We keep reading about cases where a birth mother chooses to arrange for the adoption of her child upon birth and then one week, one month, or one year after the birth states that she has changed her mind and wants the baby back.
Should the birth mother get the kid back?
This is a tough question with only tough answers. The courts have generally sided with the birth mother as long as the request for the return of the child was made within a reasonable period of time, one week is “O.K.,” three years is normally too long.
Extreme advocates for the birth mother usually state that there should be no time limit, that it basically is “Let the buyer beware.” After all, it’s her baby stupid. It can happen at any time and should be upheld at any time. On the other side, those in favor of the adoptive parents rights state that once a deal is made it is irrevocable whether it is pre-birth or at any time post-birth. This whole mess may become a bit unseemly because in many cases there is actually an exchange of cash from the adoptive parents to the birth mother which flirts dangerously, I think, with treating babies as property. But that’s another column.
The courts always are caught in the conundrum between maintaining the sanctity of the relationship between the birth mother and her child, and doing what’s best for the child regardless of the time that has elapsed. For example, if it’s one week after the request the belief typically is that the baby and the adoptive parents have not bonded and that the primacy of the relationship between mother and child overrides the interest of the adoptive parents. If the request is made five years after the birth, the opposite result usually occurs based on the same reasoning.
All of this is nonsense. I don’t give a damn about the birth mother’s rights or the adoptive parents’ rights. I think the only issue should be who would be better parents. Now, I know that this is subjective. It probably seems unduly harsh to the birth mother advocates. But, parenting and raising a child is more important than who the actual mother of the kid might be. It ought to be done by the best people for the sake of the child.
Look, the kid didn’t ask to be born, and those responsible for its birth need to do the best thing for that child regardless of their own feelings. That is why I admire many women who choose to have their child adopted because they are broke, or addicts, or are 14, or feel that they are simply unfit to raise their biological child at that time in their lives.
Often times it would seem to me that it takes great courage and selflessness. See, if you look at it this way, time is irrelevant, whether it’s one day or one year. If a third party, the courts, believe that after 15 years the child should be returned to the birth mother because she wants the child, and the courts believe that it would be in the best interest of the child, the child should go back. This example is pretty extreme, and would probably only be granted once in a thousand times, but it illustrates my point. I don’t care about the feelings of either the mother or the adoptive parents. I care only about the needs and feelings of the baby or child. Once the mother places her baby for adoption, she needs to know that all bets are off from now until eternity. The adoptive parents also need to know that the baby could go at any time, so they better do a good job. In fact, one would think that they would be inclined to do as good job as possible or their baby might be gone. This would make for better adoptive parents, benefiting the baby at all times, which should be the goal and not the “parents” feelings or biological sanctity.
No comments:
Post a Comment