Adoption overturned

Dreamer 7

So what do people think of this Baby Ann situation.

Basically child was born out of wedlock when parents were in college. Given to foster parents and now when the child is two natural parents have got married and just before the adoption goes through they decide to keep her.

It must be very hard on the foster parents who were adopting her but imagine if Baby Ann grew up and was told that her real mother went to court and everything to get her back but it wasn't allowed.

I think she is better off with her real mam and dad

Any thoughts???

miamee

Isn't this a plot from Eastenders???

How old is the baby anyway, like is she old enough to recognise the foster parents as Mammy & Daddy? I think it's awful to take her away from the family she knows if she is old enough to realise what's happening tbh. I suppose in the long run it is better that she be given to her natural parents though. Horrible situation for all involved really.

Nevyn

Legally there was other choice but to hand her over to her biological parents as the mother had not signed over her parental rights and the father recieved parental rights when he married the mother ( even if it was after the child was in foster care and the adoption process started ).

The cut and dried legal side of things does not account or take into consideration what this has done to a couple that raised a baby for two years and loved her it does not take in to consideration the effect on the child who
has lost the only family and extended family she knew and is to her point of view now with strangers.

This whole mess will make it a lot harder for people to consider fostering/adopting a child.

The system is screwed up and needs to be fixed.

kizzyr

I really don't know. I think the wisdom of Solomon would be needed to sort this out. I think is a gun was put to my head and I was being forced to make a decision I would opt to leave the baby with her prospective adoptive parents. I would opt for this because of the age of the little girl. My nephew is 2 years old and would be distraught if he was taken away from his mum and dad and given to total strangers to live with forever more. When a child is 2 years old they are walking and talking and have formed bonds of love, affection, trust etc with its parents or in this case the people it thinks of as its parents.
I feel sorry for the biological parents too but as I said if I was being forced to make a decision I may take the stance that they made a decision, albeit a difficult, heartbreaking once but it was made and that if they love the child as they claim to then would see that it was in her best interests to stay with people who obviously love and adore her.
Also, just because these people are Ann's biological parents it doesn't necessarily follow through that they will be the best parents. The couple who were hoping to adopt Ann will have been through so many checks to make sure they are good people but have the same checks been in place for the biological parents or is they fact that they created her enough
Its such a sad and difficult situation for anyone to be in, parents (both sets), judge, and most of all the little girl.

Pighead

Let Ann decide.

miamee

Thaedydal wrote:

Legally there was other choice but to hand her over to her biological parents as the mother had not signed over her parental rights and the father recieved parental rights when he married the mother ( even if it was after the child was in foster care and the adoption process started ).

The cut and dried legal side of things does not account or take into consideration what this has done to a couple that raised a baby for two years and loved her it does not take in to consideration the effect on the child who
has lost the only family and extended family she knew and is to her point of view now with strangers.

This whole mess will make it a lot harder for people to consider fostering/adopting a child.

The system is screwed up and needs to be fixed.

Surely they don't just take the baby from one set of parents & hand her over to the others :eek:
Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be a gradual thing, get to know her biological parents by having them visit & take her for weekends & then eventually have her live with them? Maybe that would be too hard on the foster parents, but the child is the most important person in this scenario. The poor little thing

~Leanne~

I dont think it was fair on the child, at 2 years of age that child is being uprooted from a secure loving family home. She will be sleeping in a different bed with unfamiliar faces, its terrible.

The biogical parents even hid the child from thier own parents!!! This just shows how immature they are and not ready for parenthood - married or not!!!!

meditraitor

It will set a bad precident if the biological parents are to be given custody again,
Seems to me that they gave the baby away so they could get on with finishing college or growing up and now they have finished they want the child back,

Tough shit I say! the foster parents should keep custody,

Tobias Greeshman

There was someone on the news yesterday from some child rights or adoption body, and they basically said that there should be a handover of the child to her biological parents over a long period. Such as start with limited visitation for her parents and after a period of 18 months this would increase slowly, with the child staying with the parent for short terms and then increased to longer periods (weekends, etc.). This would help limit any psychological scarring to the child, which I think in this case is a very good idea.

And yes I agree with Thaed there, the adoption law needs to be revised. Parents need to be aware that adoption is a one way street and once you sign the adoption papers and hand over the child, there is no going back.

kizzyr

miamee wrote:

Surely they don't just take the baby from one set of parents & hand her over to the others :eek:
Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be a gradual thing, get to know her biological parents by having them visit & take her for weekends & then eventually have her live with them? Maybe that would be too hard on the foster parents, but the child is the most important person in this scenario. The poor little thing

Don't you know that in Ireland things that make sense never happen:rolleyes: What you have suggested does happen in other countries but not in Ireland. I think the courts are going to decide over the next week or two how and when the hand over will happen and then thats it off Ann goes with her "new" parents and thats what they are to her, new people in her life that she doesn't know.

miamee

I've just read on ireland.com that they will be doing just that silas

"The Supreme Court ruled that the child must be returned to her natural parents on a phased and sensitive basis to be decided by the court in line with professional advice. This was a reversal of the High Court judgment when, in a significant ruling earlier this year, Mr Justice John MacMenamin ruled that Ann would be psychologically damaged if she was taken away from her adoptive parents."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1114/1163060323117.html

silas wrote:

There was someone on the news yesterday from some child rights or adoption body, and they basically said that there should be a handover of the child to her biological parents over a long period. Such as start with limited visitation for her parents and after a period of 18 months this would increase slowly, with the child staying with the parent for short terms and then increased to longer periods (weekends, etc.). This would help limit any psychological scarring to the child, which I think in this case is a very good idea.

And yes I agree with Thaed there, the adoption law needs to be revised. Parents need to be aware that adoption is a one way street and once you sign the adoption papers and hand over the child, there is no going back.

stovelid

Its also not going to do the poor kid any good when she hears about the whole shebang in years to come is it...

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

kizzyr

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think its very interesting to hear from the point of view of someone who is adopted. I apologise in advance if what I ask you upsets or offends in anyway because I really don't mean to and if you want to tell me to fcuk off then thats fair enough.
When were you told that you were adopted? Do you think you'd have found out if your parents hadn't told you? Do you think if Ann had been left with the prospective adoptive parents that she'd have necessarily found out that she was adopted and do you think that parents should tell their children if they are adopted?
Two of my cousins were adopted because my aunt couldn't have children. Both of the girls were adopted when they were a few months old and have no memories of anyone other than my aunt and uncle in their lives. They were both told at an early stage that they were adopted and both had very different reactions to this news. The oldest one was firmly of the opinion that my aunt and uncle were her parents, they chose her, loved her, were always there for her etc and she wasn't interested in her biological mother. The second girl was distraught at the news that she was adopted and when she grew up set about finding her biological mother. When she did the woman told her straight out that she wasn't interested and not to bother her again. Needless to say that upset my cousin a lot and she really regretted having put so much time and effort into her search.

pinkstateside

As a father of 2 kids, I have to say that yesterdays decision was a very very black day in Ireland if you care about kids. That child was given up, unwanted at the time, due to the fact that the parents were in college and did not want to damage their futures etc.

Whatever you think of their decision at the time, THEY DID DECIDE TO GIVE HER UP FOR ADOPTION

The thing is, they then set in motion a process whereby many a very sad couple are registered to adopt. Most of these people Cannot have kids of their own, they rely on people to make that decision and give up their child. They invest a massive emotional commitment into the process and then some, (very few) are lucky enough to get a child to love.

Then what happens, 2 years later, your child, your bundle of joy who you have spent sleepless nights bottle feeding, changing nappies, making plans for is majically wanted back by her 'birth' parents now that they have finished college. This is b**lsh*t. Those poor adopted parents and what about that poor child. Her Mama and Dada have been taken away from her.

Without knowing the individuals I cannot be sure, however, I do not think it is incorrect to state that it is very likely that the 'birth' parents, being young, stand a good chance of being able to have more kids in the future, less so the adopted parents, this was probably thei only chance of loving a child.


Shamefull decision.


Jason :mad:

Dreamer 7 wrote:

So what do people think of this Baby Ann situation.

Basically child was born out of wedlock when parents were in college. Given to foster parents and now when the child is two natural parents have got married and just before the adoption goes through they decide to keep her.

It must be very hard on the foster parents who were adopting her but imagine if Baby Ann grew up and was told that her real mother went to court and everything to get her back but it wasn't allowed.

I think she is better off with her real mam and dad

Any thoughts???

Unshelved

Open to correction here but I don't think the biological mother actually signed the adoption order - she seems to have changed her mind quite early on, after visitations with her daughter when she was in foster care.

I do find it worrying though that one of the main reasons given for the child to be returned was because the couple had subsequently married. Apparently married couples cannot place children for adoption. It does leave open to question just why the couple got married in the first place - smacks a bit of a marriage of convenience (although which of us would not do the same given the circumstances). Does this mean that parental rights - especially that of the father - are in absolute limbo if a couple are unmarried.

On the other hand, if you were an adoptive parent, would you like to face telling your daughter that yes, your parents did want you and fought for you in the courts, but we wouldn't let you go? Would you ever be forgiven?

It's truly a terrible case - you'd wonder which of the parents really had Ann's interests at heart. Whatever the verdict, she could be the loser.

Heinrich

Will the now happily married couple pay the adoptive parents 2 years maintenance for the care of the child?

Very handy, have a child out of wedlock whilst studying then get a job and get married. Pick up the child from the free 24/7 creche.

kizzyr

Unshelved wrote:

Open to correction here but I don't think the biological mother actually signed the adoption order - she seems to have changed her mind quite early on, after visitations with her daughter when she was in foster care.

I do find it worrying though that one of the main reasons given for the child to be returned was because the couple had subsequently married. Apparently married couples cannot place children for adoption. It does leave open to question just why the couple got married in the first place - smacks a bit of a marriage of convenience (although which of us would not do the same given the circumstances). Does this mean that parental rights - especially that of the father - are in absolute limbo if a couple are unmarried.

On the other hand, if you were an adoptive parent, would you like to face telling your daughter that yes, your parents did want you and fought for you in the courts, but we wouldn't let you go? Would you ever be forgiven?

It's truly a terrible case - you'd wonder which of the parents really had Ann's interests at heart. Whatever the verdict, she could be the loser.

To me the people that got up in the middle of the night with Ann, fed her, changed her, helped her with teething, saw her take her first step, say her first word etc are her parents. The people she is going back to are all but strangers to her. If Ann had been allowed to stay with her adoptive parents would she ever need to know the history? Does she have a right to? Do the parents have an obligation to tell her? If she never knew how would it hurt her?

layke

~Leanne~ wrote:

I dont think it was fair on the child, at 2 years of age that child is being uprooted from a secure loving family home. She will be sleeping in a different bed with unfamiliar faces, its terrible.

The biogical parents even hid the child from thier own parents!!! This just shows how immature they are and not ready for parenthood - married or not!!!!

Agreed. It's not the foster parents fault that the legal system is so bloody slow.
IMO the baby should have never been given over to the foster parents until the documents were fully signed.

"There are no winners here".

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

cjt156

I think this is the wrong decision, I've 3 kids including a 2 yr old girl & the thought of the implications really wrenches at the heart.
However I think some posts are a bit harsh on the birth parents. They first tried to stop the adoption at 13 months old IIRC. I'm sure they wrestled with their conscience long & hard to come to that conclusion. Also, consider if the child had found out in years to come that the adoptive parents had prevented her returning to her biological parents. The whole thing is a psychological minefield.
All told though I still think the previous High Court verdict was correct, as it was primarily in the little girls interest. The Supreme Court overturned this, a tragic mistake IMHO. I just hope the whole thing is managed to minimise her distress.

kizzyr

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Thank you for answering:) I heard that man on the Last Word yesterday and while I did feel sorry for him I, like you, did also think he came across as a bit of a "know all". His experience was obviously very upsetting and I do think the lack of rights fathers have is crazy but I really wonder how Ann is going to fare in all of this and as you said she is the adopted person whatever way you look at it. She may well view the biological parents she is being sent to live with are her adoptive parents and the people who have loved her and cared for her for almost all of her life as her true parents.

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

ast

I think that it’s a bit of a mess either way, but I tend to the blood is thicker than water side.

I don’t buy the "in the best interests of the child" argument, I don’t think that anybody is qualified to make that decision.

Am I the only one who thinks that is strange to describe parents who want to raise their own child as selfish? I’m including both adoptive and biological parents in that.

Budd

It just shows the pressures society puts on young adults not to have children despite it being a healthy and natural thing. I'm glad they got their baby back.

This modern thing of pursuing a career till you're 35 then trying desperately to find any man to impregnate you is disgusting and bad for society.

Unshelved

kizzyr wrote

If Ann had been allowed to stay with her adoptive parents would she ever need to know the history? Does she have a right to? Do the parents have an obligation to tell her? If she never knew how would it hurt her?

All children have a right to know where they came from. Whether they choose to act on it and trace their biological parents is up to them, but to hide the truth of their origins from them is just wrong.

Budd wrote

This modern thing of pursuing a career till you're 35 then trying desperately to find any man to impregnate you is disgusting and bad for society.

Quite right! Far better to have a child at 17 and become a burden on the state for the rest of your life. How dare women wait until they are financially solvent before they have a child.:rolleyes:

kizzyr

Unshelved wrote:

kizzyr wrote


All children have a right to know where they came from. Whether they choose to act on it and trace their biological parents is up to them, but to hide the truth of their origins from them is just wrong.Budd wrote


Quite right! Far better to have a child at 17 and become a burden on the state for the rest of your life. How dare women wait until they are financially solvent before they have a child.:rolleyes:

I'm not saying that its right for a child to be kept in the dark I was only posing the question, if they live their life in blissful ignorance and never know and so are never hurt by it does it matter, is it wrong?
Re: women delaying having children, well its a gamble we all take. You can also ask do women have the right to expect to be able to reproduce? If they opt to work until they are 45 and then find it difficult to get pregnant is that just tough luck or should they be allowed to "have it all"?

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

Am I the only one who thinks that is strange to describe parents who want to raise their own child as selfish? I’m including both adoptive and biological parents in that.

It's selfish to give your child away when it's an inconvenience to you and then ask for it back later. 13 months is a pretty long time to wait to ask to get the kid back - why not 3 weeks? I suppose they finished college and all and then decided they wanted to play happy families once they were good and ready? IMO they have no rights to that child, they gave her away and she has been raised by another couple for 2 1/2 years. It makes a mockery out of the entire system. The natural parents are not putting the child's best interests first IMO. They are thinking about themselves and what they want, nothing I have heard about the case suggests otherwise. As far as I'm concerned she is not their child anymore, they gave her away. And it's not as if they were too young to know any better - they were college students, more than old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. I know several people in my year who had kids and stayed in college, it can be done. Sounds like these 2 just didn't want the burden - until it suited them of course. That's not how it works with children. Imagine how the adoptive parents must be feeling now? Imagine having a child you've raised for 2 1/2 years and having it taken away from you?

FatherTed

I have a question here....was the adoption actually final? There seems to be conflicting reports on this. In the newspapers, the headlines are "Adoptive Parents" etc but someone mentioned that the birth mother changed here mind then the kid was 13 months old and before the adoption was final. That is key here. Until the adoption is final, the parents are really foster-parents. At least thats the way I see it. Sadly, unless the adoption is final, the birth parents do still have rights.

Two other points here...

The student couple, who cannot be named, gave the little girl up for adoption in November 2004. When Ann was four months old she moved to the home of her prospective adopters.

In September 2005, following a supervised access visit with her daughter, Ann's mother wrote to the Adoption Board withdrawing her consent to the adoption and sought the return of the child.

So in the 10 months between November 2004 and September 2005, the adoption was not finalized? Why does this take so long? Is this the fault of the adoption process?

Also, I find it very strange that the fact that the birth parents are now married makes a big difference on this case. Does this mean that the birth father had no influence on the previous decisions prior to the marriage. I guess this is Ireland at it's best. I find that attitude to be dumbfounding.

Thirdfox

Also, I find it very strange that the fact that the birth parents are now married makes a big difference on this case. Does this mean that the birth father had no influence on the previous decisions prior to the marriage. I guess this is Ireland at it's best. I find that attitude to be dumbfounding.

See (The State (Nicolau) v An. Bord Uchtála [1966] IR 567 adoption case - the presiding judge stated that (sic.) "it is highly unnatural for a father to take any interest in his offspring"

That case was about a mother who didn't want the child but wanted to prevent the natural father from getting the child... she won. Made me quite ill to read.

Nevyn

FatherTed wrote:

Until the adoption is final, the parents are really foster-parents. At least thats the way I see it. Sadly, unless the adoption is final, the birth parents do still have rights.

Thaqt is the case and it can take a long long time and the parental rights have to be legaly signed over.
Parentla rights can not be terminated by the courts of this land even in the best intrest of a child.

FatherTed wrote:

So in the 10 months between November 2004 and September 2005, the adoption was not finalized? Why does this take so long? Is this the fault of the adoption process?

Yes this is far to long and the process is at fault.

FatherTed wrote:

Also, I find it very strange that the fact that the birth parents are now married makes a big difference on this case. Does this mean that the birth father had no influence on the previous decisions prior to the marriage.

If a man is not married to the mother of his child he has no parental rights whats so ever over the child even if his name is on the birth cert.
He has to get the mother to aign a form or go to court to get graurdianships rights to get a say in his childs life if he is not married to the mother of his children.

When baby Ann was born he had no parental rights, when he married the mother he legally became baby Ann's father and gained parental rights.

cheeky_guy

I would imagine events took place something like this.

The girl and her fella got pregnant in late first year, early second year of college. The parents of both told them they were both getting totally cut off from the family for being so stupid and getting pregnant. As would happen me and a lot of other people i know.

They then had 3 choices, 1 keep the baby and drop out of college into some dead end job, ending up in a council flat surronded by scumbags and fearing that their child would mix and grow up with them, 2 abortion, or 3 adoption.

The couple obviously decided they loved the child too much to lose it for good so it went up for apoption. The couple then went on to finish their education and even went and got married to provide a secure home to the kid before they applied for her back.

Now the kid is back with her real proper parents (Both of them) whom by the looks of things have never stopped loving her considering the efforts they have made to get her back.

Now the child is back in a secure home, with 2 educated married parents who have just brought and won their case all the way to the supreme court.

And to think some people are actually saying, the child should actually be denied this and kept with her foster parents. Denied the right to her own Mammy & Daddy and she belongs to? I think thats madness.

The baby comes first and DEFINATELY the right decision was made!!

kizzyr

cheeky_guy wrote:

I would imagine events took place something like this.

The girl and her fella got pregnant in late first year, early second year of college. The parents of both told them they were both getting totally cut off from the family for being so stupid and getting pregnant. As would happen me and a lot of other people i know.

They then had 3 choices, 1 keep the baby and drop out of college into some dead end job, ending up in a council flat surronded by scumbags and fearing that their child would mix and grow up with them, 2 abortion, or 3 adoption.

The couple obviously decided they loved the child too much to lose it for good so it went up for apoption. The couple then went on to finish their education and even went and got married to provide a secure home to the kid before they applied for her back.

Now the kid is back with her real proper parents (Both of them) whom by the looks of things have never stopped loving her considering the efforts they have made to get her back.

Now the child is back in a secure home, with 2 educated married parents who have just brought and won their case all the way to the supreme court.

And to think some people are actually saying, the child should actually be denied this and kept with her foster parents. Denied the right to her own Mammy & Daddy and she belongs to? I think thats madness.

The baby comes first and DEFINATELY the right decision was made!!

First off not everyone who lives in accomodation provided by a council is a scumbag.
Second if they always meant to get the baby back why put her up for adoption rather than foster care?
2 educated married people don't autmoatically make good or expert parents. There are many people who have children and never marry, are you saying that they are bad parents because they haven't trooped off to a church to say " I do"? A formal education doesn't make you a good parent it is something you learn as you go.
Lastly when you say the baby is not with her " real and proper" parents you are making little of all of the love, attention,time, devotion, care, concern etc etc the prospective adoptive parents have given to this little girl for almost ALL of her life and that disgusts me.

Nevyn

It is totally possible to place a child in what is called long term foster care until the parents get on thier feet, while this is the case the child is placed with a foster family who know they will not get to adopt.

Adoption proceedures are not started and the parents visit and have interaction with thier child even as it is in foster care.

This was not the case here.

Dyr

cheeky_guy wrote:

They then had 3 choices, 1 keep the baby and drop out of college into some dead end job, ending up in a council flat surronded by scumbags and fearing that their child would mix and grow up with them,

lol the deepest fear of the chattering classes. "OMGLOIKE shes TOTALLY mixing with them, come IN here Rhiannon for CHROIST's sake!!"

once on sesame street, they were arguing over what to call that dog thing so both parties agreed to summon the dog by their choice of name and whichever one he answered to was settled on as his name.
I see no reason why a similar method wouldnt work in this case given sesame streets excellent track record on matter's such as numeracy and basic spanish (agua....ag..ua)

trilo

This case is such a delicate matter.

The social services in this country really take the piss. (I work with the social care area).
The natural parents, when the child was just over a year old decided to keep their baby, what support have they been given since then in getting the child back. The natural parents since that period should have been given a chance to build up a relationship with that child. The adoption hadn't fully gone through and they were entilted to retract their decision.

Another matter which i think is crazy in this case, is that you are not seen as a family (according to Irish Constitution) unless the man and woman are a marital unit. The natural parents got married, was this to strengthen their case in getting their child back. How would the case have faired out in the Supreme Court had the natural parents not been married.

As for psychological damage to the child been given back to the natural parents, i personally think the social workers have a lot to answer for that. They should have been building the relationship as for back as when the mother retracted her decision, which is contradictory enough in that a child is usually seen as been best placed with his/her natural family in so far as possible as his/her safety is not in jeaporady.

As painful as it is for the couple fostering her until they had completed the adoption process i do feel for them, but i also feel that they and social services could have seen the situation in another light as to see that the natural parents made a dreadful mistake and they should be supported in so far as possible.

bucks73

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Almost identical to myself. No bombshell dropped on me when I was younger thank God and will always have only one set of parents.

It must be very hard on the adoptive parents after 2 years. Chances are they are not able to have kids themselves so took the adoption route. Now imagine how they feel at the moment. Having the child they looked after for 2 years taken away.

As someone said earlier it does look like the natural parents decided after getting their degrees and jobs that they would get married and go and collect their baby from the people looking after her. IMO the totally wrong decision by the court.

IMO if you give up your right to a child then that should be it. Final. The biological parent should not even have access to info to go looking in the future. That should be up to the child.

Waltons

Branson Bald Duet wrote:

It's selfish to give your child away when it's an inconvenience to you and then ask for it back later. 13 months is a pretty long time to wait to ask to get the kid back - why not 3 weeks? I suppose they finished college and all and then decided they wanted to play happy families once they were good and ready? IMO they have no rights to that child, they gave her away and she has been raised by another couple for 2 1/2 years. It makes a mockery out of the entire system. The natural parents are not putting the child's best interests first IMO. They are thinking about themselves and what they want, nothing I have heard about the case suggests otherwise. As far as I'm concerned she is not their child anymore, they gave her away. And it's not as if they were too young to know any better - they were college students, more than old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. I know several people in my year who had kids and stayed in college, it can be done. Sounds like these 2 just didn't want the burden - until it suited them of course. That's not how it works with children. Imagine how the adoptive parents must be feeling now? Imagine having a child you've raised for 2 1/2 years and having it taken away from you?

Really have to agree with this. The fact that they're looking for their child back so long after having given it up would suggest that it was in their best interests rather than the child's - something that, if true,would, IMO, would indicate that they don't have the right mindset to be taking care of a child.
As a practical point as well, the couple who gave up the child for adoption probably don't have any experience in raising children. The fact that they're the child's biological parents would make absolutely no difference to this.
Overall, I think it's an incredibly selfish decision made by keen manipulators who worked out that they'd be able to get their child back through these avenues.

Whatever about this case, the law needs to be changed so something like this can't happen again

wow sierra

People are making very unfair assumptions about the actions and motivations of the birth parents in this case. Noone knows what they went through making these difficult decisions at a young age. There is a lot made of them looking for the baby back after 2 years - they didnt - they looked for her back after 1 year, which in terms of the development of a baby is a life time of difference. If the foster parents/authorities had returned her then the transition would have been much easier - the birth parents are not to blame for this. This is a hugely complex issue and I think the comments about the birth parents are uncalled for. At least they didnt have an abortion which would be the majority decision in their situation.

upthere

Who cares, it's not like she's going to grow up to be anything special

malpas

Another perspective on this sad case...after being successful in applying for adoption, at the birth mother's request we met her in her last weeks of pregnancy. She was a lovely person and assured us that she had carefully thought everything through and there was no way she would ever change her mind. We were given our lovely baby ***** soon after. Bonding was instant, we loved ***** dearly and we thought our life was complete. Seven months later, the phone rang one night and we were told by the adoption agency that we had to give back dear ***** to the birth mother. ***** was taken away early next morning... and so began many years of grief, depression, worry and pain which are indescribable. We asked for and got a welcome letter from the mother (via the agency) with some photos after about six months. She did her best to explain and apologised.

Emotions on all sides in this case are running high and this is very understandable. As the years have passed the pain has eased and we can better understand how she also felt. We just hope everything worked out for them both and life stays good for them. We bear no ill-will.

In this case, the adoptive parents are in for a rough emotional ride for many years. We muddled through with the help of a few close friends and family and hope that they too in time will be ok. I don't think the birth parents had any grand plan either..like us all they got caught up in an unexpected highly emotional situation and will need all the help they can get. Good wishes to them all.

vallo

Wrong decision by the courts IMO.
The birth parents made the wrong choice when they gave the baby up for adoption. But sometimes life is tough and you need to live with your wrong decisions.
A friend of mine in college took a "year out" in 3rd year to go to the UK to have a baby, who was subsequently put up for adoption. She is now in her 30s, married with 2 kids. I can only imagine her pain every time she looks at her kids, at family photos, on birthdays, at christmas time etc etc ... knowing that you have a child who you gave up when you were young and foolish and the family shame seemed like the dominant driving force behind your decision. She made a bad decision and she lives with the pain of it everyday.
Baby Ann's birth parents are simply transferring their pain onto the adoptive parents. It is very unfair.

Dave!

Pighead wrote:

Let Ann decide.

rofl

Have each couple sit on a different side of the room and put Ann in the middle. Then call her and see who she goes to!

Giblet

Upthere banned for trolling.

smallpaws

Leave the tot with the only family she knows. I think the birth parents are being incredibly selfish for wanting her back; does anyone really believe they think they are doing that child a favor instead of thinking of what THEY want? Their rights to her should have been terminated upon placement of the child, this having months and months to take back your decision is ridiculous.
You put the kid up for adoption because you can't raise the kid, not until you think you can raise it. That poor child! FS, she isn't a houseplant they got someone else to water and feed while they were on vacation, she's a human being.

embee

Bambi wrote:

lol the deepest fear of the chattering classes. "OMGLOIKE shes TOTALLY mixing with them, come IN here Rhiannon for CHROIST's sake!!"

HEY!! My daughter is called Rhiannon, but I ain't posh

Anyways, I think that this whole mess is just so sad for the adoptive parents, for Baby Ann and, to an extent, for the natural parents.

As a Mammy myself, the idea of my daughter being taken away from he is just incomprehensible... It would destroy me. She's only 9 months old, but I know that she would suffer too in the short term. How a 2 year old little girl (she's not really a "baby" at 2 years of age) is going to cope with strangers is beyond me. She's two - she'll already have been calling her adoptive parents Mammy and Daddy for some time now.

Is it true that the natural parents tried to stop the adoption when the baby was 13 months old or so? Its just so sad that its taken this long for it to be sorted. I do question the reasoning behind the natural parents' decision, at 13 months, to decide against the adoption. I also wonder whether they got married just so they could get the baby back.... Its all such a horrible mess

Lurk

I can't imagine any circumstances under which I'd ever give up a child so I'm still baffled by the birth parents' decision to give their infant up for adoption, especially nowadays when there's little, if any, stigma attached to single parenthood, there's state assistance if someone's in financial trouble and there's quite a few people in college who have children.

kizzyr

I was listening to the Last Word yesterday and a journalist who has met with the birth parents was on the show. No names were given as the identity of the couple is still be guarded.Apparently things went like this:
The couple met while at university and their relationship became serious with both of them moving in together. In the last year of their degree Ann's mum became pregnant. Both the mum and dad were too scared of their families reaction to the news to tell them and so considered abortion which they decided against and so that left adoption as their only option or so they thought.
A week before the mum's 23rd birthday she gave birth to Ann. Before she gave birth she had approached the HSE about the adoption and while had some concerns over it pushed ahead anyway and together with the HSE chose the couple Ann has been with for so long. Ann was handed over after 10 days (I think) and her mum went back to university.
4 forms needed to be signed at various intervals and while both parents did express doubts about what they were doing Ann's mum signed all forms most importantly form 4A. This was the final form giving over her parental rights to Ann. The only reason the adoption didn't go through fully was because the Adoption Board didn't complete the paper work on time.
The biological parents stayed together, left university, got jobs and decided that they wanted Ann back. They realised that being married would help their case hugely and so got married in January. To date neither the biological mum or dad have told anyone else in their families that Ann exists. Her grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc do not know that she exists. Both parents are still so removed from their own families that when they got married it was in a registry office with two strangers as their witnesses.
When in court the prospective adoptive parents (and thats what they were not foster parents) said that they couldn't deal with a prolonged hand over of Ann that this would be like a death to them and they were unsure how they are going to deal with this on an emotional & psychological level. They then left the court to go home and put "their" little girl to bed as they have done so many nights of her life.

So just think, if the Adoption Board had actually done the paperwork in a timely fashion then all of this may not have been able to happen.

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

Unshelved

First of all Malpas - thank you for your story. I can only imagine your heartbreak and your post was full courage. Life can be very cruel sometimes - I don't think I could ever learn to face such trauma with the dignity and grace of you and your spouse.

Kizzyr said

To date neither the biological mum or dad have told anyone else in their families that Ann exists. Her grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc do not know that she exists. Both parents are still so removed from their own families that when they got married it was in a registry office with two strangers as their witnesses.

I can't BELIEVE how immature this couple sound. She was twenty fecking three when she had the baby and she's now 25 with a university education and they still haven't told their families. And yet they really believe they have the "right" to bring up this daughter that they have hidden like a shameful secret from their families for three years - what a great start for their little girl.

If the mother had not signed the final adoption order then the court decision - however heartbreaking for the adoptive parents - is the right one. But you'd have to wonder what kind of people they are, acting like it's the Ireland of the 50's where girls who got "into trouble" would be sent to a Magdalen Laundry. And you'd have to wonder about what kind of an extended family they have where a child born out of wedlock is such a taboo that it has to be hidden from them.

Good luck in that family Baby Ann - you're going to need it.