parental rights, that's wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 17

wow, well i was adpoted, and my mom left me when i was bout 3 months she was suppose to come back within a month but she didnt .. she never told anyone where i was until i got like 2 , then my grandma came and got me they had to go to court becasue i was already in a home .. where ppl loved me .. and cared .. and i think they should have left me there cuz right now i wud be living a good life and i euddnt be  goin thru things i go thru now .. i want  to work with social services because i dont think they deal with these things  right they dont  put the child in the best home according to whats right for the child they go by who makes the most money now days .. i think they should  go by who the childs real family is  who can give that child the best care, think about when the child grows up and  wants  to knoe why wasnt  my real mom/dad there why im i here ,, and  have  all the  hate in his/her eyes at  the  world mad because of  how they have  to be ... and if the  parents  are  denied,, then they shud  see if they can work something out with out the legal work .. they should never give up idk wat the case  maybe how many years  it  take .,,, somethangs u can work out with out all the legal work ... it  makes  thangs alot better and  easier .. and yes i wud resent my parents if they tried to fight for me but  gave up .. that would mean they didnt want me bad enough. and i resent my parents now for not tryn at all .. and  still all of 17 years  havent did nethang  yet ,, but  bring  me  into a life of  pain and h**l! ... i hope this  answers your question!

Answer 18

The best interest of the child should be the first and foremost issue.

Study after study has shown that its best for a child to remain with their biological families. It shouldn't be about what an adoptive parent feels is best. As a society we should be focusing on fixing the familial problems instead of using adoption to alleviate it. Many families need it, adoption or not.  Its is not helping the child to seperate them from their parents unless its a case of abuse. Poverty is never an excuse especially today in our very materialistic society.

I think its criminal to fight for the right to adopt when a child is wanted by their biological parent who love them. These Pap's are selfish and are not looking into whats best for the child. I can't begin to understand why these monsters would use every dirty loophole in the system to keep the children away from their parents. Attorneys are just scum to take on these cases.  Too many A-parents are doing it and legislation needs to change to prevent them from doing so. I think its disgusting when the AP's try to drag it out as long as possible and then say that the child will be better off in the their home because of the timeline.  Children are not commodities or pets.  In these cases they have biological parents that want them and a-parents shouldn't have the right to "keep" them for whatever reason.

Too bad you put your money, time, heart and energy into the child. Its unfortunate, but the fact is they are not your children despite what a piece of paper says or whatever demented unethical judge is allowing you to continue to drag it out.  Enough is enough. Give the children back to their parents and stop damaging and causing pain to another human being.