[RobinKay]

If it works out that the baby can stay with the folks who love him and have had him from the beginning, I think that is great. I have always advocated for babies to stay with the family that takes them home from the hospital if birthparents cannot take care of them.

For argument's sake, it's interesting that this situation is exactly what one of the posters on this thread suggested on another thread--that people either foster or be adoptive homes. The reason was to limit moves--the system could almost guarantee only two moves for a child taken into care. The system is trying to do that in this case.

It seems silly to move them, yet, the original thinking was keep baby safe and cared for while bmother made her decision or whatever she needed to do. Then, if bmother said adoption plan, the adoptive family was ready and waiting. To me, it seems the system was trying to prevent the "broken heart" thing by saying-you are fostering, no matter what happens, baby is not staying with you, please be prepared for baby to move eventually. Then baby goes to adoptive parents, and that's it. ONE move-from foster to the adoptive parents.

But, what happened? The foster family would now like to change their mind, change the agreement, because they have "fallen in love" with the child. Do we have no questions about integrity, are we not concerned about what would happen if everybody in "the system" decided not to keep their word? Adoptive-only parents are trying to be upfront about their feelings-they said we can't do the foster care thing--honest about their feelings and abilities. Babies are not supposed to be a prize for the family willing to risk the most heartache.


Again, in reality, it is silly not to just let the OP adopt this child--it is a silly idea to think that if you give a baby to people who want to have a family they will happily give the baby back because "their number" isn't up yet, or the right paperwork isn't done yet for them. DO the paperwork and let that child be home.