Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When families un-adopt a child (2018)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 151 posts

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#111

Post by iancmceachern »

notch656a wrote: post #109
iancmceachern wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I guess that's my point. Who would resent an adopted child? That's what they signed up for. It's more on the adopters poor reasons for choosing to adopt. I'm not disagreeing with you, just highlighting that it's not really a solution, as the problem isn't the child.

Putting the kid into a family where they're wanted isn't a solution? Anyone who thinks they truly know what they're signed up for when adopting or birthing a kid is a liar. You can't predict what an 18 year commitment will be like to a human you barely know (adoption) or can't know (birth). If the adopted parents don't want the kid I'd much rather them gracefully bow out than force the kid into a situation that isn't…

That's what I'm getting at. You don't get to. It's the same with having a kid via birth. You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up. It's not as of the system works well, it's not as if it's all fairy tales and sunshine. The kids don't just go into another perfect situation. Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#112

Post by notch656a »

iancmceachern wrote: post #111
notch656a wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting the kid into a family where they're wanted isn't a solution? Anyone who thinks they truly know what they're signed up for when adopting or birthing a kid is a liar. You can't predict what an 18 year commitment will be like to a human you barely know (adoption) or can't know (birth). If the adopted parents don't want the kid I'd much rather them gracefully bow out than force the kid into a situation that isn't…

That's what I'm getting at. You don't get to. It's the same with having a kid via birth. You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up. It's not as of the system works well, it's not as if it's all fairy tales and sunshine. The kids don't just go into another perfect situation. Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.

There is no perfect situation. These are families that "un-adopt a child." They don't want the kid. It stands to reason the kid will (or at least may) be better off if the family that doesn't want it, can find one that does.

>Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.

You say this as if it's fact. I don't buy that a kid is always better off (or same) to be with someone who doesn't want them.

>You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up.

You do, and part of the reason for this is because society decided adoption is better than not giving a release valve for situations where parenthood isn't in the interest of the involved parties. The alternative, banning these adoptions / re-adoptions, could result greater risk of dangerous and abusive situations. If you don't allow someone to exit a situation that they see going into a train-wreck, you seal the fate of the kid and the parents going into the train-wreck; better to give these persons an out.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#113

Post by renewiltord »

mucholove wrote: post #90
notch656a wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly know what an 15+ year commitment is like before going into it? Did you have kids prior to adopting? I don't think it's weird at all some people wish they could 'return' their kids. It's virtually impossible to truly know what it's like until you're in it.

It probably isn’t weird to think about returning the kids…but it is certainly weird to do it. More than weird, it is disrespectful, cowardly, and inconsiderate. When you decide to have kids by adoption or by natural birth—they should never be abandoned. No matter what they do—you are with them for those ~18 years and hopefully many more. Unlike a spouse—kids are dependents. And your commitment is to make sure they ha…

No post body was provided.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#114

Post by arrow7000 »

rayiner wrote: post #95
Permit wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an unusually low-value comment from an otherwise high-value commenter. Do you take issue with the label “child free” or with the fact that some couples would prefer not to have children? Or maybe with the idea that an organization advocates for these people?

All of the above. I’m from a Muslim country—in Islam, getting married and having children (if you’re able) is a moral duty. I was never a practicing Muslim, but I believe that this view is basically correct. Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas…

So because you think it's a moral duty other people shouldn't get access to birth control?

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#115

Post by TameAntelope »

notch656a wrote: post #106
TameAntelope wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A kid is not better off in a home where they are wanted, necessarily. Continuity may be more important, and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.

If you simply go by the metric of putting a kid in the home where they are best off, then we can dispense with saying the biological or adopted parents are "necessarily" where the kid should be. We now know you don't think children are "necessarily" better off where they are wanted. Instead perhaps we can use your metric, and assign child to a home where they're "better off" after birth rather than to their biologica…

Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.

Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#116

Post by mucholove »

david38 wrote: post #99
mucholove wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably isn’t weird to think about returning the kids…but it is certainly weird to do it. More than weird, it is disrespectful, cowardly, and inconsiderate. When you decide to have kids by adoption or by natural birth—they should never be abandoned. No matter what they do—you are with them for those ~18 years and hopefully many more. Unlike a spouse—kids are dependents. And your commitment is to make sure they ha…

“No matter what” covers a lot of territory. What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever? Lots of children available for adoption have all kinds of problems that standard parents can’t deal with. Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.

When you are way in over your head, the way out is to push through the dip.

A startup will have that moment.

A theatre production will have that moment.

Pretty much everything will have that moment.

Kids too. My biological brother almost drowned me and we somehow worked it out.

Having kids is a very serious affair. They didnt choose to have you. You chose to have them. It is probably the most important arena in life. Time to step up to the plate.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#117

Post by rayiner »

arrow7000 wrote: post #114
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the above. I’m from a Muslim country—in Islam, getting married and having children (if you’re able) is a moral duty. I was never a practicing Muslim, but I believe that this view is basically correct. Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas…

So because you think it's a moral duty other people shouldn't get access to birth control?

Did I say anything about birth control? I’m not Catholic. I’m talking about defining “child free” as some sort of identity instead of being a disappointment to your mom quietly. It’s like building an identity around stealing other people’s lunches from the office fridge. If you’re going to do it, do it in a way that maintains plausible deniability.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#118

Post by msrenee »

notch656a wrote: post #109
iancmceachern wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I guess that's my point. Who would resent an adopted child? That's what they signed up for. It's more on the adopters poor reasons for choosing to adopt. I'm not disagreeing with you, just highlighting that it's not really a solution, as the problem isn't the child.

Putting the kid into a family where they're wanted isn't a solution? Anyone who thinks they truly know what they're signed up for when adopting or birthing a kid is a liar. You can't predict what an 18 year commitment will be like to a human you barely know (adoption) or can't know (birth). If the adopted parents don't want the kid I'd much rather them gracefully bow out than force the kid into a situation that isn't…

I feel like the solution is to screen adoptive parents much more thoroughly. It is incredibly traumatic to find out that the people you live with and depend on don't want you around any more. Whether you think the parents at that point should nut up or find a new placement for the kid, it's already messed the child up just knowing that they might lose their home and family. Why are people able to adopt 17 kids and live off the government checks? That's an actual example from this series of articles. Why is that ever allowed to happen?

If the adoptive parents are screened more thoroughly, and given resources and help getting through the tough parts, we would see a lot less of this.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#119

Post by rayiner »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #97
rayiner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of roads to get there, all valid as long as they don't cause harm in the process. Live your best life I understand the axioms that lead to this assertion, but I reject the premise. It’s a terminal-stage evolution of western individualism. You don’t just have an obligation to yourself. The “child free” deprive their parents of grand kids, their siblings’ children of nieces and nephews, their neighbors of a bust…

Children owe their parents and extended family nothing, as they had no choice being brought into the world. What they do with their life is entirely their choosing. Not everyone considers children joyful, but instead a burdensome, unnecessary obligation they can opt out of in nations with strong human rights protections. There is a difference between suicide as a species and an individual voluntarily choosing to not…

> Children owe their parents and extended family nothing, as they had no choice being brought into the world. What they do with their life is entirely their choosing.

Terminal-state Western individualism. Not everything is about “choice.” Life chooses for us, gives us roles and duties and obligations. We come into this world owing a debt to our parents and family who help care for us that we can never repay, only pay forward to the next generation.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#120

Post by notch656a »

TameAntelope wrote: post #115
notch656a wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you simply go by the metric of putting a kid in the home where they are best off, then we can dispense with saying the biological or adopted parents are "necessarily" where the kid should be. We now know you don't think children are "necessarily" better off where they are wanted. Instead perhaps we can use your metric, and assign child to a home where they're "better off" after birth rather than to their biologica…

Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea. Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.

I reject the notion continuity with an unwanting parent is always the "best thing" and I've read quite a few anecdotes from people raised in such a situation that they wished the parents who didn't want them would yield to someone who did. Sure anecdotes don't prove it's always the case, but it shows it's not never the case either. Once again, continuity can turn into a bad thing if the continuous state is "unwanted." I'd rather spend at least _some_ time with people that want me than all my time with people that don't.

>>A kid is not better off...

>Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.

You're now contradicting yourself. Earlier you were worried about the kid being where they were better off. Now you say that's a terrible idea. You lack continuity.

Post reply on HN