[bromanchik]

One of the lines a lot of expectant/new parents, and adoptive parents, have gotten over the years is that spending time with your baby will only make you "attached" and that taking your baby home will only make it harder to relinquish.

My position and experience with a number of moms who took their children home, is that it was actually not as traumatic as being separated days after birth. My belief is that you cannot get more attached than an umbilical cord and abrupt separation is much more difficult than a gentle transition. Additionally, if adoption is the right decision at two days after the baby's birth it will still be the right decision at three weeks. If it's not, than the placement shouldn't have happened in the first place.

What do you think?

[sstuart]

I am from the closed adoption era and I had to fight to get to see my DD in the hospital. I think that for me, if I was able to bring her home I would not have been able to place after that. I was not allowed to see her prior to signing, because they were afraid I would have changed my mind, and I just may have.
I do think that those who do parent for a short time and place are much more at peace with their decision. Of course this is just my opinion.

[belleinblue1978]

I would have taken my son home in a heartbeat. I really do think that every woman should take a shot at parenting. That way you know in your heart if you choose not to parent that you just weren't ready. I also agree that if you are going to place 2 days after birth it will be the same 3 weeks later. My situation is a perfect example of that in a way, I didn't sign the TPR for six months. So much for needing to get that puppy signed in the hospital if she is really going to place huh?

[SchmennaLeigh]

Coley did a great interview with a mom who took her baby home on the blogs. There were three posts.

1. Unplanned Pregnancy, Expectant Parent Blog - Taking your Baby Home
2. Unplanned Pregnancy, Expectant Parent Blog - Taking Your Baby Home: One Birthmother’s Story
3. Unplanned Pregnancy, Expectant Parent Blog - Taking Your Baby Home: The Reaction of Others

The second is the one containing the story.

I don't think I could have done it myself. As I had been planning on placing, I had absolutely nothing at home. The hospital could have provided us with a car seat as they do for other families in need of one. But, again, as I was planning on placing and the agency and doctors/nurses told me not to nurse, I didn't. Therefore, I wouldn't have had food for her at home. And so on. I really wish I would have known, with something like a month left to my pregnancy, that you COULD take your baby home. (I wasn't informed that was even an option by my agency.) Perhaps then I could have gotten enough together.

All the same, I was still pretty sick due to my kidney in those first two weeks after birth. So, I don't know if it would have been a great idea for anyone. Sigh, right?

[cetalley]

Belle and others, I absolutely think it should be mandatory to spend time with child. Had it not been the fact I was told I could not leave the hospital with my twins, I would not be posting here today(not that I would be better without all of you in my life), but plain and simple, I would not have let my boys go. This was done for one specific reason....coerce me into signing by holding finances over my head. If it were mandatory, I think most Moms would parent, after seeing there are many programs avail. to help you parent. I can only hope there will, one day, be a law put into place for mom and baby to spend x amount of time before signing.......

[SchmennaLeigh]

Actually, I don't think a law "mandating" "bonding time" would be beneficial for everyone. There are some who do not want to or mentally cannot see their children. I don't believe we should be forcing victims of rape or incest to do anything else that they do not specifically want to do themselves.

What I think should be mandatory is counseling about the reasons why spending time with your child is important and beneficial to all.

Once again, agencies are dropping the ball there by neglecting to counsel expectant parents considering placement about another important part of relinquishment.

[lynne75]

I was able to spend time in the hospital with the baby before she went home with her parents, but never took her home. Just the short time in the hospital made it EXTREMELY hard for me to still place her-- and, maybe that is why I still feel horribly about the adoption 8 years later. I know she is with a good family though. Do I feel I became more attached to her because of our 'bonding time'? I really do. I don't think it is a bad thing though and was thankful for the short amount of time I had with her.

[lahdh4]

Mentally I wasn't prepared to see Supergirl in the hospital. A nurse brought her in in error and I freaked. I had a hard enough time when we were discharged.

If I took her home I would not be where I am today. I wouldn't have placed her. I say that but I don't think that is what would have happened.

[EZ2Luv]

I am not a bmom, but I am so happy that this has been brought up. I am of the the think that "how can you say goodbye, without saying hello?' I also believe thatif a baby is meant to be given for adoption, it will happen regardless of emotions.
What bothers me is how I see some PAPs freak out over this.
I agree for some Bmoms it might be far too much to deal with seeing or holding their baby, but avioding this will leave an everlasting open wound and pain that will DEFINATELY resurface somewhere down the road.

My own Bmom though it was a closed adoption DID in fact have a chance to see me, hold me and say hello however she refused. I was adopted by her older sister and she still avoided me at all costs for years.

Some may say it was far too painful for her but I believe (knowing her personality) that it was more denial.

At any rate I think the lesson that has come out of the closed adoption era is how crucial it is for a mother to see and hold her baby and I would encourage them to.
I would even go a step further and suggest that the Bmom take the baby home or spend time parenting the baby for at least a few days. Maybe it should not be "mandatory" but more strongly recommended. At least they should have this option.
I think agencies should also encourage this, but I am hard pressed to believe they would.

I wish I knew how to do a poll because it would be interesting to see how many Bmoms would have gone on to parent had they been able to do this.
After having my own babies I was basket case with hormones all over the place. I cannot imagine making ANY kid of decision until after I was settled and home much less a life lasting decision that would impact me like no ther.
Gosh, thinking back I changed my babies name back and forth 3 times during the hormonal fog and confusion.

EZ

[quantum]

I don't know about taking him home, there is all that practical stuff that was mentioned here as far as not nursing, not having any baby equipment and so on. I would have LOVED LOVED LOVED to spend some time with him in the hospital. I was pretty darn determined as far as adoption was concerned and was never given an inkling that I could do anything else, so I don't think it would have changed my mind. It would have given me some memories to hold onto though.

Its probably like everything else, very personal.

[lovemy2boys]

I think believe that bringing the baby home should be suggested to moms...

Well, suggested isn't really a good enough word - and "encouraged" may be construed as pushing them into something they don't want...So I guess what I'm saying is that it should be presented to them in a way that these women know that it is an actual option...and I don't think this happens all too often, especially in private adoptions (at least I don't think so...).

When AJ was born, he was a few weeks early - we were waiting for our paperwork from the state, and it didn't arrive on the day he was set to be released...The sw actually encouraged D to bring him home. They discussed the feelings, emotions, etc., and told her that this was her right to do so...

She opted not to, so he went to cradle care for the night (we got our paperwork the next day). I have to say that I'm glad that they gave her the option, even if she chose not to take it.

[cls2445]

I am also from the closed era. I was not allowed to see my dau. let alone touch/hold her. I was not even on the same floor of the hospital she was. I don't know about leaving the hospital with them. Wow, I really think that would be much too difficult as more of a bond would take place -esp. hard on the baby, they have feelings too.
I believe all mothers should be given the option of holding their child at least when in the hospital. I believe that counseling should be mandatory before placement and after. We have come a long way since 1963 but not nearly far enough. All of us need to be treated with dignity and respect.

[Free_to_be_me]

I definately think it should be presented as an option, but certainly not mandated. I wish I had had the chance to spend two or three days after the hospital with my birthdaughter and her adoptive family. (In my ideal world, we would have all stayed in a hotel with adjoining rooms for a couple of days.) I would not have wanted to take P home and be her primary caregiver for any amount of time, though. I know (and knew then) that adoption was the right choice for both of us and although I spent a lot of time holding and caring for her, I did not change her or bathe her or anything like that. Taking care of her made it harder for me to let go.

[lglysson]

I was in the just kinda opening up era. I remember going to a support group and I said I didn't think I could handle seeing or holding my baby. I remember a bmom saying, "Hold your baby. I waited over 20 years to hold my son." That was the best advice for me. I have those memories of holding her, right after birth. Skin on skin, her sleeping on my chest. I will never forget it. I don't think I could have brought her home. I had an older child that I think it would have been difficult for. Although he came to the hospital and held her. I have a picture of them together. He doesn't remember it though, he was only 2.

There is many different ways of going through this, there should be no standard or mandates. It should be open, and bmom should always have a pretty free rein on what she can handle and do.

[JustPeachy]

Against the wonderful [insert sarcasm here] advice of the nurses on staff, I insisted on holding and feeding my son in the hospital. I don't think, for me, it made relinquishing harder. There was just no way I was going to carry a pregnancy for 9 months and not see and hold my baby. I am very glad I stuck to my guns on that issue.

It was not an option for me to bring my baby home. Had it been, I'm not sure what I would have done. I was pretty well set on adoption from very early in my pregnancy. I would have liked to spend more time with my son, but at the same time, I knew I had to let go, too. But in retrospect, it could have solidified my decision even moreso. I did have a friend who initially planned for adoption, couldn't go through with it, tried to parent, and after 2 or 3 weeks, she realized she couldn't do it, and continued on with her adoption plan. I think it helped her realize she was making the right decision and she didn't second guess herself so much.

I think women should have as many options available to them as possible, and taking the baby home should be one of them. THEY should be the ones to decide what they can or cannot handle, not the doctors, nurses, agency workers, family, adoptive parents, etc.