[manni28]

I agree with the other ladies-I'm not for enforceable contracts.

IMO, there is a very, very fine line when deciding, what the "best interest for the child" is. I feel if you are going to give up all parental rights to parent, visitation goes with it. I don't think any good would come out of enforced visitation when the aparents are resentful towards the bmom and the child "picks-up" on it. The child may see the bmom as the "trouble maker" who is causing all the pain in the family. In the end, the child would probably resent the bmom too. So, what would be accomplished out of this-nothing! The bmom would not have the relationship she desired with the child; the aparents would be resentful towards the bmom, and the child would be "stuck" in the middle of this madness. I do believe one should keep their word, but if one party is over stepping boundaries and disrespecting the aparents all agreements are null and void (imo).

[2manyks]

babies are not vacuum cleaners and that is why we need to think about this very carefully. the thing is that the time after birth for TPRs are a minimum. through councilling a bmom should know her rights. she CAN choose to take as long as she wants. if she needs to take longer then the mandated time she can and she can choose where the baby goes, with her, p-aparents, foster care. the choices are already there in most cases. we just need to make sure the pbparents know their rights. i dont want the government making any more rules then necessary. so councilling is a key factor here. making sure everyone knows their choices. but what happens if a bmom is placing for a 2nd or 3rd, etc time and already went through councilling. should she be forced into councilling again, even if she already knows what to expect and what her rights are. if she needs councilling great, but some dont. lets remember, the minimums are already there. they can take all the time they need, and they should.

[icunurse]

I don't think that there can be a clear and easy answer that, across the board, will be of benefit to every pbparent. Well, other than perhaps a minimum guaratee of a certain number of hours of counseling and proper education about their rights, whatever they may be for that state (as far as TPR's, open adoption agreements, revocation, etc). I am in a very open adopen with DS's bmom and her family and I hope and pray that we have an open adoption with our next child. It is something that we work at and value.

That said, as much as my heart probably couldn't take it, I could understand increasing the TPR period from 3 to 7 days for my state (though pbparents are not required to sign at 3 days, just able to...but that info all comes down to counseling and education, doesn't it?) If it is changed to 30 days, I truly could not bring a child into my house if there was even the tiniest possibility of the baby being taken back. I couldn't handle it and I cannot risk exposed my son to that. But, as we learned with DS's bmom, she was strongly opposed to the DS staying in the hospital longer than necessary, much less foster care or the like. So what would her choices have really been, I have no idea?

As for legally enforcable open adoption agreements, I am not very behind the idea. For the record, we only signed a moral contract, which is better than legal in the values of DH and I (but I know that is not the same for all people). If they become legal where I live, I would only agree to a bare minimum of contact, as I wouldn't want things held against me if I had a bad spell where I couldn't hold up all of my end (and by that I mean several visits, letters, calls, etc). I think it has the potential for bad feelings, as I would be afraid that if I didn't send things on time or we had trouble arranging a meeting, that the piece of paper could be waved at me. I know that theory is probably extreme and rare, but it could happen. I would also dare to say that if it was legal, I would expect the same standards to be upheld by bparents (meaning that they can call me or adjust their schedule for visits).

[rredhead]

It's important to note that a birthmother has her entire pregnancy to decide what happens to her child. So much focus is being put on after the baby is born. I strongly believe that counseling must be a part of the pre-birth experience for potential birthmoms. I would actually support legislation for this.

I was thinking a lot about this last night, and the only thing that changes after birth is that the baby is there. But that doesn't change the larger situation. In our case, DS's mom still didn't have a stable family life, a permanent place to live, a job, and so on. She was in no better position to parent DS after he was born than before he was born. If adoption was the best choice for the child before he was born, how does that change after he's born?

“In many states, you can change your mind about buying a vacuum cleaner or taking out a mortgage within a prescribed time period, but most states do not have a revocation period during which a mother can change her mind about relinquishing her child,” the report said.

This is the part of the article that irks me the most. Like loveajax's husband, I have a problem with babies being compared to vaccuums and mortgages. A baby needs to have his or her parents there from as close to the beginning as possible. It is in the best interest of the baby to have his or her family decided as soon as possible. A vaccuum cleaner doesn't form attachments. I was upset because DS was put directly into the NICU and no one held him close for several hours after his birth. No one held him the day after he was born. His bmom didn't want to, and we weren't allowed to. This drove me crazy. Changing the amount of time until TPR could potentially mean that babies aren't getting the nurturing and contact that they need. (I think Attachment Parenting parents would be especially upset by this.)

As to what happens to the child between leaving the hospital and TPR, going home with birthmom is not always a possibility. DS's bmom was supposed to be induced on a certain day, but if she had been DS would have been released from the hospital prior to anyone going to court, meaning that he would have had to go home with her. She was upset, because she didn't have anything for him at her place. She ended up changing the inducement date so we could take him directly from the hospital.

As for enforceable Open Adoption agreements, I am for them in theory. I think that there would need to be language that called for a review of the agreement every so often to ensure that the agreement was always in the best interest of the child. As some people noted, some children don't want relationships with their birthparents at different times in their lives. Some birthparents are in situations to which children should not be exposed -- drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, etc. But yes, there should at least be minimum standards for openness that are enforceable.

Just my opinion.

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by rredhead

I was thinking a lot about this last night, and the only thing that changes after birth is that the baby is there. But that doesn't change the larger situation. In our case, DS's mom still didn't have a stable family life, a permanent place to live, a job, and so on. She was in no better position to parent DS after he was born than before he was born. If adoption was the best choice for the child before he was born, how does that change after he's born?

Parents consider adoption for many different reasons. Many do because they do not think they are emotionally "ready" to be a parent, or they may have an idealized vision of what family should be. Some are detached from their infants in utero. They see adoption as a way to solve a "situation" in their life. The baby "being there" can make all the difference in the world. They are no longer a concept, they are a human being that is connected to them in a way that no other will ever be connected to them.

Taking the baby home is not for everyone, but it needs to be offered. There are agencies that have layettes available for this purpose. This extra time also gives mom and dad a clearer head to make a fully informed decision. Seeing the baby is part of the information they need, not having high levels of hormones in their system is vital for a clear decision, not having pain killers in their system is also important.

I have had three full term pregnancies. After the birth of all three of my children I saw them differently than when I was carrying them. They became "real" to me. For fathers, experiencing this "reality" is even more important. The understanding of what you can provide for your child can change after you see your child.

Certainly there are some parents who have struggles of their own that make it dangerous to the baby for them to take the baby home. But in many cases it is a matter of inner resources and/or them wanting to have more than they can give them financially. Some decide after they see their child that they have greater emotional resources than they thought. For others, they re-think the financial aspects and no longer see that as the most important thing.

The bottom line is that they need to have the space and time to do this after the baby is born.

[loveajax]

I want to say that in my state, there is a four day period before which birth parents cannot sign TPR. (I am not sure if this runs from discharge rom hospital or birth). In any event, I do think that there should be some time -- 4 days, 7 days -- not sure what would be appropriate before TPRs can be signed. I know DD's birth mom was advised of all the options - - taking her home, placing her in temporary foster care or coming home with us. Obviously, birth parents should be aware of all of their options.

I have never given birth so I can only imagine how different things may feel after birth and however resolute one may have been in an adoption plan, they may no longer feel that way after the birth. That's totally fine. But there are some people who, after birth, still feel very strongly that they want to continue with their plan, sign the papers, etc.

In my state also there is NO revocation period. I (as an a parent) obviously think that is better (though I can see allowing more time on the "front end" to make up for that). That is for the reasons rredhead suggests -- I really believe every child deserves to bond with his "forever family" (whether that ends up being his birth parents or his adoptive parents) as soon as possible. I know (though obviously not firsthand) these decisions are incredibly difficult and painful. I have asked DD's birth mom about this and about "regrets," etc., and she has always said it is the most difficult, painful decision she ever made but that she knows it was the right one and at no point would it have gotten any easier. So I guess that was my one "dispute" with the report -- i.e., I think all the other recommendations may be in the best interests of children (and of the birth parents), but extending revocation periods to me is not one, imo.

[DavidKed]

"As some people noted, some children don't want relationships with their birthparents at different times in their lives."

And some children dont want relationships with their adoptive parents or legal parents at certain times in their lives. The child doesnt get to choose.

Prior to an adoption, the birthparents are simply the parents and they have complete power to decide the path for their child and if they decide on adoption+certain visitation then that agreement needs to have full legal protection with harsh penalties for non-compliance.

[tobeafamily]

Originally Posted by DavidKed

"As some people noted, some children don't want relationships with their birthparents at different times in their lives."

And some children dont want relationships with their adoptive parents or legal parents at certain times in their lives. The child doesnt get to choose.

Prior to an adoption, the birthparents are simply the parents and they have complete power to decide the path for their child and if they decide on adoption+certain visitation then that agreement needs to have full legal protection with harsh penalties for non-compliance.

Just wanted to pop in and say Hi David. Haven't seen you around in it seems like forever . Funny, you were on my mind too....

Take care,

Regina

Oh yeah, and I agree with the legal enforcement, but I think it needs to be enforcable for ALL parties - i.e. birth parents are also penalized for not living up to their end of the agreement.

The problem with legally enforcable is that the court is compelling responsibility to people with no legal standing in the child's life. Legally, the biological family is 'as strangers' as the law typically puts it. So it's like compelling, say, your neigbor, to be in the child's life. Legally, the child has no rights to their biological parents (or to their estate), so the law views this as also meaning there is no responsibility. Just my $0.02.

[opalwench]

Originally Posted by rredhead

It's important to note that a birthmother has her entire pregnancy to decide what happens to her child. So much focus is being put on after the baby is born. I strongly believe that counseling must be a part of the pre-birth experience for potential birthmoms. I would actually support legislation for this.

"Entire pregnancy" doesn't mean the same in all cases though... I only knew I was pregnant for 1 month before my daughter was born (and she was a week late). You're going to encounter expecting mothers who find out late in the game... And they deserve counselling as much as anyone, maybe more so. So many of my regrets about placing involve the fact that we were trying to cram everything into a very short time span.

[proudmum]

The birthmothers in our country have 12 days (more if they want) before they sign the consent in that time they either take the baby of have the baby fostered,, then they have 6 months before its finalised and if they feel they signed under duress they can start proceedings to get the child back,,, we were very fortunate as our dd bmother sent me to a maternity home for the 12 days with our dd... it was wonderful and also very stressfull and emotional as i knew that this little girl i had fallen in love with could be taken from me in an instant if bmother decided not to sign,,, i think 3 days is way too short for a bmother to sign but 30 way too long.... we were constantly on edge for the 6 mnths with what if we say something wrong she may try to take our dd.... it is such a emotional and complicated process (adoption ) for everyone invovled i really wouldnt know what length of time would be good for all.....

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by DavidKed

"As some people noted, some children don't want relationships with their birthparents at different times in their lives."

And some children dont want relationships with their adoptive parents or legal parents at certain times in their lives. The child doesnt get to choose.

Actually sometimes the child does get to choose not to be with parents. In MI it begins at 13.

I think it is important to honor committments. I also believe it is important to honor and respect the feelings of a child. Birthparents and adoptees do not have a normal parent/child relationship. There may very well be times when the relationship feels "loaded" to a child. Forcing visitation during these times is not in anybody's best interest. This is far different than stopping visits because one of the adults in the equation doesn't want to deal with it.

[Stormster]

Is it fair then that the expenses we lay out in advance are non-refundable? It should go both ways. Money should be put in Escrow until the adoption is finalized. We face risks, painful risks too, and even if it is better for the mother, if she can, to keep her own child then it should be better, if we can. to keep our hard earned money in the end. Why should we have broken hearts AND broken finances? I don't know about Agency Adoptions but the risks in Private Adoptions are potentially disastrous for people like me who could literally lose EVERYTHING and never adopt a child (in theory).

I get it, please don't think I don't....but I guess I'm looking for ways to reduce OUR risk. The pain of losing a child you've had at home is like a death....I can't imagine it. And if you are hoping this will be your child some day how could you allow this baby to go into foster care? Or home with a mom who is forced to parent for a short time because the adopting family would be too afraid to take the baby home! In some wierd way it's like gambling...which is illegal by the way....or a business deal where someone runs away with your investment. Not to trivialize but I'm talking about the financial aspect here.

And finally, why does the law assume that the mother WANTS so many days to decide. Maybe she truly wants to do it quickly and move on with her life, her other children, whatever....

I know this is a controversial subject. I also think that unmarried birthfather's who contest an adoption which the birth mother wants should have to go to court to show that they can effectively parent. In my situation he just wanted to force HER to parent. If a woman has control of her body i.e. Abortions which do not require a father's consent then the birth father should not force her to parent which is almost always the case because very few mother's would sign away her rights to a child she knows will be connected to her through family or whatever. This to me is the flip side of the issue: mothers who are forced to parent!

Well tha'ts my two cents. I might sound a little angry only because I just had a really bad experience but I honestly do want what's best for the baby....the mother I just had a failed case with (has an 8 month old) did not want to take the baby home at all and is being forced to parent because the boyfriend who has seen her once in six months (not abandonment?!!!?!?!) and is a convicted felon who beat up a cop (not an abuse risk?????) refuses to sign anything. And she will have to parent, no job, no child support from him (he lives with hs parents and is unemployed). She truly doesn't want the child. Now what kind of life will that baby have????

I don't know. Complicated issue.