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.
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 have someone they can depend on.
Seems to me it's more "disrespectful/weird/cowardly/inconsiderate" to make some kid suffer for years living in a home where they're unwanted.
Everyone has a limit, until you've been pushed past it (and even after), you don't know exactly where it is, and of course it can change.
Every child will have a different impact on your limits, I can certainly understand how a person could be pushed past their limits, by their own child and more-so a relatively unknown child, and I have a lot of sympathy for people in those situations (even the most horrific ones).
As for "society", "they", give parents very little support, it may be different for foster parents but without researching much, I don't have much faith.
Whether society "ought" to be setup this way, that's a hard one, make it too easy and we self-select for a bunch of massive families with an endless bill of support.
My feel is we're erring too much on the side of a lack of support, especially less "social" (e.g. scandinavian countries) focused countries such as USA, UK, AU.
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.
>Continuity may be more important
Continuity is not the only factor at play here. Continuity can turn into a bad thing where you're continuously somewhere where you aren't wanted.
> and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
The article is about families "un-adopt" a child. It's intellectually dishonest, and ignorant, to make this statement in the context of an article where it's so incredibly into the boolean "false" state of wanting.
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.
>>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.
Your idea of moving children from home to home in a search for their "best" home is not a viable one, and you know that. The fact that you continue to argue is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally, not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best of
Again you contradict yourself. Earlier you were worried about what's "best." Now you claim you're not. The fact that you continue to contradict yourself is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally (nor with 'continuity'), not not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Spending a childhood with a family that doesn't want you presents the possibility of higher "problematic damage" than having the option to move to one that does.
Sometimes adoption process fails, and the family can't handle the kid, perhaps even after years in that family. You can't just shut them in together like trapped rats with no escape hatch to seek another family to adopt so the kid has some chance of being with a family that wants them.
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.
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.
If the board or the executive of a startup sees there is no chance of success with the executive, that person ought to bow out or be replaced so the company can have a chance with someone who can and wants to turn it around. If the startup becomes unviable and bankrupt, sometimes it's better to bow out and gracefully transfer the assets to a more viable executive and/or business rather than force something that isn't going to work.
I'm not saying that people should give up easily, but I think it's brave that some families recognize the better option for everyone is to re-adopt the kid a family that wants them rather than force them to live somewhere that's headed towards a train-wreck.
Most startups fail. Most restaurants fail. Most businesses fail.
> A theatre production will have that moment.
4/5 theatre productions lose money.
"Whatever" covers a lot of territory. Do you think "standard" children of "standard" parents don't do that? Where do you think all the school bullies and little entitled pricks and princesses come from? Some of them even manage to get elected in the office for some bizarre reason.
> Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
Abandoning your child is already a widespread thing, you just don't even think about it that way. It's when one of the parents walks away because they're "in way over my head". It's essentially cancelling the contract and saying fuck this, I can't do it.
So I really don't know where are you going with this.
We were prepared for some pretty difficult potential scenarios.
As it was, we got very, very lucky. Our kids are incredibly healthy. They did suffer neglect and abuse (the latter in foster care), but we somehow handled it. The general rule is the number of years of neglect or abuse is the number of years the kids will take to recover. It was right on the money for us, at 13, our son who was adopted at 7, is finally showing signs of complete normalcy.
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 working out.
>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.
Simply framing it as any sort of 'not expected' misrepresents the array of situations here.
It may be 'wrong' but at least everyone is better off. Part of life is knowing when to do something others consider 'wrong' so you can achieve the outcome that is 'right.' We shouldn't just shut off the ability to re-adopt out a kid and seal them in with an unwanting family like a trapped rat.
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.
It seems like this often happens with parents who have had enough issues with the authorities in the past that going through more legitimate avenues would trigger an investigation that would likely see all of their children removed from the home. Which is why I think the root of the problem is people who are not qualified being allowed to adopt children, often way more than any reasonable person could hope to care for.