What would you prefer happen to your own children, should you (and your spouse/SO) become deceased- would you want them to be cared for by your family members or adopted out to strangers?
2007-10-11 03:56:50 · 34 answers · asked by jade_frost82 3 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Adoption
I just have to add here... I asked this question because I was curious... as this seems like such an obvious answer. Most people would prefer to keep their children in their families should something happen.
Yet so many will tell prospective mothers with hardships or those that are young that adoption is the right option. Or try to coerce those in doubt that adoption is the way to go, and the right thing to do, praise them for that decision.
Children do best with families... my point here was to put that into perspective, as it is very parodoxial that so many people seem to think this is such an obvious answer.
2007-10-12 11:45:50 · update #1
Wow! So most people on here would send their children to family themselves. And would not adopt them out. That's interesting.
And yet it's a "wonderful" choice for other people to adopt their children out to strangers. THAT'S a giving, loving choice.
Does anyone else see the paradox here?
2007-10-11 04:38:48 · answer #1 · answered by Isabel A 4 · 11⤊ 2⤋
Easy answer....my family.
Update : Sunny/Isabell?heather/and whoever else thinks you are on to something here......
just because someone choses to give their child to a family member does not make them a hypocrite because they would also adopt a baby. I know that I could NEVER give my child up for adoption. Doesnt make it wrong for others though. I dont judge as I am not walkin gin their shoes. I am not sure how these women do it. I cannot imagine being faced with that decision. It takes a very strong person to give their child to a loving home. VERY STRONG and I admire their strength with every ounce of my being.
Let me use this situation as an example, the Agency I am with just informed that a woman gave birth yesterday...didnt want to see her child and didnt care who adopted the child and did not have any interest in keeping in contact. So what do you think should happen to that child then. If I was legally ready here and next on the list I would adopt that child so fast your head would spin...doesnt mean I should be able to put my child up for adoption....AND let me add this too. If my husband and I die I would want both my children (adopted and bio) to be given to a family member. SO that is another perspective for you all.
2007-10-11 04:21:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think it depends on how old the children are when something happens to both of their biological parents. I believe that babies can adapt when they are young, we had a foster child from the time she was 7 months old to 13 months old and to that baby we were her parents, she knew that we loved her and protected her and that we were there for her, unfortunately for us the agency put her back into her biological families home where the baby is not dressed properly or fed properly and where there is drugs used in the home and the parents are constantly fighting. So that is why I believe it all depends on the childs age. I do not believe that all children belong with bio parents because as far as I am concerned this is going to screw that poor baby up. Sorry for rambling on just very hurt still.
2007-10-15 03:47:03 · answer #3 · answered by christina37isfree 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely my adoptive family members! Preferrably my adopted brother.
Having three natural children of my own and being a child of adoption, this is a no brainer! Why would anyone want to harm a child by uprooting them to strangers when they have family members who already know and love their children. If this situation were to happen (both parents die) wouldn't that be enough trauma? Why add more?
2007-10-11 08:16:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Definitely to other family members, you wouldn't want your children growing up wondering where their siblings are. And a family member would be connected to them and the children would still be close even if more than one family member had to adopt them. I am in that situation now myself, I adopted my grandson and other family members adopted the other four, they still go to the same church and school and see each other all the time. They are together at all holidays and family functions.
2007-10-11 04:07:40 · answer #5 · answered by happybidz2003 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
100% cared for by my family! My parents love my son as if he was there own kid! Sometimes it seems like I don't exist anymore because they are so crazy over him!! Anyway, they are young (44 and 43), so I think they would do a great job. Since my son is 2, he may have a hard time getting adopted (I believe most people want infants), so he would probably spend most of his childhood in foster care or an orphanage or something, which doesn't appeal to me.
2007-10-11 04:01:34 · answer #6 · answered by kariafrazier 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Easy.... family.
And I think it is REALLY interesting that most people are saying family or long-time friends.... yet they applaud a woman relinquishing her child to strangers.
So many times (not necessarily here, but all over the place) I hear people who encourage domestic infant adoption say that it's "not fair" to the baby, the grandparents, etc for the grandparents to help raise the baby while the mom gets on her feet... that it's better to just relinquish the child to strangers. It seems like people are against other family raising/helping to raise children in that kind of situation, yet when it comes down to it, if they had to choose for their OWN children, they'd choose family.
2007-10-11 12:12:26 · answer #7 · answered by concerned 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Me, personally if a family member was available, willing and healthy. We made a plan for our children when we made the decision to become parents.
I would prefer they stay in the family. However, some people may choose to ask a close friend if there is no one in your family appropriate to place the child with.
2007-10-11 07:10:55 · answer #8 · answered by Regina L 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Friends.
We have legal documents that specify our son's legal guardian should anything happen to both of us. This couple is not family nor are they strangers. They are close friends.
Fortunately we have good family members and friends who would step up in this situation. Not only would they step up but they would give him everything he needs with patience and a calm voice. I wasn't that lucky with my first child but whew, she's grown now. No more worries there.
We don't exactly fit the answers you provide. Our son would be adopted by friends,... not family, not strangers.
2007-10-11 04:35:33 · answer #9 · answered by Peace Yo 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Because my family is so messed up I have put in the will that should anything happen, my best friend will care for my 5 year old son. I don't know about strangers, and I want my son to know my family at least, and my best friend would make sure that that happened.
2007-10-11 04:05:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Just curious if the people who are answering "to my family of course!" also believe that other people's children are better off with their birth/first/natural families or adopted out to strangers in cases of adoption? If its a no brainer with your kids, why not other people's kids? Why is it not important for other adoptees to know their families like you want your kids to know yours? I'm not saying this in a rude sarcastic way, I'm sincerely curious.
Lets not forget though that even adoptees who are raised by their own families member may experience grief, sadness, confusion, anger and loss at being separated from their mother the same as any adoptee, though it is favorable to losing their family altogether.
2007-10-11 08:28:39 · answer #11 · answered by Adoptionissadnsick 4 · 9⤊ 1⤋