Do I have SIL's child? **AN UPDATE**

happy35

I would hate to have to make this decision, but after weighing up everything that has been said I think it would have to be a no from me.

I would struggle to let a member of my family gointo the care system but if you were to adopt I think there would be too much pressure on you with the constant interference from other parties. As a baby he will have loads of people wanting to adopt him and give him a good upbringing without struggling to deal with the biological parents.

I do think your SIL should be getting some support from somewhere to deal with life skills as she doesnt want to keep on having children she cant cope with to then have to go through the upset of having them taken away.

Good luck and hope you find the strength to do whatever you and your OH truly think is the right decision for your family and this baby

edgex

gizmo111 wrote: »

So a 19 year old girl with mental health issues who has most likely either been through the care system or suffered some form of childhood abuse and at the very least poor parenting ' is not worth thinking about' - :mad: Attitudes like this help create these ongoing situations and cycles - this girl needs help to come to terms with her past and future - however you look at it she has lost 5 children, and whatever she has done or not done she will always be their mother even though she cannot be a full time mum and have them in her care. She very much needs people to 'think about her' she obviously cares for this child and most likely the others as she is trying to keep this one in a place where she will see her grow and be a small part of that. She needs support to help her understand that having a child every year is not the answer to her problems.

Some years ago I took on a case similar where 6 children had been removed she was pregnant and after I removed child no 7 at birth the 25 yr old mother said she will keep on having children until SS let her keep one - I got her some grief counselling and other agencies to do some work with her - she had no 8 but through that pregnancy realised that she had to change and face her demons, having children to fulfil her emotional void was not a solution as each time it caused her more loss and pain - no 8 was removed but she had no more after. 6 yrs on she has a job and seems reasonably settled but she will never get over losing 8 children.

word for the day;
context

edgex wrote: »

do you honestly think she should have any access to a child?

if social services have had to remove so many children from HER care, why would you even think of creating a situation that would give her access to one of them?

frankly, that your even considering it, to the point of asking so much about it, is plain stupid!


the childs interests must come first;
not yours, not your moms, not your SIL (who should in fact be completely ignored as she's not worth thinking about)

in this particular situation, the SIL has no input, social services & the courts have essentially already decided that. the children have been removed from her care, & she is only allowed supervised visits.

the OP's only interest should be what is best for the child, & if the decision has already been made that the mother having unsupervised access to the children is not in the childrens best interests, why does the OP think they know better?


also, the OP already has her own family, so after this child has been dealt with, they are surely her priority?
or are you suggesting that she not have them, & herself, as her priority?

& its not even her real SIL, its someone that the OP's brother happens to have fathered a child with.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

edgex wrote: »

word for the day;
context



in this particular situation, the SIL has no input, social services & the courts have essentially already decided that. the children have been removed from her care, & she is only allowed supervised visits.

the OP's only interest should be what is best for the child, & if the decision has already been made that the mother having unsupervised access to the children is not in the childrens best interests, why does the OP think they know better?


also, the OP already has her own family, so after this child has been dealt with, they are surely her priority?
or are you suggesting that she not have them, & herself, as her priority?

& its not even her real SIL, its someone that the OP's brother happens to have fathered a child with.

Just wanted to point a few things out. Firstly - I have NEVER said I would allow unsupervised access. What I have said ALL along is that the ourts have said they ARE allowed access providing its supervised so I wouldnt be able to cut them out of the childs life - they would always be the parents - and this would cause problems.

Also - Where did you get the "not even real SIL" from? :question:

bikerqueen

I 100% think you have made the right decision.

jellyhead

edgex wrote: »

& its not even her real SIL, its someone that the OP's brother happens to have fathered a child with.

So what if they're not married - it's still her brother's child, therefore it's her niece or nephew?

I think OP's gut instinct is the right one for her. If it were me I'd want to take the child, but I suspect my husband would say no. It's a difficult situation.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

jellyhead wrote: »

So what if they're not married - it's still her brother's child, therefore it's her niece or nephew?

I think OP's gut instinct is the right one for her. If it were me I'd want to take the child, but I suspect my husband would say no. It's a difficult situation.

They're definatley married - i was made to wear the most ugliest bridesmaid dress you've ever seen in your life lol

I did see them both earlier and nothing was said about the child so i guess they've given up on asking now.

gizmo111

edgex wrote: »

word for the day;
context



in this particular situation, the SIL has no input, social services & the courts have essentially already decided that. the children have been removed from her care, & she is only allowed supervised visits.

the OP's only interest should be what is best for the child, & if the decision has already been made that the mother having unsupervised access to the children is not in the childrens best interests, why does the OP think they know better?


also, the OP already has her own family, so after this child has been dealt with, they are surely her priority?
or are you suggesting that she not have them, & herself, as her priority?

& its not even her real SIL, its someone that the OP's brother happens to have fathered a child with.

What exactly do you think a supervised contact is? It means that any responsible adult (eg the OP) has to be present when the parent sees the child, it doesn't mean that the 'parent is not worth bothering with'

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

gizmo111 wrote: »

What exactly do you think a supervised contact is? It means that any responsible adult (eg the OP) has to be present when the parent sees the child, it doesn't mean that the 'parent is not worth bothering with'

To be honest, looking at edgex's posts on this thread - they dont think that SIL and brother should see them AT ALL regardless what anyone else thinks . . . .

meritaten

Mimi - you have done the right thing by the child and your own family IMHO. I would just like to say that I wish you all the best and your lovely OH too (any guy who would back his wife up in this situation the way yours did is a Gem!). lots of luck with having your own baby and I think its sad that your SIL has had her children removed under these circumstances - there should have been more support and help for her! Poor thing - I do hope she finds herself in a better situation in future.
merit

RacyRed

Just wanted to second what meritaten said.

Well done on reaching a difficult decision Mimi. I'm glad to hear that your brother and SIL seem to have accepted it, I hope your Mum does too.

Good luck Mimi. I'll be watching out for you on the pregnancy threads