[notch656a]

How could you possibly know what an 15+ year commitment is like before going into it? Did you have kids prior to adopting?

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.

[mucholove]

It probably isn’t weird to think about returning the kids…but it is certainly weird to do it. More than weird, it is disrespectful, cowardly, and inconsiderate.

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.

[notch656a]

If you don't want your kids are you saying it's better off to keep them? Isn't adopting them out a way 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.

[TameAntelope]

Not wanting your kids isn’t really a feeling you should act on, nor is it a feeling society ought to let you indulge.

[thrixton]

"...a feeling society ought to let you indulge."

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.

[notch656a]

If "society" feels responsible for the welfare of these kids, then society should recognize a kid is better off in a home where they are wanted. This is so obvious I don't understand why it even needs explained.

[TameAntelope]

A kid is not better off in a home where they are wanted, necessarily.

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.

[notch656a]

If you simply go by the metric of putting a kid in the home where they are best off, then we can dispense with saying the biological or adopted parents are "necessarily" where the kid should be. We now know you don't think children are "necessarily" better off where they are wanted. Instead perhaps we can use your metric, and assign child to a home where they're "better off" after birth rather than to their biological parents or the person who wants to adopt them. This system could mean assigning the child to an entirely different country and culture at birth "in the interest of the child."

>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.

[tenuousemphasis]

Given the number of children in foster care or worse, the choice isn't between being in a home where you're wanted and one where you're not wanted, it's being in a home where you're not wanted or not in a home. Which do you think is worse for a child?

[notch656a]

False dichotomy. The unwanting family could seek a willing party to adopt the child.

[david38]

“No matter what” covers a lot of territory. What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?

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.

[mucholove]

When you are way in over your head, the way out is to push through the dip.

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.

[notch656a]

Almost being drowned once can't possibly be compared to forcing a kid to spend 18 years with parents who don't want them. I'm sure there may even be significant trauma from your near death experience, and I'm very sorry you experienced it. But the feeling a child has from a life in an unwanted family has to be, often times, as bad or worse.

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.

[dahdum]

> When you are way in over your head, the way out is to push through the dip. A startup will have that moment.

Most startups fail. Most restaurants fail. Most businesses fail.

> A theatre production will have that moment.

4/5 theatre productions lose money.

[ihateolives]

> What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?

"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.

[Scubabear68]

In our case (NJ in US), we went through extensive adopt/foster training provided by State government. They were very blunt about the range of potential issues, the fact that most adopted kids will have some level of attachment disorder, many have been abused or neglected, many will have health or other mental issues.

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.

[iancmceachern]

Wish and do are different things. This is definitely one of those things you don't start unless your willing to finish it, no matter what.

[notch656a]

If the parents don't want the child, I don't see how the child is better off in a resented home than being adopted to someone who wants them. Un-adopting into another family that wants the kid sounds a hell of a lot better than living with those who don't want you.

[iancmceachern]

But I guess that's my point. Who would resent an adopted child? That's what they signed up for. It's more on the adopters poor reasons for choosing to adopt. I'm not disagreeing with you, just highlighting that it's not really a solution, as the problem isn't the child.

[notch656a]

Putting the kid into a family where they're wanted isn't a solution?

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.

[iancmceachern]

That's what I'm getting at. You don't get to. It's the same with having a kid via birth. You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up. It's not as of the system works well, it's not as if it's all fairy tales and sunshine. The kids don't just go into another perfect situation. Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.

[notch656a]

There is no perfect situation. These are families that "un-adopt a child." They don't want the kid. It stands to reason the kid will (or at least may) be better off if the family that doesn't want it, can find one that does.

>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.

[msrenee]

I feel like the solution is to screen adoptive parents much more thoroughly. It is incredibly traumatic to find out that the people you live with and depend on don't want you around any more. Whether you think the parents at that point should nut up or find a new placement for the kid, it's already messed the child up just knowing that they might lose their home and family. Why are people able to adopt 17 kids and live off the government checks? That's an actual example from this series of articles. Why is that ever allowed to happen?

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.

[notch656a]

You would see less, but it would still happen. There has to be some release valve other than putting the kid and parents into a corner like trapped rats, where risk for exposure to neglect/child abuse/trauma skyrocket. If you simply say a kid can't be re-adopted out by someone who's had them for X time, you're basically sealing the fate of some kids.