[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.

[TameAntelope]

Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.

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.

[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.

[tenuousemphasis]

If there are SO MANY willing parties, why are the foster and adoption systems overloaded with children? Where are all these good Christian families who want to adopt these children!?

[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.