Ok, this question is purely out of curiosity - no offense intended?

Question

Is it moral for a couple to adopt a child, raise it for a few months and then return it back to the center because one of the parents was not able to get along with the child well?

Answer 1

Hi Crazytamil,

I'm assuming you do not mean to offend so I'll answer your question.

When a child is placed with a family, there has already been some screening done to hopefully make a proper match that will meet the child's needs to begin with. But the adoption is not final yet. There is a minimum waiting time of 6 months of the child living with the new family before they can go to court and have that adoption finalized by a judge.

No, it is not moral to purposely disrupt an adoption, as the child has already sufferred one major loss in his/her young life. Adoption is meant to be permanent and couples seeking to adopt are aware of that. Their goal is almost always to have a permanent new member added to their family. Although disruption does happen, it is not good for the child. However, that being said, if one of the parents truly feels they are not equipped for whatever reason to meet the needs of the child, despite taking advantage of help and services offered, then yes, it would be in the child's best interests to find another home where the child will be nurtured and loved by both parents. Better that than to be abused in that home.

If that did happen & I were the social worker with that case, I would think long & hard before considering placement for another child in that home.

Thank you for asking. Hope that answered your question.

julie j
reunited adoptee

Answer 2

In most cases, no it is not moral or ethical or responsible or loving....I could go on an on and on.

However, there are few (and I mean few) cases out there where a child is brought into the home and found to be abusive to other children. My husband (a police officer) just had a case where a foster child was molesting another child in the home. In "that" type of case, YES - removing the child from the home is in the best interest of everyone.

That being said, I think that if the child was adopted, then the parents still have a right to obtain help for the child, provide support, etc - not just "give him back". They should treat the situation just as though it was a bio kid with the same problem. You wouldn't just stop loving your child because they did something horribly wrong - you would want to help them in any way possible.

Foster care offers an entirely different set of challenges so I can see in the cases like I described above, such as abuse, where a child may be put back into the foster care system until a more suitable placement is found and the child is receiving help.

But for the most part, YES "giving back" a child is immoral. Children are not possessions that can be "returned" because they didn't work.

Answer 3

You didn't indicate the age of the child, but I'm looking at the child being a baby. Somebody before this adoption took place didn't do a very good job at what type of household the child was going into,and should be fired.
You know some might see it as a moral issue, which in no way am I saying it isn't, but that child will be far better off in a home that it will be loved, not abused after a certain amount of time.
My hope would be that these people never have another chance to be involved with another child to be adopted. They really need to satisfy each others needs and abandon the idea of having a child in their home.

Answer 4

I personally think they should have given it more time. I believe most states have a waiting period before you can legally adopt. This is in place for these situations. They want to make sure it's going to work out for the child and parent.
I'm not sure it's a question of morality. Maybe this was best for the child in the long run.

Answer 5

That would be a horrible, awful situation. The child would likely be badly scarred by that, and children who have been adopted already have had one loss, that of their first family, so adding another loss of a family would make it that much more likely that the child (and later the adult), would have a very hard time forming healthy attachments to others. A good life for this child might take years of incredible therapy along with incredible adoptive parents willing to go through the tough stuff -- and even then I would expect scars.

But, well, as awful as it would be, imagine how much worse it would be for the child to be kept in that family where they were clearly not wanted. That is a recipe for certain disaster, and much more likely to result in long term suffering for the child. Imagine spending your whole time growing up knowing that your family had tried to "return" you.

The only moral way to resolve this is if it had not happened in the first place. Adoptive parents (at least in the USA) need much more intense scrutiny before they are allowed to adopt. There should be psychological testing, intensive training on issues faced by adopted children and adoptive families, counseling about infertility or desires to rescue a child, and on and on. In the majority of cases this does not occur now in the US, though through the foster care system it can be quite a bit better.

Answer 6

OK when you give birth to a child and take it home and after a few months of crying and changing diapers you figure it's too much. Is it moral to take it back to the hospital? That is almost the same thing. Children are not easy be it your blood or not. But what kind of parent would return their child for any reason. That is what parenting is not getting along? Wait till their teenagers. Than you want to strangle them. Jk but you get the picture. Of course it is in moral and may I add cruel adding insult to injury. A child that has already been rejected by its natural parent that is Sad.

Answer 7

Well if they commit them self to adopt a child , than they have to face the problem and try to solve try to solve the problem, if they send back the child to the center , which is means they are not a maturate people , as woman being there is lot of problem in our daily life and we have to face the problem in challenging way ; once we adopt any kids make sure we can give them the best if we can't better don't adopt

Answer 8

Personally, I feel this would be wrong. Children are not like a shirt you get at wal-mart to be returned if it dosen't "feel right"

If a couple is considering adopting a child, especially one that owuld be old enough to "not get along with"; they need to be absolutley 100% SURE they can commit to this child. If BOTH paretns are not 100% sure then they do not need to adopt.

What happens if a couple gives birth to a child and then one parent "can't get along" with it? You don't consider calling up an adoption agency and putting that child up for adoption. The same should be true for a child you adopt.

JMHO

Answer 9

No, it's not!!!Most people who adopt would not even think of doing this. But unfortunately there are few like this couple that should not be allowed to adopt. Some how they aced the home study and all the questions poised to them from the adoption agency, to be able to adopt. What really gets me is that people like this dutch couple make adoption look bad and cast a bad light on all adoptive parents. Which is really sad because most adoptive parents adopt for the right reasons.

Answer 10

Definitely not OK. The Creator does not let you choose your child or how it will behave, or which of the two parents it will bond with first. If you give that child unconditional love, as you should your own and show them the right way of things and give them respect, they will grow into a good person that will love you as much as your own child would. This person would seem selfish and uncaring, perhaps the whole reason they must look to adoption instead of being blessed with children.