gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Of course, if someone stole their CAR, and sold it to someone else, do you think they would accpet, "Well, the buyer has REALLY grown attached to the car, so we are going to let them keep it..."
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20052
|
|
"Thank you! What amazes me is that so many are like "well the CHILD wants..." and these same people if it were a child not "wanting" to go to visitation would be all manner of up in arms over it and them NOT having a voice."
Apples and rocks. Different circumstances warrant different answers.
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Certainly NOT different at all. It's allowing the choice of whether to be with the PARENT. Period. It's exactly the same thing. Absolutely. No doubt. Sooo, you don't allow a 12 year old to decide not to have visitation, you ALSO don't allow them to decide that they're not going to LIVE WITH their BIOLOGICAL PARENT WHO HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY DENIED THEIR CHILD.
Period. Absolutely. Anything else is people justifying it through their own selfish wants.
Child belongs to dad. Child has ZERO SAY in the matter. And neither should the adoptive parents. Who, again, I'm suspecting did NOT do a "traditional" adoption.. that's how this managed to even occur in the first place.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20052
|
|
"Certainly NOT different at all. It's allowing the choice of whether to be with the PARENT. Period. It's exactly the same thing. Absolutely. No doubt. Sooo, you don't allow a 12 year old to decide not to have visitation, you ALSO don't allow them to decide that they're not going to LIVE WITH their BIOLOGICAL PARENT WHO HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY DENIED THEIR CHILD.
Period. Absolutely. Anything else is people justifying it through their own selfish wants."
You don't see a difference, I do. I find it selfish for a bioparent to take the child by force from the only family he/she's ever known.
"Child belongs to dad. Child has ZERO SAY in the matter. And neither should the adoptive parents. Who, again, I'm suspecting did NOT do a "traditional" adoption.. that's how this managed to even occur in the first place."
I don't consider a child property that "belongs to" anyone, maybe that's why our opinions vary.
|
Spring
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7972
|
|
Agree with Sharon, there is a very big difference. This is about what is best for the child, not the parents. It would be a huge upheaval in the childs life to be taken from its adoptive parents home all because someone says "it was mine first". If the child is comfortable and the home is stable...the child should stay. As Gecko suggests, the Dad can be introduced and that relatiionship worked with through counselling. The child is innocent, just as much as the bio parent and the child's rights should come first. If I were the bio parent, this is what I would feel is best for my child.
--------------------
Never consider the possibility of failure; as long as you persist, you will be successful.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
But IS it really in the best interest of the child? Is teaching the child that THEIR comforts and wants are paramount REALLY what is best for them? That they should get what they want?
The results of doing WHATEVER it takes to be "in the best interest of the child" has resulted in a generation of SPOILED children who expect their whims to be catered to. WOuldn't it be better to teach children that sometimes OTHER peoples rights and feelings and considerations have to come FIRST?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
I agree with you 100% Gr8!
|
Spring
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7972
|
|
Sure...but is uprooting the child's entire life fair? There are plenty of ways to teach a child to consider someone else's rights and feelings, without teaching the child that their rights and feelings don't count. An adult has way more coping skills than a 12 year old hitting puberty.
--------------------
Never consider the possibility of failure; as long as you persist, you will be successful.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20052
|
|
"The results of doing WHATEVER it takes to be "in the best interest of the child" has resulted in a generation of SPOILED children who expect their whims to be catered to. "
Catering to a child's every whim does indeed create spoiled children, whether it's getting the latest iphone or the most expensive winter coat. Catering to them, creating a spoiled child, has never been in the child's best interest.
"WOuldn't it be better to teach children that sometimes OTHER peoples rights and feelings and considerations have to come FIRST? "
In general, yes... I just don't agree that this is one of those "sometimes".
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
The child was obtained ILLEGALLY. End of story. What the child "wants" or whatever is totally irrelevant. And one would THINK that the child would/should understand that they belong to their BIO PARENT, NOT the adoptive ones.
It's really that simple. Sorry Johnny, here's what happened, and you're going to go with your father, where you are legally and MORALLY supposed to be. We understand the importance of your adoptive parents and we'll support a continued relationship with them.. on some level. However, this is what NEEDS to happen. Period.
Children are supposed to do what they are TOLD TO DO. Period. Now, the adults can EASE the transition, they can make it better, they can make it WORK.
but seriously, it's astonishing to me the thought processes that think it's ok to leave child with adoptive parents. Johnny belongs with bio dad. Legally and morally. And Johnny's "feelings" aren't really a factor, nor SHOULD they be. Johnny is 12. Johnny doesn't have a voice.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
