Relinquished baby

[Wobblypark]

I've name changed for this as it might be identifying.

We've been linked to a young baby who is being relinquished for adoption and seems very certain about her decision (has had no contact since birth etc)

Birth father isn't named on birth cert and so has no parental responsibility. BM claims he knows about her plans to have the baby adopted but won't give permission for adoption services to contact him or any of her other family.

SS have got a court date for a judge to confirm that it's ok to go ahead with the adoption without his input.

My question is: can BM really do this? What if he doesn't actually know about the child? It's not an area I've ever given much thought to. Anyone out there with any knowledge/experience?

The evidence says that children do better given the opportunity to grow up in their birth family. It's the RIGHT of the child to do so, unless unsafe. (UN rights of the child).

Coral and I aren't spouting something controversial. Blood is thicker than water.

Adoption doesn't fly in the face of that. Adoption is a good option if that is not possible.

I think the BF could put forward another relative, even in the case of relinquishment. It is the right of the child to grow up in their birth family if that is safe. BM does not have any rights to overrule the child's rights. BM only has responsibility to ensure the child is cared for.

If you go down your line of thinking, Italian, perhaps everyone should have a "parenting ability assessment", and those in the bottom quartile have to give their children to infertile people in higher quartiles? Our society, legal system etc, firmly believes that children do best when raised, not by the richest, or best, or most educated parents. But raised in their families. Their birth families. Adoption is always second/ third/ even fourth best. Sorry.

And, yes, Italian, the courts would retain the right to overrule your wishes in the best interests of the child, and to promote the rights of the child. I'm surprised you've come through the adoption process, and could think it would be any other way.

With donor gametes, the alternative to being raised by non-bio family is to not exist at all, which is completely different. The ethics of gamete donation is a separate topic, and an ethical debate for another day.

Rosie your posts sound a bit aggressive towards me.

It is my understanding, based on experience I know of, that birth father does not get the option to put forward family to bring up his child on his behalf if child is relinquished.

It is for OP to work out whether this is true. I don't need to defend this view or otherwise. I am simply telling OP because my understanding.

I firmly believe that yes children do
generally fare best when brought up by birth parents, yes adoption is never a first choice if birth parent/s is/are safe and able.

Ludicrous idea to evaluate all parents and a straw man in this debate.

This debate is whether an aunt or uncle or cousin or sibling of a child who perhaps has no prior experience of child would do better than an adopter. I think probably there is little specific evidence for this. If so, where is it.

Parents make decisions on own children (you have said so yourself) so a mum relinquishing should have decision on her child or a parent making provision for what should happen upon their death.

If a parent doesn't choose wider family I think there could be a very real reason why a parent has not chosen to select wider family.

Anyway, since you are surprised I've not learnt more after being part of the adoption system I think I'll leave it there Rosie.

Ps OP the reference I am making is to if a child has been placed for adoption already. You would need to check out what applies before, after during etc. It may differ.

Rosie ps anyone's rights to parent their child can be removed but only if the choices made are bad for the child.

If my choice to place children close to their home with know friends as opposed to going to family (potentially far away) then the court may well uphold such a choice.

I firmly believe it is all about the best interests of the child and as you rightly point out we do not access all parents so we trust 90 plus percent (or whatever the the figure is) to make those choices.

My understanding is that there is evidence that children do do better with aunties, uncles, cousins, etc, and that is why kinship care has become more common. I would imagine due to identity issues, but it could be more primal than that. Humans are programmed to be cared for in kinship groups, smell alone tells a baby who is kin, and who isn't.

I'm sorry you feel I'm being aggressive towards you, personally. I disagree with your idea that biological ties don't matter, I think the evidence is there that normal family ties do matter, very much, and they shouldn't be severed, unless in the best interests of the child, no matter what the parents want. Children have a right to their family, as long as that is safe. Adoption is second best.

The court will look at what is best for the child. If BF turns up, and says his brother can raise the child, I would imagine a judge would find it difficult to justify allowing the child to be adopted by people outside the family, if a family member wished to. BF can easily apply for PR, and BM's PR is equal, but not superior.

"I'm sorry you feel I'm being aggressive towards you, personally."

Thank you for your apology I can be a little sensitive at times.

"I disagree with your idea that biological ties don't matter," I never said they did not matter. I said blood is not thicker than water. I do think biological ties matter. Which is why when a parent chooses not to go with those ties to me that really does say something.

"unless in the best interests of the child" I think we are in agreement for the most part because we are are both placing the child at the center (IMHO that is what we both want to do).

I agree "Adoption is second best." But sometimes that is actually best for the child, in which case it does cease to be second best for that child.

This is the crux... "The court will look at what is best for the child. If BF turns up, and says his brother can raise the child, I would imagine a judge would find it difficult to justify allowing the child to be adopted by people outside the family, if a family member wished to. BF can easily apply for PR, and BM's PR is equal, but not superior."

This is the bit where we disagree. If the child had theoretically already been placed with an adoptive family and began to bond and attach, then to be forced to leave that family and go to a total stranger just because there was a blood tie would be, IMHO wrong.

But as I have said repeatedly it is not my view that matters, it is the law. The OP needs to work out what he legal situation is and what is most likely to happen even in spite of the law, again IMHO.

If the brother turns up before the child is placed, it may be all different. I do not know (legally I mean).

You may believe that is wrong, but there have been cases where judges decide that is the law. Babies have been removed from placements, because BF, or his family, come forward late.

Rosie "Babies have been removed from placements, because BF, or his family, come forward late."

You seem to want to argue about this, I have not disputed birth fathers have rights if they come forward. The debate is specifically when a child has been relinquished and put in an adoptive placement whether extended birth family have rights to disrupt the adoption.

Just out of interest Rosie how do you think the blood is thicker than water would work the other way round? If I told my adopted son, actually you don't mean as much to me as a child who I am biologically related to? This is why I think adoption messes with the whole genetic link thing because I have a genetic link to my nephews and not my son, but my nephews are 'just' my sister's kids, I love them but they are not my sons! For ds, our relationship is mother and son.

Anyway, I don't want to argue this anymore, I've made my points for the OP. I've admitted I can't prove a thing. I've urged OP to seek professional and non-biased legal advice. I think I am done.

I will bow out now. OP feel free to PM if you wish to. All the very best for your adoption journey whether it is with this child or not. I really wish you, and this baby, all the best.

Have PMd you, hope that's ok!

suesspiciousminds.com/?s=Relinquished

Thought this might be helpful also.

The evidence about whether children do better in kinship care is very mixed - the law is based on rights not outcomes...

greengoose that is really interesting.

One of the links on another page was broken but led to this...

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1147

Wow, thanks so much greengoose and italian ... just been having a good look at those links. I had no idea what a tricky area it was!

I've cared for a relinquished baby - mum wanted no one else assessed - judge over ruled - DNA HAD to be done to prove father and then both bm and bf family assessed to see if baby could go to birth family. Hope your cases is more straight forward than mine as it was a nightmare (sorry I know that's not what you want to hear)

Twopots may i ask, did you adopt the baby or foster him/her and did you get them back, or did they go to birth family.

I wonder if the law is applied differently in different places.

I find it totally wrong that a mother relinquishing her baby should have to given any information about her family or birth father if he is not in the baby's life.

doncasterchildcare.proceduresonline.com/chapters/p_proc_relinq_babies.html

"The mother is not obliged to provide details of the birth father or of her extended family. Where the mother is clear that she does not wish her family to know about the baby, there is no duty on the local authority to attempt to trace them or to inform them. Statutory Guidance (Chapter 2, paragraph 35) suggests that the AA should consider whether the father has established ‘family life’ with the mother and child, however, the principle that the child’s welfare is paramount. The mother’s wishes for her child and her right to confidentiality, and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in placing the child for adoption, are all factors to be considered.

Where the LA is aware of the identity of a birth father without Parental Responsibility, there is a duty to consider whether to seek his views. If the mother does not wish him to know about the baby, her reasons for this wish must be very carefully considered. In any such case, legal advice must be sought immediately.

In the very rare case where there is a father with Parental Responsibility, his formal consent to the placement for adoption must be obtained. An immediate referral to CAFCASS must be made.

In all cases where a mother wishes to relinquish her baby, as soon as the baby is born, she should be asked to sign a form giving consent to placement for adoption, (‘A1, Agreement to place a child for adoption where the child is less than six weeks old’). She should not be asked to sign a form giving consent to Accommodation under section 20 Children Act."

Italian...i come from a different angle from you.
I think it is right that a BM cannot relinqish a baby and refuse to disclose who BF is.
I just find it so unfair on BF and his family....and more importantly I find it grossly unfair on the child to deny him the chance to be raised in his birth family.
While I understand BM carried babe for 9 months....why are her wishes more important than those of BF, and the rights of a child to be brought up by his birth family.
Adoption must be a final option, after all family options have been explored.
(This situation is very real to us at the present time so I have a bias which is obvious. A much loved baby may have been denied the right to his Birth family but thankfully dad got to court in time to stop a PO being granted.....its been heartbreaking all round )

I fostered, the baby ended up being adopted as all bm and bf family failed assessment process - but it was long and time consuming and not as simple as 'mum doesn't want the baby'. The courts view was is at all possible baby goes to family not adoption regardless of mums views

Similar to twopots....court asked for dna, and parenting assesments. If BF fails then another relative may be suitable for kinship care. It isnt as easy as BM is 'giving baby up'.....BF must have rights too, even when not named on the birth certificate.

bostoncremecrazy

"Italian...i come from a different angle from you." That's fine, but what is your connection to adoption, if I can ask, or rather what informs your views, if you are willing to say?

"I think it is right that a BM cannot relinqish a baby and refuse to disclose who BF is." It seems possible that this is completely legal, and remember some women may genuinely not know who the man was, where to find him, or which one of a number of men had actually impregnated her.

In some cases disclosing all this information could put her in danger, is it OK for her to keep quiet in those circumstances?

"I just find it so unfair on BF and his family" Well, in most of these cases this is a 'birth father' who has had sex with the birth mum and then disappeared off the scene, or she has. It is not a case that he lives with her or even sees her often or occasionally after the first trimester. Because if he did he would know she was pregnant.

So I would imagine we are mostly talking about brief encounters that result in an unplanned pregnancy not a man who has had contact with his child and then is denied 'his rights'.

"....and more importantly I find it grossly unfair on the child to deny him the chance to be raised in his birth family." The child has a right to family life but not necessarily to the birth family. What if his 'dad' was actually married to another woman with other kids and wanted nothing more to do with him, then the birth father's rights may be to ignore the child! Assuming he provided for him.

"While I understand BM carried babe for 9 months....why are her wishes more important than those of BF" because she carried the baby, perhaps risked her life to bring him or her to birth and in doing so proves she has much more vested interested in the baby than a man who has sex with a woman and never sees her again.

"and the rights of a child to be brought up by his birth family." I am not sure that kids ever have that legal right. Generally it is best but generally the man of the 'couple' doesn't disappear off and not see the woman for at least 6 months.

"Adoption must be a final option, after all family options have been explored." I disagree and the law says that the most important thing is the right of the child to a family life. If searching for a birth father means the child stay in foster care for a long time it may well not be in the baby's best interests.

"This situation is very real to us at the present time so I have a bias which is obvious. A much loved baby may have been denied the right to his Birth family but thankfully dad got to court in time to stop a PO being granted.....its been heartbreaking all round sad" You don't need to share the information if this is so personal but is the dad now planning on bringing up the baby?

"The courts view was is at all possible baby goes to family not adoption regardless of mums views."

two Do you agree that the long drawn out process to access wider family was actually in the baby's best interests?

boston "If BF fails then another relative may be suitable for kinship care." if the baby was not already in an adoptive family this may work well for baby but imagine if baby was. Whose best interests are served by removing baby from a loving family to place them with people who have a genetic connection to the baby?

"BF must have rights too, even when not named on the birth certificate." But birth father passing the baby on to be looked after by his mum or auntie or sister or whatever is not necessarily in the best interests of the child is it. So what you would be arguing for is not the rights of the child but the rights of the father! Adoption is not about the rights of parents it is about the child.

Boston I hope it will work out really well for the child and your wider family. I'm not against birth family looking after children relinquished in the wider family but when a birth mum doesn't want that and may have good reasons for that then I am quite suspicious of a system that wants to put the birth father's rights about the rights of the child.

People who have no experience of adoption you may feel being brought up in a family one is not genetically related to, is terrible. Yet many successful adoptions happen.

Boston just to give some context I have two kids, one came out of my body and shares my genes (poor girl) the other is adopted. If I really thought blood was thicker than water could I parent both my children successfully, or might I simply favour one?

I think adopters do think differently about these things.

Remember your views above are not the law, as far as I can see. They are your views.

You say the baby was much loved which suggests the family was already in contact with the baby. If this is the case then it is different from cases where the dad is not on the scene and knows nothing of the baby.

Italian, the law appears to be unclear, or the favour changing on this. Many of us are adopters who happen to think children should remain in their birth family if at all possible, because that is the best place for children. It doesn't mean we love our adopted children any differently to our birth children.

Both Boston and I have both birth and adopted children.

Judges appear to currently be putting more weight on the right of the child to grow up in their birth family when possible. It's nothing to do with father's rights, but the rights of the child, as set out by the UN.