Preparing sibling for birth process?

Banty wrote:
In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Apr 23, 4:00=C2=A0pm, "
wrote:

On Apr 23, 4:28=EF=BF=BDam, Chookie wro=

te:



Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. =

=EF=BF=BDMy Mum

left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother.=

=EF=BF=BD

Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. =EF=BF=BDGrandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always =

say I had

three loving parents. =EF=BF=BDBut even with that support, being a singl=

e parent was

terribly hard on my Mum. =EF=BF=BDTo walk into such a difficult life *vo=

luntarily*

boggles my mind.

But leaving a marriage, or being widowed, are in themselves terribly
stressful situations, leaving one with lots of emotional baggage.

Do you really think the "emotional baggage" of the wife and children
are the same when the father

(a) dies in an accident
(b) *chooses* to abandon his family

Obviously, in situation (b), there can be deep and justified feelings
of betrayal.


They're not the same, but you seem to greatly undercount grief.


Choosing to have a child as a single mother does *not* involve any of
those stresses. Not there can't be plenty of others, of course. But if
*all* one had to worry about were the logistics, and if everything
looked reasonably well aligned (finances, health, etc.) before one
made the leap, it seems to me that it wouldn't necessarily be a
terribly tough life. I would agree with you that you'd be increasing
the *risk* of facing a tough life, but arguably taking on far less
risk than many people who start babies with dicey partners and in
terrible financial situations.

Then don't do either! A woman should not have a child on her own *or*
with a "dicey" partner. Men should not father children with women they
are not committed to.


What an ideal.


It is and its not hard to do.



Once upon a time,


..the appropriate fairy tale opening to this paragraph...


the vast majority of Americans
followed these simple rules. Here are some statistics from "The
Underclass Revisited", by Charles Murray http://www.aei.org/publications/pub=
ID.14891/pub_detail.asp


Oh gosh Charles Murray - the champion of research driven by anticipated
conclusion. Lets just say he's a controversial choice of source.

What the practices were in the past don't necessarily have bearing on what is
right or what is workable. There were great costs to those statistics - shotgun
weddings, babies purported to be born to the mothers of teenaged daughters,
babies left to die unrecorded (all of which are in those statistics). They also
dont account for the very common practice (still recognized in many states as
"common law marriages") of forming families without formal marriage being
recognized as defacto. The great sigma lead to blind adoptions.

Banty

On Apr 23, 3:53 pm, Banty wrote:
In article ,
Beliavsky says...





On Apr 23, 9:39=A0am, Banty wrote:
In article .=
com,

Wow, Chookie and I agree on something . One caveat, though. Although
I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried
couples and single people in adoption, if there are not enough such
couples to adopt the children available, single people should be
considered. A single woman who has the resources, financial and
otherwise, to provide a good home for a child who would otherwise be
in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so,
IMO.

How odd. Wouldn't the children with more needs, need two legally committed
adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources than
those who don't?

Not necessarily. Sure, having two committed and loving parents is
better than having one. However, having one is way, way, *way* better
than having none, and what these children actually need above all is a
relationship with one loving, committed parent. If a two-parent
family is available, great. But if there isn't, and if there is a
single person happy to adopt the child and able to cope, then the
child should go to that person rather than linger on in an institution
or impermanent foster care setting in the hope that the Perfect Family
(tm) *might* come along at some indeterminate time in the future.
What a child in that situation needs is stability and a proper
attachment *now*, not a two-parent ideal sometime/never.

Yes, but they are probably considered less desirable adoptees by most
people, and standards may need to be relaxed a little to get them
adopted, but not to the extent that the children would be better off
in an orphanage.

So this is not about the children, but rather about prospective parents, and
only married ones.

Huh? Not following that at all.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

In article ,
says...

On Apr 23, 3:53 pm, Banty wrote:
In article ,
Beliavsky says...





On Apr 23, 9:39=A0am, Banty wrote:
In article .=
com,

Wow, Chookie and I agree on something . One caveat, though. Although
I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried
couples and single people in adoption, if there are not enough such
couples to adopt the children available, single people should be
considered. A single woman who has the resources, financial and
otherwise, to provide a good home for a child who would otherwise be
in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so,
IMO.

How odd. Wouldn't the children with more needs, need two legally committed
adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources
than
those who don't?

Not necessarily. Sure, having two committed and loving parents is
better than having one. However, having one is way, way, *way* better
than having none, and what these children actually need above all is a
relationship with one loving, committed parent. If a two-parent
family is available, great. But if there isn't, and if there is a
single person happy to adopt the child and able to cope, then the
child should go to that person rather than linger on in an institution
or impermanent foster care setting in the hope that the Perfect Family
(tm) *might* come along at some indeterminate time in the future.
What a child in that situation needs is stability and a proper
attachment *now*, not a two-parent ideal sometime/never.

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.)

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*.

Actually, there's a school of thought that, since nearly half of marriages end
in divorce, but singles who adopt often remain single (later in their lifetimes,
it's a Plan B for most of them), single adopters in the long run offer a *more
stable* situation. (But thats never brought up with regards to special needs
kids, since they would be greatly more stressful for a single person than two
people to adopt.) So tell you what - single people over, say, 35 should get
first crack at the adoption pool. Because thats what you're talking about is
*really* about - who gets first crack. Not about addressing the kids needs.

Banty

On Apr 24, 6:00Â*am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:00Â*pm, "
wrote:

On Apr 23, 4:28�am, Chookie wrote:

Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. �My Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother. �
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. �Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I had
three loving parents. �But even with that support, being a single parent was
terribly hard on my Mum. �To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily*
boggles my mind.

But leaving a marriage, or being widowed, are in themselves terribly
stressful situations, leaving one with lots of emotional baggage.

Do you really think the "emotional baggage" of the wife and children
are the same when the father

(a) dies in an accident
(b) *chooses* to abandon his family

Obviously, in situation (b), there can be deep and justified feelings
of betrayal.

*scratching head* Who the heck said they were the same? I said they
were both terribly stressful situations. You wanna argue that being
widowed ISN'T?

--Helen

Areba schrieb:
snip
Just snuck in...

These sound like my words a few years ago. It took ages for me to
understand that it wasn't marraige that I had found hard....it was
him... he was hard..

Seriously, the mind boggles at all that can be interpreted into this
sentence. Especially this sleep deprived mind right here ;-)

cu
nicole

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