liz3564 wrote:Eric....If your friend and his wife have literally had custody of the baby since birth, then they have bonded with the baby.
They are the only parents that baby has known.
This bonding process is a very strong legitimate part of child development. I'm sure that a pediatrician, child psychologist, or both, would be able to help testify in conjunction with some of this type of research as well.
Your friend will be in my prayers.
Amen to everything you said, Liz. :-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I don't know the circumstances of the LDS adoptions. If your friend had an attorney for the adoption, that's who would be in the best position to assist him now. I'm so sorry that he has to deal with this type of uncertainty. I do think the outcome will be that the baby will remain with the family based on exactly the issues that Liz addressed regarding bonding, though other outcomes are possible, and because the mother's position seems a little sketchy to me based on what you've shared. Yes, she is the baby's bio Mom, but for all intents and purposes with regards to the child's sense of well being/psychological/emotional health, the baby belongs to and is bonded to your friend and his wife. They are his parents.
I do wish their family well.
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I'm wondering if anyone here has any advice I can pass on to my friend, who really is a good dad and would be devastated if he lost their son whom they've had and bonded with for several months now.
Give him back. Several months is not long enough imho. It would certainly be sad for the child if the mother is not prepared and/or not active in the Church, but the bottom line is that she is his mother. I don't like the idea of giving babies up for adoption under duress in which these cases almost always are. I don't believe LDS Family Services is always right.
Of course that's based only on the sparse information you've given. I could be pursuaded otherwise in my opinion pending other details.
A continuance was filed Friday. The birth mom is basically claiming that she never wanted to put the baby up for adoption and LDS Family Services forced her to sign the waiver before she had a chance to think about it. She's going to lose, I think, but I don't really think there can be a winner here. I feel for the birth mom, and I feel for my friends. I actually blame LDS Family Services, and that's not for any ideological reasons. They created this monster.
bcspace wrote:Give him back. Several months is not long enough imho. It would certainly be sad for the child if the mother is not prepared and/or not active in the Church, but the bottom line is that she is his mother. I don't like the idea of giving babies up for adoption under duress in which these cases almost always are. I don't believe LDS Family Services is always right.
Of course that's based only on the sparse information you've given. I could be pursuaded otherwise in my opinion pending other details.
I agree with you. I could never tell them that, but I think giving the child back is the right thing to do. I kind of wish they would so they can begin grieving.
Eric wrote:A continuance was filed Friday. The birth mom is basically claiming that she never wanted to put the baby up for adoption and LDS Family Services forced her to sign the waiver before she had a chance to think about it. She's going to lose, I think, but I don't really think there can be a winner here. I feel for the birth mom, and I feel for my friends. I actually blame LDS Family Services, and that's not for any ideological reasons. They created this monster.
I'm so sorry...for everyone involved. It's awful for your friends and the birth mother. If the birth mother really was unduly pressured, then LDS Family Services was way out of line.
They actually do really good work on the whole in this area.
This situation sounds like a nightmare. I don't even know what to say.
bcspace wrote:Give him back. Several months is not long enough imho. It would certainly be sad for the child if the mother is not prepared and/or not active in the Church, but the bottom line is that she is his mother. I don't like the idea of giving babies up for adoption under duress in which these cases almost always are.
I disagree. Unmarried people have no business reproducing. LDS Social Services was right to pressure her to give up the kid, since she can't provide a loving home and a two-parent family to the kid the same way Eric's friends can.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Dr. Shades wrote:I disagree. Unmarried people have no business reproducing. LDS Social Services was right to pressure her to give up the kid, since she can't provide a loving home and a two-parent family to the kid the same way Eric's friends can.
You're right as far as my friends are concerned, but I disagree in principle. One good parent is much better than two lousy married people. I certainly would be much better off had my mom continued to raise me alone.
