Co-parenting - for or against?

Pink Adoptions

Co-parenting is when two couples raise a child together.
It is in effect the same thing as two divorced couples raising the child, but without the gripes.

The couples do not need to live under one roof.
They need to work out who is taking care of the child any given day, and how money is spend on the child care, and funding the child's future.

It is an alternative to adoption for gay couples: a couple of men and a couple of women can agree to have a child together, and raise the child together.

Would you consider it?
Or are you feeling strongly against it?

Rev Hellfire

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Co-parenting is when two couples raise a child together.
It is in effect the same thing as two divorced couples raising the child, but without the gripes.

The couples do not need to live under one roof.
They need to work out who is taking care of the child any given day, and how money is spend on the child care, and funding the child's future.

Sounds almost like a time-share scheme for kids. I'm curious in such a scheme would all four adults be equally responsible? Can this be done through existing legal frameworks ?

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

It is an alternative to adoption for gay couples: a couple of men and a couple of women can agree to have a child together, and raise the child together.

Why would a female couple consider such a proposal, they can after all seek an anonymous male donor.

Pink Adoptions

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Sounds almost like a time-share scheme for kids. I'm curious in such a scheme would all four adults be equally responsible? Can this be done through existing legal frameworks ?

There is a biological father and biological mother; one birth mother and up to two birth fathers; and 4 parents, 2 of which legal.
Actually, in Irish law, the biological/birth mother would be the automatic legal parent, and can decide or not to add the unmarried biological/birth father to the birth certificate.
The two non-legal parents would be in the same legal situation as the partners of divorced parents.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Why would a female couple consider such a proposal, they can after all seek an anonymous male donor.

They may consider that it is the best interest of the child to be raised by their mother(s) and their father(s), rather than have an anonymous face on their family tree.
It is the extreme version of an open surrogacy agreement, for couples who are not comfortable with the anonymity of part of the identity of the child.

It does not mean they look down at other households (single mothers or fathers, same-gender households). It only means that they prefer this arrangement for themselves.

It is quite a selfless choice for the mothers, and a big bargain for the fathers. It is also a serious commitment that needs to be woven closely around the best interest of the child and very open communication... like in any couple.

Rev Hellfire

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

There is a biological father and biological mother; one birth mother and up to two birth fathers; and 4 parents, 2 of which legal.
Actually, in Irish law, the biological/birth mother would be the automatic legal parent, and can decide or not to add the unmarried biological/birth father to the birth certificate.
The two non-legal parents would be in the same legal situation as the partners of divorced parents.



They may consider that it is the best interest of the child to be raised by their mother(s) and their father(s), rather than have an anonymous face on their family tree.
It is the extreme version of an open surrogacy agreement, for couples who are not comfortable with the anonymity of part of the identity of the child.

It does not mean they look down at other households (single mothers or fathers, same-gender households). It only means that they prefer this arrangement for themselves.

It is quite a selfless choice for the mothers, and a big bargain for the fathers. It is also a serious commitment that needs to be woven closely around the best interest of the child and very open communication... like in any couple.

Is it a common occurrence in other countries ? I'd agree with you that its major boon for males.

An interesting proposition none the less.

Pink Adoptions

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Is it a common occurrence in other countries ? I'd agree with you that its major boon for males.

An interesting proposition none the less.

There are references to it in... no surprise... the USA.
I suspect that a number of similar informal arrangements exist in other cultures where multiple adults may take care of children for various reasons.

I read about such a couple at the end of the book "Gay Dads" by David Strah.
Money arguments nearly broke the couples apart, when they realized that "pillow" talk, pivotal to resolving intra-couple issues, was missing in inter-couple relationships.
So they decided to review their agreements and worked things out with a more open communication after a year of frosty relationships when the child was 3.

baby and crumble

I don't really understand. I'm all for alternative families, but would this not be the ultimate in 'you're not my real dad!' kinda stuff for the kid? I can't imagine how that would work. It was bad enough me having 2 parents to deal with, but having 4... i dunno. I can't imagine it working all that well. It does seem like a 'timeshare' for kids.

PLus what about attachments? 4 primary attachments as a child seems too many, and contrary to a lot of the theorists...

Chuchoter

Absolutely not. Its hard enough to have a proper bond with one parent, let alone 4. Moving house all the time would be chaotic. There is someone over in PI whose really upset because they are living in a similar situation

The whole idea is ridiculous to be honest. 2 parents and 1 home is more than enough for anyone. Its a baby not a puppy that everyone wants a piece of.

holystungun9

crayolastereo wrote: »

Absolutely not. Its hard enough to have a proper bond with one parent, let alone 4. Moving house all the time would be chaotic. There is someone over in PI whose really upset because they are living in a similar situation

The whole idea is ridiculous to be honest. 2 parents and 1 home is more than enough for anyone. Its a baby not a puppy that everyone wants a piece of.

I'm with you on this. Kids can receive so many conflicting messages even between just two parents. It would be a disaster between four people. Parents emphasize different things and let different things slide. What a mine field for any child.

Boston

I'm sure their are people out there who could make it work but it would require stability and a willingness to compromise.

Annasopra

This happens already in many family situations where straight couples have divorced - I think where all 4 people who are parenting are clearly agreed on how it should work - I don't see a problem

Aard

I'm sure this happens a lot in Real Life, but I don't think it's something that same-sex couples should be advocating. It's hard enough to win over the "gay agenda" lot, without proposing a child have two sets of same-sex parents. I feel that this is a compromise situation at best, and that legalising same-sex marriage would nip any thoughts of co-parenting in the bud.


You say it is "without the gripes". I would be inclined to think there would be gripes a-plenty in such a set-up, if not immediately, then absolutely once the child is older.


And, as usual in these matters, left entirely 'til last, would it be good for the child? IMO, no. Like somebody said above, too many relationships to negotiate. Again, somebody mentioned a "time-share", and this is exactly what it sounds like: a business!

Nebit

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Co-parenting is when two couples raise a child together.
It is in effect the same thing as two divorced couples raising the child, but without the gripes.

The couples do not need to live under one roof.
They need to work out who is taking care of the child any given day, and how money is spend on the child care, and funding the child's future.

It is an alternative to adoption for gay couples: a couple of men and a couple of women can agree to have a child together, and raise the child together.

Would you consider it?
Or are you feeling strongly against it?

This is more likely to affect a child in a negative way in my opinion, it would be like the child, belongs to neither, i would image it being confusing and just wrong in my opinion.
Bringing up a child is hard enough without adding more complications.
If i was to bring up a child (which i want to) i want to feel like they are my own, sharing a child seems like a shift of responsibility and makes said child seem like property.

Boston

I wouldn't say it's "plain wrong". It's very similar to the scenario where children are raised jointly between two separated parents who have new partners. No one would suggest that such an upbringing is automatically damaging but by the same token, it wouldn't be anyone preferred method. As such, I think there's a valid argument to be made that these arrangements are unfair on the child.

All that said, if the couples lived together and provided a safe, stable and nurturing environment to the child, I could benefits over exclusively same sex parenting.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

This happens already in many family situations where straight couples have divorced - I think where all 4 people who are parenting are clearly agreed on how it should work - I don't see a problem

People can agree to all manor of things when a baby is an abstract concept, however, once it becomes real all that goes out the window. Even if everyone enters into the agreement with the best intentions, it's hard to foresee all the pitfalls.

Pink Adoptions

Nebit wrote: »

This is more likely to affect a child in a negative way in my opinion, it would be like the child, belongs to neither, i would image it being confusing and just wrong in my opinion.
Bringing up a child is hard enough without adding more complications.
If i was to bring up a child (which i want to) i want to feel like they are my own, sharing a child seems like a shift of responsibility and makes said child seem like property.

I was surprised when you used terms like "belongs to neither", "they are my own", "sharing a child"...
And then you say that "makes said child seem like property."

What if you were to not see the child as property in the first place, not something to be owned or something belonging to someone...

The child, in this kind of family is not "time-shared": she is sharing time with all her parents.
She does not belong to anyone of them: she belongs with them.

Because if the child is born from a man and a woman who both want to raise the child, why should she not belong with both of them... even if the parents do not belong together?

Children are more resilient than they are given credit for by a lot of respondents. Children can cope with complexity... but not so much with complications.

Aard

At any rate, I think the whole exercise is moot; how many Irish couples are actually interested in co-parenting? And how many of them would prefer adoption by same-sex couples, which would undoubtedly be easier to legislate?

Chuchoter

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

I was surprised when you used terms like "belongs to neither", "they are my own", "sharing a child"...
And then you say that "makes said child seem like property."

What if you were to not see the child as property in the first place, not something to be owned or something belonging to someone...

The child, in this kind of family is not "time-shared": she is sharing time with all her parents.
She does not belong to anyone of them: she belongs with them.

Because if the child is born from a man and a woman who both want to raise the child, why should she not belong with both of them... even if the parents do not belong together?

Children are more resilient than they are given credit for by a lot of respondents. Children can cope with complexity... but not so much with complications.

4 people, 4 sets of beliefs and 2 houses ARE complications.

Tbh I hate to think what would happen if one of these anti-gay adoption groups came across this thread. Its a perfect excuse to go look! First we let the gays adopt and then they go splitting up the kid between a commune of people! The LGBT community should just not be going near this at all, it is only trouble.

If you want a sperm donor, he is just that, a sperm donor. Not a father. Not someone the child belongs with. If that man wants a child of his own, he can go have one with a surrogate mother or adoption.

Nevyn

crayolastereo wrote: »

4 people, 4 sets of beliefs and 2 houses ARE complications.

And?
Seriously so what?
There are plenty of kids who are happy with lives which have such complications. Seriously what is the big deal?

What that people choose to have such a family situation rahter then it just happening do to the couple breaking up.

The exact same senario can come about if it's two bi people of the oppsite gender who start a family and then break up and find partners of the same gender to set up home with.

As long as the children are loved and supported it will be fine,
soctiety needs to learn to cop the fúck on and learn that a family is a family is a family and not treat child of non conventional families as being lesser or different.

crayolastereo wrote: »

Tbh I hate to think what would happen if one of these anti-gay adoption groups came across this thread. Its a perfect excuse to go look! First we let the gays adopt and then they go splitting up the kid between a commune of people! The LGBT community should just not be going near this at all, it is only trouble.

More narrow minded clap trap, lets all live in fear of silly aberatry standards which other people are seeking to foist on us and only live and love as they seen best. :rolleyes:

crayolastereo wrote: »

If you want a sperm donor, he is just that, a sperm donor. Not a father. Not someone the child belongs with. If that man wants a child of his own, he can go have one with a surrogate mother or adoption.

Neither of these are options for people living in ireland unless they have the money to go and travel abroad.

Annasopra

crayolastereo wrote: »

4 people, 4 sets of beliefs and 2 houses ARE complications.

Tbh I hate to think what would happen if one of these anti-gay adoption groups came across this thread. Its a perfect excuse to go look! First we let the gays adopt and then they go splitting up the kid between a commune of people! The LGBT community should just not be going near this at all, it is only trouble.

If you want a sperm donor, he is just that, a sperm donor. Not a father. Not someone the child belongs with. If that man wants a child of his own, he can go have one with a surrogate mother or adoption.

So basically you are saying that the state should replicate the man and woman as parents model onto the man and man or woman and woman - seems quite a rigid view of family as 2 parents only to me that doesn't recognise current family formations or that children can be happy in different scenarios

Rev Hellfire

Johnnymcg wrote: »

So basically you are saying that the state should replicate the man and woman as parents model onto the man and man or woman and woman - seems quite a rigid view of family as 2 parents only to me that doesn't recognise current family formations or that children can be happy in different scenarios

I don't think they're saying that, rather a pair of parents is the preferable option (be that same or different sex).

If we're honest here taking failed heterosexual relationships as a starting point for raising children seems a bit odd in my view.

Annasopra

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If we're honest here taking failed heterosexual relationships as a starting point for raising children seems a bit odd in my view.

huh? Who said anything about a failed heterosexual relationship?

Rev Hellfire

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

It is in effect the same thing as two divorced couples raising the child, but without the gripes.

One of the arguments for this is that divorced couples make it work, which is true in some cases. But in the vast majority of cases this is not the intention when the child is first conceived (I'm talking about planned pregnancies here, since this is what the proposal is also).

Chuchoter

Johnnymcg wrote: »

huh? Who said anything about a failed heterosexual relationship?

Generally 2 sets of parents is a divorced couple who have each remarried.

I also don't see the problem with the state replicating what it is for straight couples onto gay couples? I thought that was the entire idea of marriage equality?

I do not think that this is an inherently terrible situation, but it is not something anybody should be out aiming for. I have several friends living between two families, and they're fine with it. I have several other friends, and its chaos.

Pink Adoptions

Aard wrote: »

At any rate, I think the whole exercise is moot; how many Irish couples are actually interested in co-parenting? And how many of them would prefer adoption by same-sex couples, which would undoubtedly be easier to legislate?

It takes 7 years to get a domestic adoptions through, for a mix-gender couple.
IF marriage was allowed for same-gender couples in Ireland, domestic adoption would be an option but it would probably take us 10 years to get through the process!
It is easier to legislate... but :
- it will not happen before 5 more years
- it will still be near impossible to adopt, in the real world

As for international adoptions (which is open to same-gender couples who have to adopt as a sole adopter, because they are unmarried), it takes up to 5 years to process, and no out-of-the-closet same-gender couple has ever been through the full process as yet... and also it will probably mainly only concerns older or "hard to place" children.

Adoption is far from being the easy option you seem to think it is. That is why it is important to explore alternatives!

And all in all, an international adoption for an older child is much more traumatic (by definition) on the child than a couple of biological (or birth) parents raising the child in a structured 2-couple construct.

Aard

Do you have any figures on how many people would be interested in co-parenting?

Pink Adoptions

Aard wrote: »

Do you have any figures on how many people would be interested in co-parenting?

Any figure in that area would be utterly unreliable.

There is no registration or paperwork needed to enter such set ups, and it is not a legally recognized form of family (only the married heterosexual couple model is legally recognized and protected).

But the best place to engage in fact finding is probably the “alternative families” community, for instance: www.alternativeparents.com/ (pending) or http://grou.ps/alternativeparents (formerly http://alternativeparents.ning.com/)

When it comes to life-style choices and community support, we should really think about offering our support once one person considers it. We may be in favor or against, but the number of people impacted cannot define when we start talking about it, because talking about it makes it more likely people will consider the option (or not consider it).

Aard

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

When it comes to life-style choices and community support, we should really think about offering our support once one person considers it.

I wouldn't agree with that statement at all; it barks PC brigade.

Pink Adoptions

Aard wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that statement at all; it barks PC brigade.

Thinking about offering support does not mean "blindly lend support".

It means thinking about the issue, discussing it irrelevant of the number involved. And being open to listen to the arguments, and give credit to the good faith of the people who make them.

The good thing is that once a couple goes down that route, their support network will more than likely support them if they have not been able to dissuade them at first.
And those that are against will probably not be, or have left, that network.

In this case, the issue is very much about how good the couple's relation is, and how much support they find in their community for such endeavor.

The rule of thumb, from the USA's experience in LGBT parenting, is that the main support network of gay parents is not their former gay network, but usually a new network made of other parents.
And they tend to be much less judgmental and less tuned into "principle", and more attuned to children's practical day-to-day needs.
The result often turns out to be that a lot of gay parents feel alienated from their former gay community, because of a certain bias towards parenthood: the other gays' bias towards parenthood is stronger than the other parents' bias towards gaiety. Not always... but often.

That is why it would be very interesting to hear from families who went down that route, or are prepared to.

baby and crumble

I still don't understand how it would work, not in reality. In divorced/ split couples where the parents couple up with someone else, the kids play them off each other. Kids aren't stupid.

2nd- Kids need a stable base. End of. Absolutely, all parents should see their kids as much as they can, but kids who split physical time equally between 2 places I would imagine are less settled. I know I was, having gone to boarding school. And in my head it got a bit messed up, I never thought of home as home. It was just the place I went on weekends. Granted my parents were there so that made it better. But I can't imagine splitting time equally between 2 places at a young age. Kids need stability, and no matter how lovely the 4 parents in this sitution may be, having 4 parents to negotiate with and 2 homes to live in means a split.

And I hate to bring it up but what happens if and when the original couples break up and the recouple? the kid has then 8 parents and 4 homes? That's just mental.

no out-of-the-closet same-gender couple has ever been through the full process as yet

Well obviously if they can't adopt as a couple legally how could any same sex couple have gone through the process as a couple? I used to work in adoption social work and I know of at least one lesbian that adopted with her partner, as much as the law allowed. And to be fair, to adopt as a couple in Ireland you have to be married. A non married straight couple can't adopt together, the woman usually adopts with the man assessed as a living tenant int he house where the child will be raised.

Pink Adoptions

zoegh wrote: »

I still don't understand how it would work, not in reality. In divorced/ split couples where the parents couple up with someone else, the kids play them off each other. Kids aren't stupid.

They will try, but that is no argument against it.
It is an argument for discipline!
One of the issue parents report in the USA is that they tend to smother the child with too much attention. The parents just have to actively parent... just like in the case of divorced children.

zoegh wrote: »

2nd- Kids need a stable base. End of. Absolutely, all parents should see their kids as much as they can, but kids who split physical time equally between 2 places I would imagine are less settled. I know I was, having gone to boarding school. And in my head it got a bit messed up, I never thought of home as home. It was just the place I went on weekends. Granted my parents were there so that made it better. But I can't imagine splitting time equally between 2 places at a young age. Kids need stability, and no matter how lovely the 4 parents in this sitution may be, having 4 parents to negotiate with and 2 homes to live in means a split.

I am not sure you can compare boarding school to a second loving/caring home.
Your boarding school experience was not a 50% committed responsibility share... it was closer to a "let's see the second parent on week-ends and holidays only".
If the split of homes is even and in a stable routine, that is stability and routine enough for kids.
As you said kids are not stupid, and they are resilient: they can adapt to a lot if structure is provided and if it has rhyme and reason to it.
After all it is little a price to pay for the kid to have access to both his biological/birth parents.

zoegh wrote: »

And I hate to bring it up but what happens if and when the original couples break up and the recouple? the kid has then 8 parents and 4 homes? That's just mental.

It depends.
The same that happens when divorced couples split further.
In both cases, remember that only the legal parents have legal parental authority. So the child's best interest must take into account the legal guardianship, and her emotional links to the various parties.

zoegh wrote: »

Well obviously if they can't adopt as a couple legally how could any same sex couple have gone through the process as a couple? I used to work in adoption social work and I know of at least one lesbian that adopted with her partner, as much as the law allowed. And to be fair, to adopt as a couple in Ireland you have to be married. A non married straight couple can't adopt together, the woman usually adopts with the man assessed as a living tenant int he house where the child will be raised.

Gay prospective parents can either adopt as "single sole applicants" and hide their relationship in order to not be penalized at the international adoption stage. (They think it is easier for a single male than for a gay male).
Or they can adopt as a couple, where only one formerly applies as a sole applicant, just like any unmarried couple.
In this case, they are assessed as a couple, they both attend classes and social worker's meetings: their household is assessed. It is more than "a living in tenant."
If they are in the closet their household is not adequately assessed!

In any case, it discloses to their country of interest that they are a gay couple, and that one of them is the adopter. The same as for any unmarried couples.

In the case you describe, I'd be interested to know if it was a domestic adoption (where there might be a kinship relationship with the adopted child, or an expressed desire by a departed parent to grant her guardianship of the child), or if it was an international adoption.
Also it would be interesting to see if in the file she was presenting her partner as "a living in tenant", or as her "life partner".
They were "in the closet" as far as the chosen country is concerned if they did not disclose the nature of their relationship... thus she would assessed as a single sole adopter with a tenant. They may have been open to their social worker... but were probably advised to keep it under wraps. In other words to lie to the chosen country.

We are talking about non-related adoptions (international is the most likely) for gay couples assessed as an openly gay couple.

Plek Trum

My contribution: a friend discovered she was gay after 8 years of marriage and two boys. Split from her husband very amicably. Friend is now with her longterm partner (female) in the family home and her ex husband has remarried. So, in essence, the 2 boys have mum and her girlfriend / Dad and his wife. All four couples are mature, grounded and hold the boys interests as priority. The boys, now early teens are the most adjusted, grounded, polite and sociable boys you could meet and yes, they divide their time between both houses.

Is there an issue? Certainly not in either family home.
Are the boys disadvantaged? YES
Proper marriage equality for gay couples HAS to be passed in Irish law. One of the boys was injured in an accident in school. His mum was up the country with work, his father abroad on honeymoon. My friend, who has helped raise him for the last 5 years was not allowed to give her permission for urgent medical treatment and his grandmother had to be contacted and collected from home, 80 mile round trip away.

Sometimes I think people forget to actually ask and talk to people in same sex relationships with children about their issues OR even for their experiences before formulating an opinion on the debate.

Its not a matter of whether you, or I, or anyone for that matter 'thinks'.
It's a matter for respecting and providing the same protection and security for every child in Ireland. The son or daughter of every citizen should be afforded the same acknowledgement and security in Irish law.

I have a few friends in same sex relationships that are biological parents or, through meeting a partner, have become parental figures in the family home. They ARE living with, loving with, providing for and raising children as a family unit, often with the other biological parent and his/her partner very much involved.

Like any child, it is down to the quality of parenting and committment to same. Children require love, stability and security. If you can get these right, and its probably the hardest job in the world, then in theory there shouldn't be any issues.

Debating whether such a family unit is 'right' or in the interests of the child in null and void. It exists already and no debate can change that. What needs to be debated and bought into action is the right of the child and it's parents to be recognised in exactly the same way as all other citizens.
That the key factor moving forward.

I for one do not like the sound of it but would love to learn more and see the results of it in practise.

I have always supported gay adoption and so on and my own situation is that I live in a relationship with two girls and we have had a daughter.

I always argue against the concept that a child needs a father and mother as some kind of ideal. Single parenting works fine. Gay parenting works fine. Me and the girls are currently doing fine too.

Children need a certain amount of things and those things can be given by any type of parents, single, straight or gay couples or in my own case a truple! The sex and quantities of the people doing the parenting is, for me, a secondary consideration to how they are doing it.

My nervousness about it however is because those things I think a child needs are (not exhaustive list) things like safety, love, education… and stability….

It is the last one there that worries me with this time share parenting. The stability of the childs situation makes me a little nervous.

As I said though, I do not know and would love to see and hear and read more about it, but it makes me nervous for the reasons above.

Nebit

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

I was surprised when you used terms like "belongs to neither", "they are my own", "sharing a child"...
And then you say that "makes said child seem like property."

What if you were to not see the child as property in the first place, not something to be owned or something belonging to someone...

The child, in this kind of family is not "time-shared": she is sharing time with all her parents.
She does not belong to anyone of them: she belongs with them.

Because if the child is born from a man and a woman who both want to raise the child, why should she not belong with both of them... even if the parents do not belong together?

Children are more resilient than they are given credit for by a lot of respondents. Children can cope with complexity... but not so much with complications.

you cannot use my quotes such as 'i want to feel like they're my own' against me, ask any parent, they will tell you that their child is their own. The dont consider their own child as property.

The idea of what truly does seem like time sharing a child is ridiculous, it DOES treat a child like property, you will get those who will say oh little jack here is moody, ah let the others take care of it, Your turn.
Im sorry but a child needs parents to look up to, to respect, to go to when in need and to build a relationship with, the most important relationship building is done when living under the same roof. By my observations with those who have separated parents, the child chooses ONE parent more so than the other, grows closer to ONE parent more so than the other.

This would in theory be the same with sharing a child, the child would pick one set of parents than the other, because a higher relationship needs to be built.
This is not only unfair to the child but also to the other parents who wont get as much affection.
Also what about factors such as School? surely you dont expect both couples to stay in close proximity to each other for 18 years? Work will change and one couple will have to move.
The idea is flaw in too many ways.
But again this is my opinion.

Annasopra

Nebit wrote: »

you cannot use my quotes such as 'i want to feel like they're my own' against me, ask any parent, they will tell you that their child is their own. The dont consider their own child as property.

the language you actually used does suggest an implicit view of a child that is something 'owned' similar to a property

Nebit

Johnnymcg wrote: »

the language you actually used does suggest an implicit view of a child that is something 'owned' similar to a property

your nitpicking, and getting off the main point i was trying to make, my language is exactly that all parents would use, That child is YOUR child, you have cared and looked after them, doesnt mean they're your property, but you do have a strong connection to them that you feel like you have been crucial to their upbringing and that they are like a mini you in someways.

This time sharing child business, gets rid of responsibility and makes a child property. Almost like a Toy, or a holiday home, a child is for life and needs a perminant residence, someone he/she can always rely on, love attention, they will not get this from sharing 4 parents, as i said the logistics of it are silly anyways, one couple will not stay in the exact same region for 18 years because of different factors, one maybe work,
what about school, etc.

Pink Adoptions

Plek Trum wrote: »

[...]
Is there an issue? Certainly not in either family home.
Are the boys disadvantaged? YES
Proper marriage equality for gay couples HAS to be passed in Irish law. [...]
Sometimes I think people forget to actually ask and talk to people in same sex relationships with children about their issues OR even for their experiences before formulating an opinion on the debate.

Its not a matter of whether you, or I, or anyone for that matter 'thinks'.
It's a matter for respecting and providing the same protection and security for every child in Ireland. The son or daughter of every citizen should be afforded the same acknowledgement and security in Irish law.
[...]

Debating whether such a family unit is 'right' or in the interests of the child in null and void. It exists already and no debate can change that. What needs to be debated and bought into action is the right of the child and it's parents to be recognised in exactly the same way as all other citizens.
That the key factor moving forward.

Agreed.
Just to clarify, tell me if I misunderstood, the fact that there are objective disavantages to the child being in certain atypical families is notan argument against those families, but a failure from society to proper;y support them.
Because if we start saying that "society is putting little Jimmy at a disavantage because of his 2 fathers, therefore the best interest of the child isnotto have 2 fathers as long as society is not ready"...
... then little Jimmy will be worse off eventually because he loves his two fathers and is entitled to be loved by them

If we reject these families on the ground that they are rejected, they will never gain the right to be supported by our society... on the ground that they are not supported by society.

That is where the difficulty rests: how "militant" can we be about our children's rights, when being militant contributes to locally reducing the enjoyement of those rights.

Nebit wrote: »

The idea of what truly does seem like time sharing a child is ridiculous, it DOES treat a child like property, you will get those who will say oh little jack here is moody, ah let the others take care of it, Your turn.

That can happen in any couple living under the same roof,if they do not care enough for their child and/or are too stressed out to invest enough energy.
More parents means more energy to invest. the trick is to focus all the energy towards the child's best interest.
Any selfish parent will behave selfishly. That has nothing to do with the marrital construct, or householding arrangements.

Nebit wrote: »

[...]This would in theory be the same with sharing a child, the child would pick one set of parents than the other, because a higher relationship needs to be built.
This is not only unfair to the child but also to the other parents who wont get as much affection.

Is it fairer that the child does not relate to one set of parents (usually the father+1...). How is that fairer on the child or on the set who is no longer seen as family?
How is "no affection" fairer than "less than half the affection"?
Also, are you saying that love and care are quantities that can be geometrically divided and exhauster.

Extend your point to a nuclear family: the mother is working and the father at home.
Is the mother living her son less than the father does?
Is the son loving the mother less because he is closer to the father?
Should the mother be denied her maternal right because she has a lesser quantity of time "shared" with her son?

Parenting is not something you can quantify like productive work in a factory.

Nebit wrote: »

your nitpicking, and getting off the main point i was trying to make, my language is exactly that all parents would use, That child is YOUR child, you have cared and looked after them, doesnt mean they're your property, but you do have a strong connection to them that you feel like you have been crucial to their upbringing and that they are like a mini you in someways.
[...]

That is a worrying view of the motivation to have children.
(Prospective) parents who dream of a "mini-me" are bracing themselves for a life of disappointment and their children for a life of frustrations.
Also I wonder what it means as regards the love of adoptove parents for their children, in your eyes.
Parents are not Pygmalion with a doll to play with.

That mind set of "possession" and "moulding" as opposed to "belonging" and "fostering" makes it clearer why you cannot conceive the benefits for a child of having more than 1 set of parents.

Parents are not competing for the possession of a child they "share", with a desire to exert as much influence on that child as possible.
Just like in a nuclear family where the parents are good parents, they see the other parent and the other parents as a strenght their child can rely on.

Nebit wrote: »

This time sharing child business, gets rid of responsibility and makes a child property. Almost like a Toy, or a holiday home, a child is for life and needs a perminant residence, someone he/she can always rely on, love attention, they will not get this from sharing 4 parents, as i said the logistics of it are silly anyways, one couple will not stay in the exact same region for 18 years because of different factors, one maybe work,
what about school, etc.

This only happens with irresponsible parents.
This can just as well be taken as an argument against divorce and custodial arrangements, or even marriage: why marry if people can divorce and move away?

You argument only makes sense from the point of view of the child being some sort of property that should not be shared!
Co-parenting is not shared-parenting.

It can fail,and has more failure points that most relationships, of course.
But it can aslo work if the parents understand what the co- stands for: cooperation and coordination.

Boston

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to clarify, tell me if I misunderstood, the fact that there are objective disavantages to the child being in certain atypical families is notan argument against those families, but a failure from society to proper;y support them.
Because if we start saying that "society is putting little Jimmy at a disavantage because of his 2 fathers, therefore the best interest of the child isnotto have 2 fathers as long as society is not ready"...
... then little Jimmy will be worse off eventually because he loves his two fathers and is entitled to be loved by them

How is it societies fault that little jimmy doesn't have a mother? To raise a child without a loving father or with a loving mother is a disadvantage. If you degree then we'll agree to disagree. I've met a lot of single mothers in my time, but I've never met one who claimed to completely fulfil the role of the a loving committed father (though I could well believe they did a better job then the biological father).

However, I think you're tailing off the topic at hand. I thought one of the major benefits of co-parenting was that the child/children will have both at least one mother and at least one father in their lives?

I think it's a mistake when advocating co-parenting to compare it to divorced couples raising a child. A more accurate comparison would be to parents and grand parents raising children. Two couples, both contributing to the upbringing of the child. This scenario is incredibly common throughout the world and has major benefits in modern society were, shamefully, a lot of people are two busy holding down jobs and worrying about bank balances to raise kids properly.

Anyway, I've flip flopped all over the place on this one, manly because I initially saw it as so atypical. But once you remove sexuality of the parents form the equation, it no longer seems to be a strange setup.

DS333

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Co-parenting is when two couples raise a child together.
It is in effect the same thing as two divorced couples raising the child, but without the gripes.

The couples do not need to live under one roof.
They need to work out who is taking care of the child any given day, and how money is spend on the child care, and funding the child's future.

It is an alternative to adoption for gay couples: a couple of men and a couple of women can agree to have a child together, and raise the child together.

Would you consider it?
Or are you feeling strongly against it?

I'm sorry, but are we talking about children or yo-yos? It's confusing enough with two parents, let alone four!

I know of a case of two brothers marrying two sisters. After 15 years together they swapped. I worked with the children who were utterly traumatized.

However... If we're talking about tiny tots who grow up in that situation and take it for normal, who knows...

Yes, there are a huge amount of empty arguments in favour of conventional parenting considering how many of them go wrong.

It would be interesting to see what unbiased research has to say about children in these different situations, because they can all quote something in their favour. The bottom line is that the children have to come first.

DS333

P.S. Was out with some married friends for dinner last night and ran it by them. They thought it was a great idea as long as then men were the donors and the women the birth mothers. Said it overcame the problem of a child lacking a role model of either sex. So there you are. :-)

shay_562

I still don't quite get it. How on earth do you split a child's time 50/50? Or would it actually work like it tends to with divorced couples, where one set of parents get weekends/summer or some such? 'Cause it does seem to raise a whole lot of issues. I mean, I can see the benefit to having multiple strong role models and authority figures in your life as you grow up, I just can't make the mental leap from "It'd be good if adoptive parents demonstrated that they have a good support structure, either their family or godparents or even neighbours" to "It'd be good if the child had four legal parents, who live across two separate houses".

I know plenty of kids do quite well in this circumstance right now (though seriously, most kids struggle quite a bit when their parents divorce, even if they do learn to adjust), I just don't understand seeking it out. Why would you *want* to raise a child with another couple in a different home who may have different views about child-rearing? (I know you can work out the big details beforehand, but even parents living in the same house struggle to stay on-message) Is it simply a case of not having enough time to raise a child full-time alone? Because if so, if you can't raise a child within the means that you have, then I'm not sure that you should be looking at adoption. It isn't about ownership or the 'stake' you have in the child or whatever other crap. It's that if you want to adopt, I don't get why you'd want to agree before you even met your child that you'd spend half your time away from them.

In terms of all the stuff upthread that seems to subtly intimate that we should all support this 'cause it's non-traditional and so are we...no. Just no. I believe that gay people should have the right to adopt because I think that the role of opposite gendered parents is overplayed (and my belief is supported by empirical evidence, which is always nice ); I still think that a number of issues like a stable parental relationship, a good home, routine, general stability in their lives etc are important for a child, and I'm not sure that I'd agree with sacrificing them from the very beginning or blithely declaring that they're something a child doesn't need just because some children learn to cope without them.

Pink Adoptions

No one said you "had to support it".
Just to consider and offer support to parents and children in those circumstances.
And also assume the parents have the best interest of their children at heart.

But also we have to recognize that some parents are selfish, in any type of consideration, and that bad parents will be bad at parenting in any configuration.

It is worth exploring how, given good parents, this situation can be beneficial to the child.