Legal Gardianship better then adoption?

Question

I have seen many people suggest legal gardianship over adoption quite a few times. I have also read many times over that the seperation of mother and child is very tramatic for the baby. So I am wondering then if in both cases the child removed from it's mothers care then what is the difference and why is one better than the other.

Answer 1

Legal Guardianship vs. adoption really depends on the situation and I am mostly familiar with it when it involves relatives.  For instance, a grandparent takes legal guardianship of a grandchild.  This often works very well. However, many grandparents only have social security and the grandchild is not eligible for any benefits unless adopted.  

Another situation that comes up is what if you, the legal guardians, die in a car accident? You cannot designate who should be the caregiver of the child. It won't even be honored in a will.  The judge and Social Services will make the decision.  The decision may not be what you wanted.

In some cases, legal guardianship is preferable especially in the case of a handicapped child.  The guardian can often receive extra funds for the care or treatment of the child that they would lose if an adoption took place.

Finally, if a child comes with a trust fund, guardianship is nearly always preferred.  Once adopted, the child may no longer be eligible for money from that trust fund because they are no longer related to the originator unless the child was specifically named.

Answer 2

I have seen a couple of instances where legal guardianship couldn't work. The termination of parental rights was necessary.

But I do believe there are many instances where legal guardianship CAN work if done correctly. I opt for this in cases that it can work ( especially in in-family placements ) so the legal ties to the childs identity and records aren't lost and sealed.

I also think that legal guardianship can be good if the child and mother will be encouraged to be together and it can work. I know not EVERY mother is capable of parenting, and I know that not EVERY mother wants to. But there are the mothers who do want to and can, and may need to clean themselves up or get some assistance with their children in order to create a home for them for the future. In these instances I think legal guardianship could be good for the primary caretakers to have legal rights to the child without terminating the legal relationship between mother and child.

You are correct though about the trauma of separation. It is profound and if you want to read alot of informative articles on it try this blog http://lizardchronicles.blogspot.com

Separation is very traumatizing to the infant, child in legal guardianship cases and adoption and more such as when infants are born and have to go to the NICU for a few weeks, or if the mother dies or goes back to work immediately. Its not just in adoption that separation trauma happens, but I think it can be seen more in adoption, because it has happened to most of us in adoption.

So if this makes any sense by now, cause i've been working on this post forever with many interuptions then that is good.

Legal guardianship is better than adoption because it enables the childs identity to remain, and their records open and allows for the option of continuing to have the mother in the childs life.

Legal guardianship doesn't prevent separation trauma which to me is one of the worst traumas imaginable.

thanks for asking, good question!! rock on freedom with your bad self!

Answer 3

Personally i don't agree with legal guardinship for all cases. I see it as some. I'm proud to be adopted. I have no problems with it. I'm pro-adoption and would just like to see some reforms in it. So the best interest of the child is what is important.

Answer 4

I think its more of a case of when the separation from the mother -has- to take place, not that separation is okay if its for guardianship and not adoption. In cases of orphans, adopting from foster care, when the mother is not coerced but truly cannot or will not care for her child, children that are removed because of abuse, etc. Yes, either way the separation from the mother is going to be traumatic, I don't think you can get past that. But after the fact, people are suggesting that legal guardianship is an alternative to adoption that people don't think of. This way the child regains their name, their history, etc and there are no falsifications, no pretending, no lying, etc. You get all the benefits of raising the child, the child gets a family and the added bonus of who they are not being erased.

I personally don't believe its *always* the best option, because there are children like my son who lived in an orphanage for 8 1/2 years and stated that he wanted a mother and father and to be adopted. I think its a great option, too often overlooked, for a lot of other children though. We adopted our son and daughter because of immigration and citizenship issues, but had we done a domestic placement we would've definitely considered legal guardianship.

Answer 5

My hubby's Grandma became legal guardian to him and his 2 sisters. She could have adopted, but while she was a legal guardian she received a little bit of financial help from the state, which helped as she was the single supporter of herself and 3 children and was medically unable to work more than part time. If she'd adopted, she wouldn't have received that help.

Answer 6

well guardianship iis not permanant and adoption is and the child can take the peoples last name and lead a healthy life .both r good but i wlg go for adoption

Answer 7

I have suggested legal guardianship once or twice, usually when the Asker has posted a question about taking a family member's child while the birth mother/father are going through a rough time in their lives.  Every case is different, and in some cases adoption is better, in other, guardianship.

Answer 8

each case is different. alot of family members with custody prefer guardianship over adoption.  But sometimes its best for the child to be fully adopted so they can totally feel a part of the family raising him/her. When adopted the bio parents can still be a part of the childs life if it works out well for all concerned.

Answer 9

There are tons of kids looking for families who want a family a mom and dad and maybe siblings. My city has something called Karen’s Kids where they try and find homes for kids in foster care. These kids again want a family; they already technically have a guardian(s) in their foster families. As far as guardianship I think its fine in some situation even more if parents (s) predecease the child.  In most cases parents put in their will who they want to be guardian(s) to their kid(s).  

I don’t think guardianship should replace adoption the fact is there are kids who would not want to be a “ward”. Maybe what they could do is offer adoption or Guardianship to older kids (12 or 13 and up). Let that person choose what they want.  In the end even if someone was just a guardian it’s possible they’d start calling their guardian’s mom and dad. You even see step children eventually call their step parent  mom or dad. So really it seems the only major difference is they wouldn’t have the same last name, which is basically similar to Foster Care.  As far as medical history and heritage I think that should be a requirement that birthparents give when they are placing their birthchild. They don’t even have to get into personnel detail if they don’t want to, like who had what, names, but they certainly could list some of the heath issues the biological family has, and list  what heritage they have in them.