MODS - please delete thread

GracieP

I'm wondering if everyone here who is castigating the man for not wanting to have a relationship with the baby girl feel the same way toward women who put their child forward for a closed adoption? Because in terms of the rights of the child to know their parents there is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

The only difference at all here is that there exists no legal right for men to rescind all rights and responsibilities to the children they biologically father. Something which is highly inequitable, especially as it isn't unheard of for a woman to put her child up for adoption and the biological father to then be given full custody.

There are thousands and thousands of women who chose for their children to be adopted because it suited them best at the time. Many go on with their lives not wanting to know anything about the child and preferring to never know anything more about them, not considering them a part of their family and never wanting their existence to jeopardise their relationship with those who they do consider family. That may be hard for most people to fully understand, tbh it is for me too, but almost nobody considers those women to be lowlife scumbags of the type the OP's husband is being called repeatedly here.

It's not nice, the OP's husband has behaved badly and while I sympathise with the baby (and even her mother) I also believe that a man should have the same ability to relinquish his parental rights as a woman does. And in the long run it will only devastate the child disproportionately to the "devastation" felt by any adopted child if the child's mother allows her own disappointment and hurt to influence her daughter's feelings about her upbringing.

alias*alibi

GracieP wrote: »

I'm wondering if everyone here who is castigating the man for not wanting to have a relationship with the baby girl feel the same way toward women who put their child forward for a closed adoption? Because in terms of the rights of the child to know their parents there is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

The only difference at all here is that there exists no legal right for men to rescind all rights and responsibilities to the children they biologically father. Something which is highly inequitable, especially as it isn't unheard of for a woman to put her child up for adoption and the biological father to then be given full custody.

There are thousands and thousands of women who chose for their children to be adopted because it suited them best at the time. Many go on with their lives not wanting to know anything about the child and preferring to never know anything more about them, not considering them a part of their family and never wanting their existence to jeopardise their relationship with those who they do consider family. That may be hard for most people to fully understand, tbh it is for me too, but almost nobody considers those women to be lowlife scumbags of the type the OP's husband is being called repeatedly here.

It's not nice, the OP's husband has behaved badly and while I sympathise with the baby (and even her mother) I also believe that a man should have the same ability to relinquish his parental rights as a woman does. And in the long run it will only devastate the child disproportionately to the "devastation" felt by any adopted child if the child's mother allows her disappointment and hurt to influence her daughter's feelings about her upbringing.

Great post and certainly some points there I never considered. Yes I wonder if those who have called my husband lowlife scum would dare to label a woman who has given their child up for adoption in the same vein...

cloudy-day

alias*alibi wrote: »

Honestly I'm not angry; I'm tired and disheartened that dispite me saying I'm not leaving my husband, given the reasons he left the OW in the lurch, why he can't face even seeing the OW let alone speak to her the same people keep harping on about how sad it is for the other child. For christs sake; yes it's a !!!!!! situation, it's not going to change anytime soon and as a woman and mother of course I feel a little bad about the way things have turned out for an innocent baby. But ultimately she is nothing to do with me and I refuse to pressurise my husband into doing something he is not comfortable with or can face at the moment. That's what people need to read and digest and accept. The baby has her mother and the rest of her mothers family around her so I doubt she will go short of love and affection. My priorities are my family; me, my daughter and my husband and that's what I choose to focus on.

Then please walk away from this thread.

You have been given some great (and some not so great) advice. Its up to you what - if anything - you do with it.

Picking at this thread like a dirty scab is not helping your state of mind - which can't be great given all that you and your daughter have been through.

I'm away now too.

Person_one

Since the social stigma and practical difficulties of being a young or single mother have slightly reduced, the numbers of newborn babies being voluntarily given up for adoption has drastically reduced. Most children in care are older, and most adopted babies under a year old were removed from their mothers for their safety.

Alias*Alibi might already know that, as she works in Social Services.

Seanymph

It's completely different.

Adoption is rescinding rights and responsibilities and allowing someone else to assume those rights and responsibilities.

Abandonment is not assuming the responsibilities with no one else assuming that role. It leaves a hole.

clearingout

GracieP wrote: »

I'm wondering if everyone here who is castigating the man for not wanting to have a relationship with the baby girl feel the same way toward women who put their child forward for a closed adoption? Because in terms of the rights of the child to know their parents there is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

The only difference at all here is that there exists no legal right for men to rescind all rights and responsibilities to the children they biologically father. Something which is highly inequitable, especially as it isn't unheard of for a woman to put her child up for adoption and the biological father to then be given full custody.

There are thousands and thousands of women who chose for their children to be adopted because it suited them best at the time. Many go on with their lives not wanting to know anything about the child and preferring to never know anything more about them, not considering them a part of their family and never wanting their existence to jeopardise their relationship with those who they do consider family. That may be hard for most people to fully understand, tbh it is for me too, but almost nobody considers those women to be lowlife scumbags of the type the OP's husband is being called repeatedly here.

It's not nice, the OP's husband has behaved badly and while I sympathise with the baby (and even her mother) I also believe that a man should have the same ability to relinquish his parental rights as a woman does. And in the long run it will only devastate the child disproportionately to the "devastation" felt by any adopted child if the child's mother allows her own disappointment and hurt to influence her daughter's feelings about her upbringing.

that's an interesting take on things and one I'm going to have to personally mull over for a while. I wouldn't berate a woman for giving up a child, no. I would consider it her right to be honest. But you're right, men don't get that opportunity - they either live with it or they walk away. Hmmm....

Welshwoofs

elisebutt65 wrote: »

Sigh!!!!
How about someone answers the question - How does the OP cope?

Actually lots of people have given advice on that. But if their advice doesn't suit then I'd suggest rewinding to Page 1 where the Op reports the advice her Mother gave her:

" All she keeps saying is you took him back so you have to suck it up. "
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3568737

Person_one

clearingout wrote: »

that's an interesting take on things and one I'm going to have to personally mull over for a while. I wouldn't berate a woman for giving up a child, no. I would consider it her right to be honest. But you're right, men don't get that opportunity - they either live with it or they walk away. Hmmm....

Unfortunately, there are some aspects of biology that we can't change or legislate for. If a man wants to be absolutely sure he won't be a father he should abstain from sex. If he's willing to accept a small risk, he should be absolutely religious about condom use (that covers the STI issue for the most part too).

If he's not really bothered he can just take the word of the woman when she says she's on the pill, but if he doesn't take any responsibility at conception he really can't complain after the birth.

GracieP

Person_one wrote: »

Since the social stigma and practical difficulties of being a young or single mother have slightly reduced, the numbers of newborn babies being voluntarily given up for adoption has drastically reduced. Most children in care are older, and most adopted babies under a year old were removed from their mothers for their safety.

Alias*Alibi might already know that, as she works in Social Services.

The amount of women who do it isn't really relevant, though it's interesting that you didn't acknowledge the other major reason for the drop in the amount of baby's placed for adoption, which is easily available, safe abortions.

The relatively generous social benefits and availability of free medical care available to single parents also clearly plays a part as infant adoptions are much more common in non-welfare, non-social medicine countries like the US, where similarly liberal values exist. But we don't consider American women who give their babies up for adoption to be lowlife scum either.

alias*alibi

Person_one wrote: »

Since the social stigma and practical difficulties of being a young or single mother have slightly reduced, the numbers of newborn babies being voluntarily given up for adoption has drastically reduced. Most children in care are older, and most adopted babies under a year old were removed from their mothers for their safety.

Alias*Alibi might already know that, as she works in Social Services.

My husband therefore gave up his 'rights and responsibilities' by walking away then. Honestly; not the same thing? Seriously??? A woman voluntarily gives up her child and that's ok; but a man to choose to walk away from a child he also doesn't want is scum? I think you need to rethink your idea on that. Totally hypocritical.