Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mommy24
As for taking baby home for a few days, weeks, it wouldn't work for everyone obviously but I do think something needs to happen in that direction. If I had taken my son home, I would have never placed. So maybe that really does mean that I never should have placed to begin with, but how does one know this other than hindsight??
|
I feel the same way, Michelle, about my own situation. There is no way I could have signed the relinquishment papers if I had taken my son home with me first...which most likely means I should never have placed him for adoption to begin with.
I relinquished thru the County of San Diego, a very common practice back in the '70s. (I don't know if they still do voluntary newborn adoption or not.) The SW did a very good job explaining that I could take all the time I wanted to sign the papers, as long as it occurred after my hospital discharge. The only thing, though, is she told me that the sooner I signed the papers, the sooner DS would be moved from his temporary foster home into his adoptive home. So I signed the papers immediately following my discharge from the hospital. And then 18 years later, I discovered that they had kept DS in the foster home for 30 days before moving him to his parents' home anyway. Now I kind of wish that I had taken my time before signing the papers...and I really, really regret not seeing him after he was born.