South Carolina Supreme Court Rules to Keep Baby Veronica With Biological Father

[yeats]

Comments

[jimmyblue]

I'm happy about this ruling, but I feel bad for the adoptive parents. I can't imagine what it's like to finally get a child and then have it taken away from you.

[danceprincess20]

While I don't think it's super common, I don't think it's very uncommon either. My old neighbors had been trying to adopt, were given a newborn and after a while (I can't remember if it was weeks or months but it was a decent chunk of time, enough for them to get attached obviously, I was pretty young myself when all this went down), then one of the parents changed their minds (this has something to do with state law) and they had to give the baby back.

While I totally understand that that is the way the law works, it was also really rough on the adoptive parents. They stopped the adoption process for quite a few years because they were so scared it would happen again.

[hourglasscreate]

Yeah, I know someone with a story like that too. I think it's more common than people realize.

[callmepatsy]

I think those laws were made to keep biological mothers (particularly young ones) from being pressured into placing their babies for adoption when they've just given birth....to give them a chance to change their minds when they've thought about it and aren't totally drained and possibly on drugs (if they went that route in childbirth.)

How long it is varies by states, some states it's 3 days, some it's months.

Not saying it doesn't suck for the adoptive parents who have hoped for/planned for/loved the baby, it really does, but I was given to understand that's why the law exists.

[pandaseal]

That's exactly why laws like that exist, although unethical adoption agencies will move expectant mothers into states with shorter time frames for them to change their minds. I believe Utah is one of the more popular states in which they pull that bullshit.

[thenakedcat]

Yep. Those laws came about to prevent the return of the era of forced adoptions, where many unwed mothers would be confined in maternity homes and coerced into giving their children up immediately, possibly without even being allowed to see or hold them. As hard as the situation is on the adoptive parents, those laws are in place to stop real abuse.

[girly123]

I don't, but it could be because I'm a bit of an asshole about adoptive parents who think their desire for a child trumps said child's emotional well-being and links to their culture.

[a_klutz]

child's emotional well-being and links to their culture.

tbf, a biological connection doesn't necessarily make one a good parent OR ensure that that child will be brought up with their culture. Sometimes (not all the time of course) adoption is the best for the child.

[romp]

In this case, we can look at thousands of people who were taken out of their culture. Which is why rules like this exist.

[girly123]

Oh, definitely. It's a knee-jerk reaction I have to cases of white adoptive parents fighting for non-white children, which I realize is often assholish and unfair. It's also...with this specific cultural context, and with some of the organizations that got involved (The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare? I hate that that's a thing,) it's a bit harder for me to have sympathy for the adoptive parents.

[ljtaylor]

imho, both adoptive and biological parents can be guilty of putting their own wishes before the needs of the kid.

It must be pretty awful on a child, who only really knows his/her adoptive family and is then suddenly placed with total strangers.

[hourglasscreate]

Yeah.

I totally understand why the law is there, but I seriously feel it is unfair to take a child from the only family she's known and give her to strangers.

I wonder if there have been any studies about the long term psychological effects of being wrenched away from your family on children who have been returned to their bio parent(s).

[kyra_neko_rei]

I wish there was an option for some type of shared custody arrangement like they do when marriages break up. Just to plop it on the table when the matter first comes up as an offer to avoid litigation and the possibility of losing completely. Legal custody goes to the birth parent, but adoptive parents avoid being cut entirely out of the child's life.

Aside from that, I think it also would be ideal (when they're not worried about flight risks) to transfer custody gradually---introduce the kid to the bio-parents, then have him spend time in their care before moving him permanently to their home; it would be less of a sudden transition for the child from the parents he knows to complete strangers.

[i_m_b00]

I'm an adoptive parent. I loved my child from the moment i saw the picture just the same as when a women who wanted their child does when they are first told. I'm looking out for my son's well being both emotionally and all ways that I feel as a parent I must. I'm also teaching him his culture and plan to help him find his bio-parents if he ever wants to. (I assume him will at some point)

I understand the laws. It's not a bad or evil law. But that doesn't mean this adoptive parents won't be in pain.

They adopted the child legally and have done nothing wrong. My heart goes out to them.

you have a right to dislike me. you have a right to dislike anyone. But it's a little unfair to think I don't love my child when you don't know us. Please discriminate your dislikes until know a person's story.

(I'll be out all day so I'm not ignoring you I'm just out and will replay when I get home tonight.)

[girly123]

No, it's totally unfair and I understand that. It's a hurtful knee-jerk reaction of mine that I'm realizing that I should have been reconsidering instead of giving voice to. I'm sorry for any hurt I've caused you.

[romp]

I'm an adoptive parent and I agree with girly123. Surely you DO put your child's needs before your wants.