Advertisements
Advertisements
My heart is broken for this couple, firstly for the failed adoption, as a mixed bag of emotions that it is, but then to deal with the child you nearly adopted being murdered (probably) by it's first family (Dad) is just too hard to imagine. Two losses (for the first mom as well) is just too much back to back. They learned through other means (than 1st hand accounts) that the child had passed and they were very upset no one called them. I'm not sure why anyone in the family would call them. The child's biological mother would be devastated and I doubt anyone else around her was concerned for their feelings (would have been considerate but certainly not obligated). But It's tragic for them none the less. I couldn't even imagine.
I feel for the first mom too. How horrible to go through a crisis pregnancy, adoption plan, relinquishment of the child (physically only? I assume, but i imagine the toughest part), failed adoption, then eventual death of the child. The guilt that will haunt that poor mother is beyond comprehension.
I will keep this family in my thoughts. I'm traumatized for all involved. I thought I'd share since it was a different take on a news story concerning adoption. Something I've never seen on the news before.
I'm not sure why the child is named McFarland (adoptive parents last names) in the story. Not sure his name would have been different at the point they were in the adoption. But perhaps 1st mom gave him their name but struck me as odd (and a bit disrespectful). I wish I could find a story with more details surrounding the adoption. It seems odd that he would be going back to the first family at this stage unless they hadn't terminated rights. Lord knows.
But sad, tragic and heartbreaking all the way around. :(
Last update on April 25, 3:43 pm by Miriam Gwilliam.
Like
Share
View All Previous Posts
Thanks Dickons, I couldn't hear the video (no sound) but wondered what went on. NO TPR explains a lot about this story. The whole thing sounds off and I agree, either do it right or not at all. I'm not sure why or how they could go on the "news" with this story. That would be infringing on a lot of peoples personal business (IMHO).
Awful but tragic for all involved. Poor baby.
Like
Share
Advertisements
Dickons
The "lawyer" they had hired never gave the mother the papers to terminate her rights. They complained about that on a news video. I have little sympathy when people try to do adoption cheap and then have problems that they could have solved by firing the first lawyer and hiring one that would do the job correctly. From other news reports the "open" adoption wasn't going well - this was I think a story that started with the mother's mother working with one of the prospective parents.
I'm sorry that the baby died, I don't think that the prospective adoptive parents should have been part of the news coverage, and think it was done to create a sensational ratings job seeing as the baby had been cared for by the mother for the last month. At least one headline said within days of finalizing the adoption - sure, when they hadn't even terminated rights....
The father was charged with murder.
Kind regards,
Dickons
It's always horrible when a child dies--including the other two mentioned in that report. But I think the "adoptive parents" had no place in that story and as a former news person I suspect they are the ones who contacted the media--if we had adopted the child, he wouldn't be dead. True enough, but if all children--bio, foster or adopted--were in the care of someone else instead of the person who killed them they would still be alive.
They weren't adoptive parents and they weren't forced to give back their own child; they were caring for someone elses's child and as Dickons pointed out they tried to do their "adoption," which never happened, in a cut-rate way. This is a horrible tragedy, but the coverage is being sensationalized to promote an agenda, and IMO not a good one.
Last update on April 25, 3:44 pm by Miriam Gwilliam.
Like
Share
Beatricesmith - That is a better story, you do learn a bit more about the 1st mother.
But I feel horrible for these people all of them. I realize they didn't do the adoption properly and they are paying a steep price for that lesson. But I still hurt for them. I couldn't imagine going through the process and it ending with the child's death at the hands of the birth father. The child's 1st mom clearly loved and wanted her child. She should have him back since she was legally within her rights to do so. But I do ache for these people. It's horrible and I do feel for them regardless if they did their adoption cheaply or not.
Like
Share
Wrking,
While I feel sympathy for the other couple, the problem here is with the media and the attitude displayed towards people that consider adoption.
If a couple even considers adoption for their child they are suddenly unworthy of being his or her parents. All of these other "more deserving" people will be better of course because the words maybe and adoption crossed their lips. That poor young woman has been maligned up and down and called things that no human being should be called, because she changed her mind and legally kept her child.
If you want to adopt, go through the proper channels, period. Don't try to do it on your own.
This tragedy didn't happen because of the potential adoption, which would have probably been done illegally, not happening. This tragedy happened because a young man chose to hurt an innocent child.
While I'm sure the potential adoptive parents are feeling grief, this certainly isn't about them, although the media made it look like it was. It's about a family that lost a child to death and another family, that because of his poor choices, will lose a young man to prison.
This isn't about fixing what is "wrong" with adoption to make it simpler and more accessible for those hoping to build their family, as some of the media coverage would like people to think. This is about societal change so we don't have situations where babies are being killed by their parents, be that easily accessible and affordable birth control, parenting classes, mentoring, and other social supports, that is what we need to look at.
Like
Share
Belle, Couldn't agree more. But taking away all of the inferences, the story at it's root is horrible. There are way to many father's especially killing children. It happens at the hands of boyfriends, babysitters, mothers and fathers. It truly needs to stop. It sickens me each time I hear it.
Like
Share
Advertisements
The idea that because you only had a child with you for a short time you don't get to be devasted that they died seems harsh. Probably a lot of foster parents and birth parents would be hurt by that idea. Although I am sure we would be having a different conversation if this was say birthgrandparents (who might never have even seen the child) expressing grief over the death of a child at the hands of adoptive parents.
Like
Share
Beachy: they absolutely have a right to grieve. However, the story is biased towards them. Why didn't they do it properly?
Beachy
The idea that because you only had a child with you for a short time you don't get to be devasted that they died seems harsh. Probably a lot of foster parents and birth parents would be hurt by that idea. Although I am sure we would be having a different conversation if this was say birthgrandparents (who might never have even seen the child) expressing grief over the death of a child at the hands of adoptive parents.
Like
Share
The most heartbreaking part of the story is had they done the adoption properly this child wouldn't have been murdered by his father. However; the first mom sounds like a wonderful loving first mom who was truly making a go of it. Just tragic all the way around.
Like
Share
millie58
Beachy: they absolutely have a right to grieve. However, the story is biased towards them. Why didn't they do it properly?
I agree, Millie.
Also, when I read various stories from around the time of the baby's death and read the comments, the comments were extremely nasty toward Markaya. If she had been a teen mom who had never considered adoption and her baby had died at the hands of the father, she would probably never had been villified the way she was.
Like
Share
Advertisements
wrking21
The most heartbreaking part of the story is had they done the adoption properly this child wouldn't have been murdered by his father. However; the first mom sounds like a wonderful loving first mom who was truly making a go of it. Just tragic all the way around.
The attorney is the person that they should have been angry with all along:
Working21, did you watch the interview with Markaya?
Beachy
Although I am sure we would be having a different conversation if this was say birthgrandparents (who might never have even seen the child) expressing grief over the death of a child at the hands of adoptive parents.
Beachy, if the hypothetical baby in your scenario had died at the hands of say the APs relative or babysitter and the hypothetical bgrandparents villified the adoptive parents for leaving him with a relative or a babysitter, then there probably would be a different conversation - I suspect many would have come on and been very angry at the bgrandparents for villifying the APs who would have been innocents as well. I wouldn't have thought it right of the hypothetical bgrandparents to villify the APs in that situation either - it would have just been a tragic situation.
However, because it is the mother who left her child with the father, it seems the world thinks it is OK to villify that mother, especially because she originally chose adoption. Even further, it is apparently OK for the Heidi and Rachel to villify Markaya and quite a lot of the media supported them in that villification.
Last update on April 25, 3:47 pm by Miriam Gwilliam.
Like
Share
Beachy
The idea that because you only had a child with you for a short time you don't get to be devasted that they died seems harsh. Probably a lot of foster parents and birth parents would be hurt by that idea. Although I am sure we would be having a different conversation if this was say birthgrandparents (who might never have even seen the child) expressing grief over the death of a child at the hands of adoptive parents.
Of course they can grieve. What shouldn't be happening is the vilifying of the mother bc she considered adoption and legally changed her mind. They are not saints for wanting to adopt.
Like
Share
belleinblue1978
Of course they can grieve. What shouldn't be happening is the vilifying of the mother bc she considered adoption and legally changed her mind. They are not saints for wanting to adopt.
I don't see anything they are saying vilifying her except the facts of the story as they are and them mentioning that no background check was required for the family to take the child back and a strange comment about, "not letting them ruin their lives." It would be different if they addressed the birthmother personally they don't. I certainly get the news media picking up this more sensational side of this story because that is what the news does. I don't see the former adoptive parents as saints at all but I generally don't see people as blameless in situations so could be just me.
Sad story for everyone involved.
Like
Share
Beachy, you are reading things that I'm not saying. I said in my first post it was the media doing the vilifying, not the couple that temporarily had the baby. I never said that couple thinks they are saints, but the media surely does. Don't put words into my posts that aren't there.
Like
Share
Advertisements
"them mentioning that no background check was required for the family to take the child back"
Except that there is no requirement for people to have a background check in order to keep their own children, and the family didn't "take the child back," it declined to cede its parental rights to nonrelated strangers.
This terminology and mindset is what I--and I think some other posters at least--find upsetting. It's the idea that merely wanting to adopt a child that isn't legally theirs somehow makes PAPs adoptive parents, and that the actual parents of a child need to somehow prove their fitness in order to trump people who want their child. That the child's mother had been considering, and then decided against, relinquishment to the other couple has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with this story. I'm a retired news editor and I'm sickened at the way the media has handled this story.
Like
Share
That's the way the media portrays adoptive and prospective adoptive parents. They portray adoptive parents as saints "saving those kids".
Patsymae
"them mentioning that no background check was required for the family to take the child back"
Except that there is no requirement for people to have a background check in order to keep their own children, and the family didn't "take the child back," it declined to cede its parental rights to nonrelated strangers.
This terminology and mindset is what I--and I think some other posters at least--find upsetting. It's the idea that merely wanting to adopt a child that isn't legally theirs somehow makes PAPs adoptive parents, and that the actual parents of a child need to somehow prove their fitness in order to trump people who want their child. That the child's mother had been considering, and then decided against, relinquishment to the other couple has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with this story. I'm a retired news editor and I'm sickened at the way the media has handled this story.
Like
Share