|
I have to respectfully disagree with lynard's suggestion.
I personally think guardianship/legal custody "solutions" more often cause more problems than anything else--they leave the door open for arguments and lawsuits and the boundaries murky for day to day living. What is the point of doing this, anyway? Either a person has decided not to parent or they haven't--I do not think it is moral or ethical to impose the damaging effects of their indecision on a helpless child. Barring exceptional circumstances, having one set of parents with rights intact and living with another set of adult "guardians" or "legal custodians" does nothing positive for the child while compromising the child's actual legal security as well as the child's sense of security, safety, identity, and the permanency needed to attach, bond, root, and thrive. For the most part, this is not a good legal status for a child in a household and that is why federal law makes adoption the highest priority goal in foster cases not going to RU.
It is better in most cases, I think, for a child to be raised in his or her family of origin. Unfortunately, these decisions are not always made with the child's best interest or familial rights in mind--they are often made according to the wants and fears of the adults involved. Before birth, it is the mother's body; after birth, it is the parents' child for whom they have a responsibility to make all decisions in the child's best interest--the child is a human being whose personhood, including familial rights, imo should be respected except where they are outweighed by other factors negative to the child, not the parents. Sometimes, that may mean that if the adults are not able to handle the situation beneficially for the child, then the child's better interest is served by being adopted out.
Children need to be raised by a parent or parents. Children need permanency. They need to know the people on whom their lives depend are bonded to them legally as well as emotionally. Guardianship or legal custody does not give them that. It denies them a rightful place in the family in which they are being raised. It makes them a perpetual guest. They deserve better than that, I think.
I am saying all this as a relative who is adopting an older child who we have been fostering for several years. She shows me the damage limbo does to a child every day. Yes, the pending adoption is changing the dynamics of our extended family, and not in all positive ways. On balance, though, she is benefiting greatly, first from knowing she will soon really be a legitimate, legal member of our family and, second, from finding herself in the bosom of her family of origin. So the discomfort of some of the adults is secondary as far as I am concerned. I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but I think it is wrong to deny a child his or her real developmental and legal need for a real family just to accommodate the indecision or comfort level of a parent who won't or can't commit to parenting. Once the decision to give birth has been acted upon, then I think all the decisions that follow must be made in the child's interest, not the adults'.
|