Update

In that way, being for or against adoption is as relevant as being for or against appendectomies. If one is needed, for it; if not, not.

Given safety, I believe that trading up to a better life--that is, disrupting the permanency they were born to and have a right to--is not in a child's best interest and not a good reason to place.

Who is anybody to judge whether an adoption is "needed" or not. It's certainly not anyones place to say "x,y,z" is an acceptable reason, but "a,b,c" is not. Each persons reasons for placing are personal and not for anyone else to judge.

Hopeful, I said nothing about others judging parents or who decides because I thought it was obvious that the parents judge their child's situation and do the deciding. In any case, I was just trying to answer Sunday's question. If we get any further into it, then I think it should go into a different thread.

At any rate, I agree we shouldn't continue this on Rosies thread as she seems to have enough to consider, but I disagree that we should start another thread. That threads been done a few times and I can't see much good coming from it.

Hadley stated: I am not for adoption. I am not against adoption. I am for a child's best interest. Safety--broadly interpreted--is paramount, the law says so and it's what I believe, too. Permanency is second only to safety and is both a child's right and a critical developmental need. Given safety, I believe that trading up to a better life--that is, disrupting the permanency they were born to and have a right to--is not in a child's best interest and not a good reason to place.

Hopefulmom2be, And yet you are choosing to continue the thread. So I went back and read the questions and answers to get context for the one line you are upset with. And Hadley is also correct in stating that a mother only severes her rights to parent and it severs the permancy of the mother child bond - something that is taken far to lightly in adoption - at birth the child looses their mother...something not to celebrate or go into without a very good reason. Adoption is not guaranteed at the time a mother signs away her rights - even in pre-birth matches. Once that TPR happens and the couple backs out - someone is free to be the new parents and the mother has squat to say about it, unless she signed a conditional named surrender and that seldom happens now does it? And even if the adoption takes place - dissolving and rehoming has become far more common than it ever used to be. Divorce has become far more common than it ever used to be so wanting a two parent home is not guaranteed. And if you go back to the OP - the expectant mother faced with homelessness was allowed to come home provided she agree to adoption by people her parents chose who wanted a closed adoption...no manipulation there... Kind regards, Dickons

Well, since your baiting me: What you just wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. .

Hadley2 - I'm probably reading something into your response that isn't there...because the tone of the email felt like you were against adoption and almost judging this birth mom for not choosing to raise her child. If I am off base, I apologize.

STEP AWAY from the light Carol Anne!!!! :)

Who is anybody to judge whether an adoption is "needed" or not. It's certainly not anyones place to say "x,y,z" is an acceptable reason, but "a,b,c" is not. Each persons reasons for placing are personal and not for anyone else to judge.