Preparing sibling for birth process?

Banty schrieb:
snip
So, when it comes to who should adopt, it's all about how children should have
the best. But when it comes to special needs kids, they don't get the best, and
theres seemingly no longer any of this about how adoption should be built around
the needs of the *children*.
snip

But that's a general problem. In germany the law says that the wellbeing
of the children has priority in all things involving parental rights and
if I recall correctly the rights are now no longer parents rights but
children's rights (i.e. the child has a right to know/see both his
biological parents, not the parents have a right to know/see the child...)
Anyway:
-If a father wants nothing to do with his kid he can not be forced to
see the kid, even if the child desperately wants to see the father. This
is a court ruling.

-If a father wants to see his child and the child does not under any
circumstances, see his father, that child will be forced to see the
father. Not only that but it will be forced to stay at this fathers
place for long(er) periods of time. Also a court ruling.

And of course both rulings are made declaring it's in the best interest
of the children!

cu
nicole

"Banty" wrote in message
...

I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people wanting
to
parent; gay and lesbian couples get that a LOT, too.

But heres the weird thing - first the argument is made that gays and
singles
shouldnt be allowed to adopt because it's not good for the adopted
children,
that adopted children *need* two parent (and one of each model) household
to
grow up in. But then, when it comes to the *neediest* of the children,
suddenly, even though they need MORE, suddenly they're in a separate class
where
it's OK if they get supposedly *less* - that single parent or same-sex
household
that didnt pass muster for children with *no* special needs.

So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class
to
adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids
THEY
want. Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people
still are
so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations, then
at
least they can help out these other kids that the GOOD families passed
over and
get them off society's hands. (Which is believe you me how it sounds to
people
- it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.)

That's not it. A couple wanting to adopt happy, healthy kids wants to adopt
happy, healthy kids and may likely decline the adoption if the kids are
special needs. They are the ideal adopters, so they get what they want;
because if they don't, they won't adopt and everyone loses.

The single person adopting is not an ideal situation. They get the
leftovers, because the kids who don't get placed are doomed to remain
parentless forever and one good parent is better than no parent.

Honestly, if you make it so that the special needs get top priority in being
placed with couples, you wouldn't get many couples trying to adopt. The
agencies have to deal with reality.

In article , toypup says...



"Banty" wrote in message
...

I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people wanting
to
parent; gay and lesbian couples get that a LOT, too.

But heres the weird thing - first the argument is made that gays and
singles
shouldnt be allowed to adopt because it's not good for the adopted
children,
that adopted children *need* two parent (and one of each model) household
to
grow up in. But then, when it comes to the *neediest* of the children,
suddenly, even though they need MORE, suddenly they're in a separate class
where
it's OK if they get supposedly *less* - that single parent or same-sex
household
that didnt pass muster for children with *no* special needs.

So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class
to
adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids
THEY
want. Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people
still are
so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations, then
at
least they can help out these other kids that the GOOD families passed
over and
get them off society's hands. (Which is believe you me how it sounds to
people
- it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.)

That's not it. A couple wanting to adopt happy, healthy kids wants to adopt
happy, healthy kids and may likely decline the adoption if the kids are
special needs. They are the ideal adopters, so they get what they want;
because if they don't, they won't adopt and everyone loses.

The single person adopting is not an ideal situation. They get the
leftovers, because the kids who don't get placed are doomed to remain
parentless forever and one good parent is better than no parent.


It *is* the same thing. Two classes of kids being matched to two classes of
families.

Honestly, if you make it so that the special needs get top priority in being
placed with couples, you wouldn't get many couples trying to adopt. The
agencies have to deal with reality.


The other part of reality is singles and gays having working reproductive
bodies, and choices as to adoption (from around the world, for example).

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toypup says...



"Banty" wrote in message
...

I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people
wanting
to
parent; gay and lesbian couples get that a LOT, too.

But heres the weird thing - first the argument is made that gays and
singles
shouldnt be allowed to adopt because it's not good for the adopted
children,
that adopted children *need* two parent (and one of each model)
household
to
grow up in. But then, when it comes to the *neediest* of the children,
suddenly, even though they need MORE, suddenly they're in a separate
class
where
it's OK if they get supposedly *less* - that single parent or same-sex
household
that didnt pass muster for children with *no* special needs.

So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class
to
adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids
THEY
want. Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people
still are
so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations,
then
at
least they can help out these other kids that the GOOD families passed
over and
get them off society's hands. (Which is believe you me how it sounds to
people
- it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.)

That's not it. A couple wanting to adopt happy, healthy kids wants to
adopt
happy, healthy kids and may likely decline the adoption if the kids are
special needs. They are the ideal adopters, so they get what they want;
because if they don't, they won't adopt and everyone loses.

The single person adopting is not an ideal situation. They get the
leftovers, because the kids who don't get placed are doomed to remain
parentless forever and one good parent is better than no parent.


It *is* the same thing. Two classes of kids being matched to two classes
of
families.

I didn't say it wasn't the same thing. Your reasons are wrong. They don't
do it because special needs kids deserve less. They do it because no one
wants special needs kids, even if they were at the top of the priority list.
If they were at the top for two parent families, there would not be many
people in line for adoptions and the adoptions of happy healthy kids would
also suffer.


Honestly, if you make it so that the special needs get top priority in
being
placed with couples, you wouldn't get many couples trying to adopt. The
agencies have to deal with reality.


The other part of reality is singles and gays having working reproductive
bodies, and choices as to adoption (from around the world, for example).

Yes, but the agencies are trying to maximize the number of adoptions in the
home country. Doing it your way would only make more people go outside the
country to adopt.

Let's not forget that single parent adoptions and gay adoptions in other
countries are often also lower in priority (or even banned).

In article , toypup says...



"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toypup says...



"Banty" wrote in message
...

I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people
wanting
to
parent; gay and lesbian couples get that a LOT, too.

But heres the weird thing - first the argument is made that gays and
singles
shouldnt be allowed to adopt because it's not good for the adopted
children,
that adopted children *need* two parent (and one of each model)
household
to
grow up in. But then, when it comes to the *neediest* of the children,
suddenly, even though they need MORE, suddenly they're in a separate
class
where
it's OK if they get supposedly *less* - that single parent or same-sex
household
that didnt pass muster for children with *no* special needs.

So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class
to
adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids
THEY
want. Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people
still are
so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations,
then
at
least they can help out these other kids that the GOOD families passed
over and
get them off society's hands. (Which is believe you me how it sounds to
people
- it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.)

That's not it. A couple wanting to adopt happy, healthy kids wants to
adopt
happy, healthy kids and may likely decline the adoption if the kids are
special needs. They are the ideal adopters, so they get what they want;
because if they don't, they won't adopt and everyone loses.

The single person adopting is not an ideal situation. They get the
leftovers, because the kids who don't get placed are doomed to remain
parentless forever and one good parent is better than no parent.


It *is* the same thing. Two classes of kids being matched to two classes
of
families.

I didn't say it wasn't the same thing. Your reasons are wrong. They don't
do it because special needs kids deserve less. They do it because no one
wants special needs kids, even if they were at the top of the priority list.

That's what I'm saying. This isn't *about* adopted childrens needs. It's
*about* what parents want.

Which isn't actually a complaint of mine. *Of course* people building families
through adoption have to go by what they think they can take on, and what they
desire. But it just doesn't hold up rationally to say, for these kids, they all
must have the (purported) best of situations, but that other class can go to an
identified set of (purported) *substandard* situations, even though their needs
are *more*. It's talking out of both sides of the mouth.

If they were at the top for two parent families, there would not be many
people in line for adoptions and the adoptions of happy healthy kids would
also suffer.


Honestly, if you make it so that the special needs get top priority in
being
placed with couples, you wouldn't get many couples trying to adopt. The
agencies have to deal with reality.


The other part of reality is singles and gays having working reproductive
bodies, and choices as to adoption (from around the world, for example).

Yes, but the agencies are trying to maximize the number of adoptions in the
home country. Doing it your way would only make more people go outside the
country to adopt.

I don't propose any "way" other than whats pretty much happening now - children
placed according the prospective parents express desires after having evaluated
them in a home study.

I don't even have any objection to that, all other things being equal or even
not quite so equal, a household of married parents be often deemed more suitable
to adopt any particular child for that reason. Because *of course* there will
be more energy and attention and resources, and more prospects for stability by
many measures. That only makes sense.

I do have serious objections to this idea that, *by policy*, only married
parents be allowed to adopt, except for this "leftover" class of children in
need of families. The two classes of kids (and that their placement would be
aligned exactly opposite of what they actually need) being one big problem. But
also that, for example, my long stable household would be rejected out of hand
in favor of just about *any* married-couple household that meets some minimum
standard. Imagine - all the folks who wanted me to give up my child for
adoption, would have possibly granted him to be raised next door, to be
entrained during his adolescence in a horrible mess involving stress and strife
and breakups and makeups, moves in the middle of the school year, cheating on
both sides, "non-paternal" half siblings (yes thats plural) on the way. Because
they're a married, church-going family. With a long marriage. Heh.


Let's not forget that single parent adoptions and gay adoptions in other
countries are often also lower in priority (or even banned).


Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over 35, and
strongly preferred those with an intent to create a single-child household.
Other countries aren't necessarily even looking at this in terms of the USian
culture wars - a lot of this is all about our hangups in our piece of the world.
They have a whole orthogonal set of considerations to ours sometimes.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over 35,
and
strongly preferred those with an intent to create a single-child
household.
Other countries aren't necessarily even looking at this in terms of the
USian
culture wars - a lot of this is all about our hangups in our piece of the
world.
They have a whole orthogonal set of considerations to ours sometimes.

China bans single parent adoption.

In article , toypup says...



"Banty" wrote in message
...
Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over 35,
and
strongly preferred those with an intent to create a single-child
household.
Other countries aren't necessarily even looking at this in terms of the
USian
culture wars - a lot of this is all about our hangups in our piece of the
world.
They have a whole orthogonal set of considerations to ours sometimes.

China bans single parent adoption.


Now they do. They didn't before (read my paragraph again).

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toypup says...



"Banty" wrote in message
...
Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over
35,
and
strongly preferred those with an intent to create a single-child
household.
Other countries aren't necessarily even looking at this in terms of the
USian
culture wars - a lot of this is all about our hangups in our piece of
the
world.
They have a whole orthogonal set of considerations to ours sometimes.

China bans single parent adoption.


Now they do. They didn't before (read my paragraph again).

Yes, and I said single parent adoptions and gay parent adoptions are *often*
banned in other countries. *Often* banned doesn't mean banned everywhere.
You cite China where single parent adoptions used to be legal. It is no
longer legal.

If you think hangups WRT special needs kids and gays is strictly USian
culture wars and other countries don't have such hangups, you are very
wrong. Not only are we not alone, it's much milder here than it can be
elsewhere (where they might just be put to death).

BTW, I am all for more adoptions of special needs kids and I think gays and
lesbians and singles should be allowed to adopt; although under identical
circumstances, I think it's preferable that the child go to a two-parent
family.

On Apr 23, 6:10 am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:28 am, Chookie wrote:



In article
,

" wrote:

From the societal point of view, male sperm donors should not be able
revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they
father.

Why not? Every time a woman aborts, adopts out or legally abandoned
her child, she just revoked her responsibility to financially support
the children she produced. A post-coital choice to men should be
extended as well. So when a man learns that a pregnancy occurred, he
should be able to waive all responsibility as well. That way, women
must procure the commitment from a man FIRST prior to giving birth if
she has any expectation of receiving resources to help her (just like
how we men must procure the commitment from a woman first before we
can be parents). Currently women have abortion, adoption and legally
abandonment laws to opt out once a pregnancy occurs. Men have none.

If the mother dies, for example, the father, not the taxpayer,
ought to be first means of support, and he ought to be given the
chance to adopt the child.

Only if he wants to be a father and to be financially responsible for
the child. Like I stated before, maybe he didn't want to be a parent
in the beginning. Why should he be forced to be one now?

Regards...

On Apr 25, 3:50�pm, " wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:10 am, Beliavsky wrote:

On Apr 23, 7:28 am, Chookie wrote:

In article
,

" wrote:

From the societal point of view, male sperm donors should not be able
revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they
father.


Please snip properly. The above is by Beliavsky, not me.

--Helen