>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/10/04 5:14 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <RN6yc.780$s52.32130@news.xtra.co.nz

(snip)

You're age 74?


Kathy

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a good thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it would have prevented an informed decision.

"Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By
whom?"

Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too,
if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision?
In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal
characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from
making their own decision?

I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm
sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better
emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is
their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've
bonded with their children before relinquishment.
I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child.


Rh.



Geopelia > > > > >

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a good thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it would have prevented an informed decision.

"Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By
whom?"

Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too,
if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision?
In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal
characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from
making their own decision?

I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm
sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better
emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is
their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've
bonded with their children before relinquishment.
I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child.


Rh.



Geopelia > > > > >

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0406130809.66d3f80a@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a good thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it
would have prevented an informed decision. "Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By whom?"

By the mother, if she was of legal age, otherwise her parents. She should
have had plenty of advice though to make the best decision in the
circumstances. Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too, if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision? In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from making their own decision?

It depends on the age of the mother, and of course whether she has the
mental capacity to decide.
Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be
considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for
the baby's sake. I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've bonded with their children before relinquishment. I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child.

I feel it is better if there is no bonding, though some people don't agree.
I think it is wrong though to leave the baby in the hospital nursery for two
weeks with only the nurses to care for it, they just don't have time for
anything but the basics. The early hours and days are so important.
If the adopting parents could take it away as soon as medically advisable,
even though they must understand that the mother may not sign the papers in
the end, it would be better for the baby.
Geopelia Rh. Geopelia > > > > > > > > > >

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0406130809.66d3f80a@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a good thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it
would have prevented an informed decision. "Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By whom?"

By the mother, if she was of legal age, otherwise her parents. She should
have had plenty of advice though to make the best decision in the
circumstances. Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too, if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision? In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from making their own decision?

It depends on the age of the mother, and of course whether she has the
mental capacity to decide.
Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be
considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for
the baby's sake. I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've bonded with their children before relinquishment. I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child.

I feel it is better if there is no bonding, though some people don't agree.
I think it is wrong though to leave the baby in the hospital nursery for two
weeks with only the nurses to care for it, they just don't have time for
anything but the basics. The early hours and days are so important.
If the adopting parents could take it away as soon as medically advisable,
even though they must understand that the mother may not sign the papers in
the end, it would be better for the baby.
Geopelia Rh. Geopelia > > > > > > > > > >

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<Ng7zc.1967$s52.67492@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406130809.66d3f80a@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a good thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it would have prevented an informed decision. > > "Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By whom?" By the mother, if she was of legal age, otherwise her parents. She should have had plenty of advice though to make the best decision in the circumstances.


I agee, with the proviso that it comes from disinterested and truly
informed persons who, as far as possible, take the whole situation
into account, and don't let any personal agenda colour their advice
(that would tend to exclude most parents, I think)
I think too that the parents of underage or otherwise dependent girls
should also be counselled accordingly before any final decision is
made.

It's important that the mother's voice is heard - really heard, that
is.
She should be listened to and taken seriously, not just bombarded with
endless 'advice' (which IMO too often isn't really advice at all but
just directives in disguise)
I'm afraid that very often in North America there's a well-meaning (at
least ostensibly so) but misguided attempt on behalf of family and
adoption 'professionals' to take over, without taking into account the
individuals most directly affected.

Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too, if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision? In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from making their own decision? It depends on the age of the mother, and of course whether she has the mental capacity to decide.


They aren't all nuts, you know
(Well, I don't really think you were trying to imply that. It was just
my first reaction)


Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for the baby's sake.


Fair 'nuf.
No parent can be obliged to support their child plus their child's
child.
On the other hand, if a young mother who wants to keep her child is
intelligent and competent (it does happen), and shows every indication
that in a little while and with a little support she that she's likely
to become independent and a good mother, I think there is an
obligation on the parents' behalf (and of 'society' too) to help her
reach that point.

I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've bonded with their children before relinquishment. I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child. I feel it is better if there is no bonding, though some people don't agree. I think it is wrong though to leave the baby in the hospital nursery for two weeks with only the nurses to care for it, they just don't have time for anything but the basics. The early hours and days are so important. If the adopting parents could take it away as soon as medically advisable, even though they must understand that the mother may not sign the papers in the end, it would be better for the baby.



Yes, fostering to adopt, with a longish revocation period seems to
make sense to me.
The question here is, I guess, whether it's more detrimental to a
child to be separated from his n-parents(s) for several months and
then returned to them (provided they come into the 'good-enough'
category), than to be permanently removed. I'm inclined to the former.



Rh. Geopelia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<Ng7zc.1967$s52.67492@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406130809.66d3f80a@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a good thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it would have prevented an informed decision. > > "Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By whom?" By the mother, if she was of legal age, otherwise her parents. She should have had plenty of advice though to make the best decision in the circumstances.


I agee, with the proviso that it comes from disinterested and truly
informed persons who, as far as possible, take the whole situation
into account, and don't let any personal agenda colour their advice
(that would tend to exclude most parents, I think)
I think too that the parents of underage or otherwise dependent girls
should also be counselled accordingly before any final decision is
made.

It's important that the mother's voice is heard - really heard, that
is.
She should be listened to and taken seriously, not just bombarded with
endless 'advice' (which IMO too often isn't really advice at all but
just directives in disguise)
I'm afraid that very often in North America there's a well-meaning (at
least ostensibly so) but misguided attempt on behalf of family and
adoption 'professionals' to take over, without taking into account the
individuals most directly affected.

Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too, if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision? In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from making their own decision? It depends on the age of the mother, and of course whether she has the mental capacity to decide.


They aren't all nuts, you know
(Well, I don't really think you were trying to imply that. It was just
my first reaction)


Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for the baby's sake.


Fair 'nuf.
No parent can be obliged to support their child plus their child's
child.
On the other hand, if a young mother who wants to keep her child is
intelligent and competent (it does happen), and shows every indication
that in a little while and with a little support she that she's likely
to become independent and a good mother, I think there is an
obligation on the parents' behalf (and of 'society' too) to help her
reach that point.

I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've bonded with their children before relinquishment. I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child. I feel it is better if there is no bonding, though some people don't agree. I think it is wrong though to leave the baby in the hospital nursery for two weeks with only the nurses to care for it, they just don't have time for anything but the basics. The early hours and days are so important. If the adopting parents could take it away as soon as medically advisable, even though they must understand that the mother may not sign the papers in the end, it would be better for the baby.



Yes, fostering to adopt, with a longish revocation period seems to
make sense to me.
The question here is, I guess, whether it's more detrimental to a
child to be separated from his n-parents(s) for several months and
then returned to them (provided they come into the 'good-enough'
category), than to be permanently removed. I'm inclined to the former.



Rh. Geopelia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0406140635.424fe8f1@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<Ng7zc.1967$s52.67492@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406130809.66d3f80a@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... > > Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a
good > thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it would > have prevented an informed decision. > "Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By whom?" By the mother, if she was of legal age, otherwise her parents. She
should have had plenty of advice though to make the best decision in the circumstances. I agee, with the proviso that it comes from disinterested and truly informed persons who, as far as possible, take the whole situation into account, and don't let any personal agenda colour their advice (that would tend to exclude most parents, I think)

Yes, and also many church people. Now girls get a Domestic Purposes Benefit,
paid for by the taxpayer, I don't know what the official New Zealand line is
these days. Politicians are always complaining about the cost.
I think too that the parents of underage or otherwise dependent girls should also be counselled accordingly before any final decision is made. It's important that the mother's voice is heard - really heard, that is. She should be listened to and taken seriously, not just bombarded with endless 'advice' (which IMO too often isn't really advice at all but just directives in disguise) I'm afraid that very often in North America there's a well-meaning (at least ostensibly so) but misguided attempt on behalf of family and adoption 'professionals' to take over, without taking into account the individuals most directly affected.

One problem is that a very young girl, with her first child, may be
influenced by her hormones rather than common sense. She may feel proud that
she has "become a woman". After all, pre-civilized humans would have bred in
their mid teens, and it was common in the Middle Ages. We now delay
childbearing until several years at least after puberty, medically and
socially advisable of course.

Today in New Zealand, there is so much help given to girls to keep the child
that the downside of very young motherhood may not be emphasized enough. It
can be overlooked that babies grow, and help will be needed throughout the
baby's childhood. It is sad if a preschooler ends up in foster care because
the mother cannot cope. Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too, if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision? In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from making their own decision? It depends on the age of the mother, and of course whether she has the mental capacity to decide. They aren't all nuts, you know (Well, I don't really think you were trying to imply that. It was just my first reaction)

I was thinking more of Down's Syndrome etc. Even girls of above average
intelligence can have a contraceptive failure. Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for the baby's sake. Fair 'nuf. No parent can be obliged to support their child plus their child's child.

Hear, hear!
On the other hand, if a young mother who wants to keep her child is intelligent and competent (it does happen), and shows every indication that in a little while and with a little support she that she's likely to become independent and a good mother, I think there is an obligation on the parents' behalf (and of 'society' too) to help her reach that point.

Only if the parents want to be involved. It should be their right to refuse.
Most would try to help, if finances allow.

There is a problem here with that. Grandparents bringing up a child for
their daughters are not paid, as foster parents are. It may be very
difficult for them financially, if they are in a position where both need to
work.
If the mother turns out not to be a responsible mother, they are literally
left holding the baby. I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've bonded with their children before relinquishment. I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child. I feel it is better if there is no bonding, though some people don't
agree. I think it is wrong though to leave the baby in the hospital nursery for
two weeks with only the nurses to care for it, they just don't have time for anything but the basics. The early hours and days are so important. If the adopting parents could take it away as soon as medically
advisable, even though they must understand that the mother may not sign the papers
in the end, it would be better for the baby. Yes, fostering to adopt, with a longish revocation period seems to make sense to me. The question here is, I guess, whether it's more detrimental to a child to be separated from his n-parents(s) for several months and then returned to them (provided they come into the 'good-enough' category), than to be permanently removed. I'm inclined to the former.

I agree. Adoption should be final. I hate these cases there seem to be in
America, where the birth father can upset the adoption months or years
later, because his consent was not obtained.

Fostering to adopt is good, but what happens if the arrangement is revoked
and the birth parents refuse to take the child back?
Here the papers were signed at about two weeks. I think the adoption was
finalized at six months, but the girls were not told that, as I don't think
they were allowed to change the arrangement. I'm not sure what the position
is today, with all the changes made.

geopelia Rh.
> > Geopelia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0406140635.424fe8f1@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<Ng7zc.1967$s52.67492@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406130809.66d3f80a@posting.google.com ... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<0Fpyc.1123$s52.45619@news.xtra.co.nz>... > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:9a095db9.0406111208.5cdeb28d@posting.google.c om... > > Where adoption had definitely been decided upon, it may have been a
good > thing, but when a mother had not yet completely made up her mind, it would > have prevented an informed decision. > "Where adoption definately had been decided on" begs the question "By whom?" By the mother, if she was of legal age, otherwise her parents. She
should have had plenty of advice though to make the best decision in the circumstances. I agee, with the proviso that it comes from disinterested and truly informed persons who, as far as possible, take the whole situation into account, and don't let any personal agenda colour their advice (that would tend to exclude most parents, I think)

Yes, and also many church people. Now girls get a Domestic Purposes Benefit,
paid for by the taxpayer, I don't know what the official New Zealand line is
these days. Politicians are always complaining about the cost.
I think too that the parents of underage or otherwise dependent girls should also be counselled accordingly before any final decision is made. It's important that the mother's voice is heard - really heard, that is. She should be listened to and taken seriously, not just bombarded with endless 'advice' (which IMO too often isn't really advice at all but just directives in disguise) I'm afraid that very often in North America there's a well-meaning (at least ostensibly so) but misguided attempt on behalf of family and adoption 'professionals' to take over, without taking into account the individuals most directly affected.

One problem is that a very young girl, with her first child, may be
influenced by her hormones rather than common sense. She may feel proud that
she has "become a woman". After all, pre-civilized humans would have bred in
their mid teens, and it was common in the Middle Ages. We now delay
childbearing until several years at least after puberty, medically and
socially advisable of course.

Today in New Zealand, there is so much help given to girls to keep the child
that the downside of very young motherhood may not be emphasized enough. It
can be overlooked that babies grow, and help will be needed throughout the
baby's childhood. It is sad if a preschooler ends up in foster care because
the mother cannot cope. Who do you think, other than the mother herself (and the father too, if he's allowed into the picture) has the right to make that decision? In your opinion, what kind of circumstances and/or personal characteristics would/should/could preclude the natural parents from making their own decision? It depends on the age of the mother, and of course whether she has the mental capacity to decide. They aren't all nuts, you know (Well, I don't really think you were trying to imply that. It was just my first reaction)

I was thinking more of Down's Syndrome etc. Even girls of above average
intelligence can have a contraceptive failure. Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for the baby's sake. Fair 'nuf. No parent can be obliged to support their child plus their child's child.

Hear, hear!
On the other hand, if a young mother who wants to keep her child is intelligent and competent (it does happen), and shows every indication that in a little while and with a little support she that she's likely to become independent and a good mother, I think there is an obligation on the parents' behalf (and of 'society' too) to help her reach that point.

Only if the parents want to be involved. It should be their right to refuse.
Most would try to help, if finances allow.

There is a problem here with that. Grandparents bringing up a child for
their daughters are not paid, as foster parents are. It may be very
difficult for them financially, if they are in a position where both need to
work.
If the mother turns out not to be a responsible mother, they are literally
left holding the baby. I'm sure you know there's a school of thought (about which I'm sceptical) that claims that women in general recover better emotionally (this seems to be *regardless* of whether adoption is their decision or not. At least, that's my impression) if they've bonded with their children before relinquishment. I've also heard that this is less damaging to the child. I feel it is better if there is no bonding, though some people don't
agree. I think it is wrong though to leave the baby in the hospital nursery for
two weeks with only the nurses to care for it, they just don't have time for anything but the basics. The early hours and days are so important. If the adopting parents could take it away as soon as medically
advisable, even though they must understand that the mother may not sign the papers
in the end, it would be better for the baby. Yes, fostering to adopt, with a longish revocation period seems to make sense to me. The question here is, I guess, whether it's more detrimental to a child to be separated from his n-parents(s) for several months and then returned to them (provided they come into the 'good-enough' category), than to be permanently removed. I'm inclined to the former.

I agree. Adoption should be final. I hate these cases there seem to be in
America, where the birth father can upset the adoption months or years
later, because his consent was not obtained.

Fostering to adopt is good, but what happens if the arrangement is revoked
and the birth parents refuse to take the child back?
Here the papers were signed at about two weeks. I think the adoption was
finalized at six months, but the girls were not told that, as I don't think
they were allowed to change the arrangement. I'm not sure what the position
is today, with all the changes made.

geopelia Rh.
> > Geopelia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<k%pzc.2344$s52.82341@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406140635.424fe8f1@posting.google.com ... Even girls of above average intelligence can have a contraceptive failure.

Get away with you! You don't say!
And (would you believe?) sometimes even 'girls' of above average
intelligence even fail to use contraception. > > Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for the baby's sake. > > Fair 'nuf. No parent can be obliged to support their child plus their child's child. Hear, hear! On the other hand, if a young mother who wants to keep her child is intelligent and competent (it does happen), and shows every indication that in a little while and with a little support she that she's likely to become independent and a good mother, I think there is an obligation on the parents' behalf (and of 'society' too) to help her reach that point. Only if the parents want to be involved. It should be their right to refuse. Most would try to help, if finances allow.

Well, it *is* their right to refuse.
So that's not a problem.

Yes, fostering to adopt, with a longish revocation period seems to make sense to me. The question here is, I guess, whether it's more detrimental to a child to be separated from his n-parents(s) for several months and then returned to them (provided they come into the 'good-enough' category), than to be permanently removed. I'm inclined to the former. I agree. Adoption should be final. I hate these cases there seem to be in America, where the birth father can upset the adoption months or years later, because his consent was not obtained.

Agreed. The longer the time, the more difficult for the child.
However, where consent wasn't obtained because of deception, there can
be no disputing the b-father's right to contest.
Fostering to adopt is good, but what happens if the arrangement is revoked and the birth parents refuse to take the child back? Here the papers were signed at about two weeks. I think the adoption was finalized at six months, but the girls were not told that, as I don't think they were allowed to change the arrangement.


So what was the point? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Could the a-parents
change their mind (revoke, as you suggest)?
If they could do so, and the b-parent(s) were denied knowledge of
their rights it was hardly a fair playing field.





Rh.

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<k%pzc.2344$s52.82341@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406140635.424fe8f1@posting.google.com ... Even girls of above average intelligence can have a contraceptive failure.

Get away with you! You don't say!
And (would you believe?) sometimes even 'girls' of above average
intelligence even fail to use contraception. > > Whether she is able to support herself and the child must also be considered. It should not be compulsory, unless absolutely necessary for the baby's sake. > > Fair 'nuf. No parent can be obliged to support their child plus their child's child. Hear, hear! On the other hand, if a young mother who wants to keep her child is intelligent and competent (it does happen), and shows every indication that in a little while and with a little support she that she's likely to become independent and a good mother, I think there is an obligation on the parents' behalf (and of 'society' too) to help her reach that point. Only if the parents want to be involved. It should be their right to refuse. Most would try to help, if finances allow.

Well, it *is* their right to refuse.
So that's not a problem.

Yes, fostering to adopt, with a longish revocation period seems to make sense to me. The question here is, I guess, whether it's more detrimental to a child to be separated from his n-parents(s) for several months and then returned to them (provided they come into the 'good-enough' category), than to be permanently removed. I'm inclined to the former. I agree. Adoption should be final. I hate these cases there seem to be in America, where the birth father can upset the adoption months or years later, because his consent was not obtained.

Agreed. The longer the time, the more difficult for the child.
However, where consent wasn't obtained because of deception, there can
be no disputing the b-father's right to contest.
Fostering to adopt is good, but what happens if the arrangement is revoked and the birth parents refuse to take the child back? Here the papers were signed at about two weeks. I think the adoption was finalized at six months, but the girls were not told that, as I don't think they were allowed to change the arrangement.


So what was the point? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Could the a-parents
change their mind (revoke, as you suggest)?
If they could do so, and the b-parent(s) were denied knowledge of
their rights it was hardly a fair playing field.





Rh.

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:sqQzc.92$LT3.2323@news.xtra.co.nz... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
So what was the point? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Could the a-parents change their mind (revoke, as you suggest)? I'm not sure, but I think they had 6 months to sign the final papers. If they could do so, and the b-parent(s) were denied knowledge of their rights it was hardly a fair playing field. I don't know what happened to the child if the a-parents revoked, but I don't think the birth mother got it back. She had given up all her rights
by signing. She wasn't even told if the child died. There was one case though where a child was seriously defective



"Seriously defective"? Sounds like you are talking about a used car!

Kathy 1

and Social Welfare, as it was then, tried to make the mother take it back. I believe
it went to a court case as she didn't want it, but I didn't hear what the outcome was. Rh.

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:sqQzc.92$LT3.2323@news.xtra.co.nz... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
So what was the point? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Could the a-parents change their mind (revoke, as you suggest)? I'm not sure, but I think they had 6 months to sign the final papers. If they could do so, and the b-parent(s) were denied knowledge of their rights it was hardly a fair playing field. I don't know what happened to the child if the a-parents revoked, but I don't think the birth mother got it back. She had given up all her rights
by signing. She wasn't even told if the child died. There was one case though where a child was seriously defective



"Seriously defective"? Sounds like you are talking about a used car!

Kathy 1

and Social Welfare, as it was then, tried to make the mother take it back. I believe
it went to a court case as she didn't want it, but I didn't hear what the outcome was. Rh.

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2jauihFvoicpU1@uni-berlin.de... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:sqQzc.92$LT3.2323@news.xtra.co.nz... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message So what was the point? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Could the a-parents change their mind (revoke, as you suggest)? I'm not sure, but I think they had 6 months to sign the final papers. If they could do so, and the b-parent(s) were denied knowledge of their rights it was hardly a fair playing field. I don't know what happened to the child if the a-parents revoked, but I don't think the birth mother got it back. She had given up all her
rights by signing. She wasn't even told if the child died. There was one case though where a child was seriously defective "Seriously defective"? Sounds like you are talking about a used car! Kathy 1

Sorry! Grossly mentally and physically handicapped.
Geopelia and Social Welfare, as it was then, tried to make the mother take it back. I
believe it went to a court case as she didn't want it, but I didn't hear what the outcome was. Rh.

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2jauihFvoicpU1@uni-berlin.de... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:sqQzc.92$LT3.2323@news.xtra.co.nz... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message So what was the point? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Could the a-parents change their mind (revoke, as you suggest)? I'm not sure, but I think they had 6 months to sign the final papers. If they could do so, and the b-parent(s) were denied knowledge of their rights it was hardly a fair playing field. I don't know what happened to the child if the a-parents revoked, but I don't think the birth mother got it back. She had given up all her
rights by signing. She wasn't even told if the child died. There was one case though where a child was seriously defective "Seriously defective"? Sounds like you are talking about a used car! Kathy 1

Sorry! Grossly mentally and physically handicapped.
Geopelia and Social Welfare, as it was then, tried to make the mother take it back. I
believe it went to a court case as she didn't want it, but I didn't hear what the outcome was. Rh.