[loveajax]

As an AP, I know I shouldn't be in a position to comment....but I do agree that all mothers should have all options open to them. For some mothers, parenting (even for a short while) is not an option. I know it wasn't in my DD's birth mom's options. Though she did love and care for my DD in the hospital, she also knew she could have brought her home, put her in cradle care, or ask that she go home with us until TPR (she chose the latter, and of course I am glad, though I am also glad she knew all her options).

I personally think all parents should be counselled on their ability to wait on TPR. Mandatory minimums are just that...minimums. Not the time they need to decide...

[Mommy24]

Originally Posted by loveajax

I personally think all parents should be counselled on their ability to wait on TPR. Mandatory minimums are just that...minimums. Not the time they need to decide...

YES! I was made to believe, in the hospital, that I HAD to sign as soon as the 48 hours was up. Literally the agency was there as soon as the 48 hours had passed.

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??

[SchmennaLeigh]

Amen to being counseled about what the "time limit" for TPR really means. I did not know that the 72 hours were a MINIMUM. Sigh.

[RavenSong]

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.

[heartlistener]

Hours after delivery, I made my way to the nursery of the hospital where I had given birth determined to see my daughter. (The hospital staff knew I was planning on relinquishing her and I was put on a different floor than the other mothers). Looking longingly through the nursery window at the one lone child there being bottle fed by a nurse, I realized with a pang that was my daughter. I stood there with tears streaming down my face when the nurse looked up, saw me, and invited me in to the nursery, probably breaking all sorts of rules.

I got to spend several precious moments feeding my daughter, moments I will always cherish and for which I am very grateful.

I didn't even know I had a right to take my daughter home with me. Along with my other documents related to her adoption, I have a paper signed by me releasing her to the adoption agency, dated on the day after I delivered her. It was not a TPR document but it might as well have been.

I have no memories of signing that paper.

Believe it or not, this was 1982.

[quantum]

I beleive it heartlistener!
I relinquished in 1985, was not allowed to know the sex of my child (I found out anyway). I have no idea what papers I signed and when.
No idea.

[agathaj]

I think taking baby home is a great idea but I imagine it's not for everyone...
as for signing those papers....in 48, 72 hours or whatever ...I feel that is totally inhumane...we're talking about a baby not a car...jeesh

[kakuehl]

My first response was, yes: I wish I could have taken him home with me so that he hadn't spent over 3 weeks in foster care. My next thought... I'd never have gotten him away from my mother! (And she'd never have left me take him to my apartment at college!)

I,too, was not supposed to see D in the hospital (They "knocked me out" for the actual delivery and he was out of the room before I was conscious.) My mother and I walked down to see him in the nursery (once) with my dad trailing unhappily along. His only comment was that D was jaundiced. (Which may be the reason they kept him a day after I was discharged -- the only paperwork I have from the whole time are the hospital bills.)

I did cause consternation in the ranks by insisting on seeing him before I signed the final papers. (Although they actually had me sign the final papers before allowing me to see him.) They did, however, bring him to the meeting and I got to give him a bottle, hold him, examine him,etc. (This could explain why holding D's newborn son was a very emotional experience for me.)

Getting back to the original question, taking D home wouldn't have changed my decision. In many ways it would have complicated my life, especially when it came to my mother. I still wish he could have been with me rather than in foster care! (I'm sure they were competent, caring people, but! I had thought he was going directly to his (a)parents.)

[stinky_kitty]

Originally Posted by SchmennaLeigh

Amen to being counseled about what the "time limit" for TPR really means. I did not know that the 72 hours were a MINIMUM. Sigh.

You're not the only one. I didn't know either...just another one of those things they "forgot" to inform me about.

[taramayrn]

I really wanted to take T home with me, but was so afraid. Also my mom, bless her heart wasn't overly supportive. She worried it would be harder on me as well.

I wish the social worker I worked with had pushed me to explore my fears further and help me work through them.

Like you said Brenda, you can't get much more attached than an umbilical cord.

[taramayrn]

I agree that making a mother see her child after birth, etc if she doesn't want to, isn't going to help.

I agree though mandatory counselling will help.

[-emma-lee-]

I took my daughter to my aunts with me for a weekend after she was born, knowing that she wuold still be adopted that monday. I just felt I needed the time with her and I told myself that no matter what she was leaving monday. and thats how it went.
It was the best weekend of my life, adn i am so thankful for that special time i got to spend wiht her..
also since i didn't take her to my home the saddness of her memories there were non existant.
it really was amazing to have my daughter wiht me for those few days, adn i thank god for that.

[AlisonMarie]

I think if I had brought my son home, I would have kept him. Everyone would have fallen in love.

I did have around a day and a half in the hospital with him. I held him, I talked to him, I kissed him. I forget a lot of the details, but I am thankful I had that time with him. Not knowing where he is, or how he is, or what his name is, it's nice to know I got to share his first moments in the world. It's all I have.

I think bringing the baby home should be an option, as should holding them in the hospital, but it should be up to the bmom. I know bmom's who didn't want to hold their babies, and some that didn't and wish they had, and some that did and wish they hadn't.

[-Hillary]

It was not an option for me to take my baby home, but I wish that I'd had the option. I spent 3 days with my baby in the hospital, and I believe that I still would have chosen to place if I had brought him home for a week or so. It wouldn't have been possible to become more attatched to him than I was when I first held him... It would have been so wonderful to have those extra hours with him.

[SuddenlySusan]

I surrendered my son in 1971, truly believing I was doing the "right thing" by attempting to provide him with a better life. My mother, who did not support the adoption plan, held him in the hospital. She asked me if I would hold him, knowing that I would not be able to let go. I just couldn't do it.

I stood in front of the nursery window whenever I could, but I knew that he would not be placed with his adoptive family if I held him. Although I chose adoption, I wouldn't say that I chose it "freely"... who in the closed era ever felt that they had a real choice in the matter?

All that being said, would I "choose" differently in today's world? Absolutely. I think that if I had held my son I would have cancelled the adoption. And, I don't think that would have been a bad thing, for me or my son. The disappointment probably would have been heartbreaking for the potential adoptive parents, and that is one of the areas of torment that I was facing in the hospital -- I felt that I had already disrupted so many people's lives that I didn't want to hurt anybody else, including the adoptive parents.

However, worrying about the disappointment of others should not carry so much weight in such a life-changing decision. It wasn't about the adoptive parents and how they would have felt, it was about my life with my son, and his life with me and my family.

I think sometimes the discouragement of holding your baby comes from a place of fear -- that you will keep your baby and cancel the adoption. The arguments of "bonding" arise and are sometimes used as leverage with new mothers. After all, if you really cared about your baby, you would want him to bond immediately to his new family, right?

I would encourage all new mothers to hold and care for their babies, and if they still choose adoption perhaps they might feel more secure in their decision. If a new mother changes her mind and decides to bring her baby home after holding him, then how can that be a bad thing...one less family torn apart through the loss of a child.

I waited for 36 years to hug my son. We've talked about the adoption and we both agree on this:

He has a wife and three beautiful children. I had two other children after him, whom I love deeply. Neither of us can imagine life without our loved ones, and if I had not surrendered him, he would not have his wife and children, and I would not have my other children. It's like the butterfly effect... things would be different. That difference is an unknown, but what we do know is that we have family that we love.

And now, we have each other... and our families have each other as well. We're just glad that we found each other after all these years, and survived the great social experiment called adoption.

I still say, though: Hold your baby, and listen to your heart.

And remember, if you are not a minor, you are the one in charge. Do not let anyone hold your feet to the fire while pressuring you to hold your pen to the paper. You are under no obligation to "give" your baby to anyone.

Hold your baby first, then decide.

Peace,
Susan