Mother Child Homes Discussion ###DO NOT POST WITHOUT READING 1st POST###

Hermy wrote: »

I actually see your point there.
When I was adopted adoption was generally done at the behest of the church who cared little for mother or baby and were guided only by their daft belief that having a child out of wedlock was some sort of criminal act.
Nowadays thankfully, adoptions happen for very different reasons and the welfare of the child is hopefully paramount.
I still absolutely disagree with you about a child being denied access to the identity of their biological parents being a condition of adoption but I agree that a good home is what every child deserves.

I have a number of family members that were domestically adopted so it's not like I am numb to the situation. I would be happy with a middleground of some sort where anonymity could be overturned at the request of both parent and child but I think that the adoption process is too important for potential adoptees for it to be put at risk. Obviously it's open to opinion how much of a risk that would be but in the absence of any evidence I have to go with my gut.

But as I have already said, I wouldn't apply any of what I said to forced adoption situations.

Neyite wrote: »

No. You have totally read into my post wrong and and taken up what I wrote completely wrong.

I see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to give her child up for adoption, and for forever relinquishing her rights to that child, if she freely wishes.

But I believe that any adopted child should have a right to a birth certificate. At the moment, they dont.

In that article, the child was placed with presumably loving grandparents. It sounds like he already had an extended family who love and care for him, but his mother didnt.


So, rip a toddler away from his nan and granda on both sides, his dad, siblings, aunties, uncle, cousins. From his little playmates in creche or toddler group. Change his name, obscure where he came from forever, give him up for adoption to total strangers and deny him forever the right to ever trace his lovely nana and granda just because the mother was neglectful?

Or have him adopted by his nan and granda who he already knows, with supervised, very limited contact with his mother unless she turns her life around.

Which is kinder to a two year old?

I still have serious issues. It must be very confusing for this little boy having his "mother" hovering around in the background. Unless the poor woman has been totally disowned by her entire family then he's going to be encountering her very regularly. I'll be accused of ageism but I don't think grandparents who at best will be late 60s are best placed for minding a teenager. Not my teenager anyway.
I don't know what the answer is. We have as many kids as ever in need of being placed somewhere other than the care of their parents.
Down in my mothers estate there's a 5 year old standing on the roof of the cab of a truck. He's spitting at passing cars. His sister is knocking on every door in the cul de sac trying to get other kids who are eating their tea to come out or preferably bring her in. They both follow every adult who comes on foot just so they can be near an adult. Their mother drives in and out past them with a fag in one hand and her mobile in the other. It sickens me. The whole thing is repeated all over the country every evening.

Muise... wrote: »

Nothing to stop a biological mother writing to say she wishes the son/daughter well, but would find a relationship with them too painful. That'd let everyone know where they stood, instead of presuming either joy or trauma on the biological mother's part.

I think what they do now is they keep files and will contact the bio mom if the adult wants contact and vice versa. And that's the right way to do it too.

I know someone who is still to this day being rejected over and over and over again by her bio mother who started a whole new life with a whole new family in Galway, and is pretty indifferent to this girl. She upsets the applecart too much.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

There are, no doubt, kids who would have been better off adopted as babies - but removing them from the only family they know now is likely to be more traumatising than staying with a less than perfect mother. Apart from situations of abuse, we can't just remove children from their home. How many fags or phone calls constitute abuse, and who gets to decide?


And really, do you know many people who want to adopt older children?

Also given the HSE, no guarantee of anything better.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Unfortunately true. Much more likely to be bounced around the foster care system than to have a stable home.

One of the provisions of the Children's Referendum was to make it easier for children in foster care to be adopted if there was no chance of their biological parents getting their act together. I know a few families who fostered children to adulthood, but there was an insecurity about the relationship because of the possibility of a reformed parent upsetting the child's new life.

The Referendum also makes it possible for a child whose parents are married to be adopted, if this is in the best interests of the child, following unconscionable delays and inactions in the Roscommon case on the basis of the parents' marital status.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And a person might not want to be reminded of something merely because they regret a decision they made.

Then they are free to decline. This does not make the enquiry wrong or indelicate though; it's just a natural desire we all have to know where we come from.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Surely if there is any innocent party in an adoption it is the child? They are the only party who had no part in the decision.

So what is it that the mother is guilty of then? She's guilty of absolutely nothing. She found herself in a sticky situation AS EACH AND EVERYONE OF US HAS AT ONE TIME OR OTHER, she decided to give her baby a chance of life, she went through the pain of giving her baby to people she hoped would
give it a better life. I'm sure there are enough regrets, there's definitely no need for guilt.

I think its all a moot point anyway. Its very sad for the adopted people who want to meet a mother who doesn't want to meet them. They must feel doubly rejected. I understand that. But,if someone has made it clear that they don't want contact, then that must be respected. We can't have people showing up on doorstops and blowing people lives apart. That's cruel. And I can't see any happy outcomes from a forced confrontation either.