The Difference between Adoption and Guardinship, is this better?

Question

Here is something I have been wondering about. Some people want to do away with adoption altogether. Is this possible? I feel that I had a good adoption, no worries. I still wonder about my birth mother, but I can't go back and change the past or her decisions. So, how is guardinship better than adoption? Here is a few examples of the differences that I read up on:

A Comparison from Findlaw.com

o ADOPTION: Parent's rights are voluntarily relinquished or involuntarily terminated.

o GUARDIANSHIP: Parent/s' rights may or may not be voluntarily relinquished or involuntarily terminated [may depend on whether the court declares parent/s "unfit" etc.]

o ADOPTION: Adopters given all rights and responsibilities that once belonged to Parents.

o GUARDIANSHIP: Guardian is given legal responsibility for the child and assumes rights of care, custody and supervision of the child

Answer 1

Nice gathering of information.

A world with out adoption is just a far out fantasy for some that will never become a reality. As far as guardianship I’m glad I was adopted I wouldn’t have wanted to have be basically a ward of the house, I know there are others out that that wouldn't have wanted this either.   Plus as Doddle said a legal adoption entitles you to anything a birthchild of that couple / person would get, inheritance, benefits, etc.  what if the child wants to have the same surname as their family, guardianship would make that impossible unless the bioparents were willing to have it be changed.  

To me a guardian is someone who would take care of you if your parent or parents died before you turned 18 or something happened to them that they couldn’t take care of you. In the case that is suggested its seems a bit more like just long term foster care, except that you might not get some of the benefits of fostering, even some kids in foster care have arranged visits with their birthparents or even birthfamily, except they aren’t able to dictated it and it seems in guardianship they could.

Answer 2

Well I was adopted two and I was just fine until my birth mom and Dad wanted me back. It's really confusing for a three year-old to decide who they wanta please. If I had just had a guardianship instead of adoption it would have been a lot worse. So I would say that adoption is ALOT better. It is way less confusing for kids to have one set of parents and not two sets.

Answer 3

answering out of ignorance not for confrontation but wouldn't the guardianship then basically turn into foster care?

Would the Guardians be entitled to child support?

would the bond be as strong and close between the guardians if they knew the baby could be taken from them at any time?  whereas in adoption, that's not as likely?

sorry, i know i didn't exactly answer the question but i thought your question begged the additional questions.

Answer 4

I can see pro's and con's for both, and I liked both of the previous answers.  If guardianship were more common in the US, I would be pursuing that route.  I think there are some cases where it would be better for the child to be in a guardianship rather than adopted, especially if the biological family is still present and able to participate in some of the parenting activities (even addicts, abusers, and the mentally ill have some capacity to care for a child; it's just limited).  It could be a lot more stressful for the guardians, who would then need to facilitate visitation and activities between the biological family and the child, and it could get legally sticky if there were any abuse / addiction / mental health issues.  But overall, I think it would be better for the child.  I just don't think a lot of adults in this country are cut out for the amount of responsibility and maturity it would take to maintain a guardianship situation in a manner that would benefit the child.

Answer 5

Several important things that you missed.  Adoption gives the adoptee rights of inheritance as well as ability to obtain benefits from a-parents account (such as Social Security) while a minor.  

For instance, unless specifically stated in a will, the child will not receive any inheritance from the guardian.  In addition, should the guardian end up on Social Security, the minor child would not also be eligible for benefits, while the adopted child would.

Answer 6

most , maybe all of your post is true. But its all obout the parents. The child has a right to permanancy (adoption) to have the same last name, to be a permant part of a family. All adoption.............guardianship gives guardian all the rights of a parent. I do fully believe in adoption but every case is different. A bio parent can petiton the court in a guardianship to have the child back but its difficult.  Guardianship is good when its a family member who is guardian. It keeps the family more intact.  And as other posters asked. Guardians do get child support and some get money like foster car called Kinship care.  I am a non-relative guardian. No Kinship money as we are non-relative and none of the bio parents have much luck holding jobs.

Answer 7

I am a big advocate of guardianship.

I have seen instances and cases where guardianship has given the child permanency, while keeping the childs rights intact. Its about the rights for me, and guardianship seems to honor the rights of the child more than adoption.

Children can be written into wills, I'm in all of my parents wills, all 4 of them.

I have seen also, a couple instances where guardianship couldn't work. But those, in my opinion are few and far between.

Clearly both systems aren't flawless, but I think that guardianship is less flawled than adoption due to the rights that remain intact for the child involved.