Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Adoption

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on adoption.

Original poster

Giving up v.severely disabled baby for adoption?

374 replies

mirage999 · 08/01/2009 16:31

Contraversial question I know - but is it possible or easy (practically, not emotionally) to give up a severly disabled baby (one that requires full time special care) at birth for adoption or have it placed in care?

I am trying to decide whether to go for the prenatal tests for Downs etc and have decided that if the results show there is a problem with the baby, I would rather let nature take its course and allow the baby to live (but be looked after by someone else) rather than go ahead and have its life terminated, thinking that this would be the lesser of 2 evils.
Has anyone done this and is it possible to have a such a baby adopted/placed into care?
I have 2 healthy children already and the reason for not wanting to keep a baby who was severely disabled as it I dont believe it would be fair on them. Plus my DH would not be supportive and I have no family who could help.
thanks in advance

OP posts:
r3dh3d · 12/01/2009 09:48

Am not going to weigh in properly because I'm sure what I really want to say will have been said repeatedly by the rest of the SN mob.

But ... the thing is we are a mob. There are a lot of us. Disability is pretty common and the overwhelming majority of parents do not give their disabled children up for adoption, any more than you would give your own NT child up for adoption. Yes, of course there are extreme cases where individuals cannot cope but they are very rare.

So we are not a tiny minority of self-appointed martyrs. We're just ordinary people doing what every other parent does - have a kid, love them, blunder on. Somewhere along the way we discovered there was a disability thrown in as well. And 90% of the time our kids are not a problem. Lack of services is a problem. Fighting for education and therapy is a problem. Spiteful comments in Waitrose are a problem. That's why people have breakdowns and marriages split up. It's not the kids.

sarah293 · 12/01/2009 09:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mm22bys · 12/01/2009 10:01

Riven, I see alot of anecdotes are coming out of the woodwork....

alfiemama · 12/01/2009 10:32

This is going to sound really silly, and I probably should have name changed
But I wonder if its a bit like propaganda and that people are fed the wrong impression, so that it never gets that far.

pagwatch · 12/01/2009 10:38

I haven't seen where anyone said that SN children are not more of a burden.

i posted that life with a particular child becomes your normailty and ceases to be as daunting/difficult. But it is harder to parent DS2 that the other two.

pagwatch · 12/01/2009 10:40

Actually DS2 may well say with us ( with some day care so he can be with his peers) but that is because we want to have him with us. we may have to review and ensure that it is best for him as the time gets nearer.
It is another area where you cannot be selfish.

But he is so lovely

27 · 12/01/2009 10:41

Riven

I dont think it is always a choice past the age of 18?
If you have a child with a disability and social services say they cant fund the placement then I wouldnt call that a choice.

(I'm aware that you know far far more about this sort of thing than me, but I dont think its true to say that everyone looking after a child with disabilities after the age of 18 is doing it because that is how they want things to be.)

sarah293 · 12/01/2009 11:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

solidgoldsoddingjanuaryagain · 12/01/2009 12:05

Riven: I would have thought that most people plan (or don't plan but decide to continue with an unexpected pregnancy) for their DC to grow up and go out into the world.

2shoes · 12/01/2009 12:15

solidgoldsoddingjanuaryagain you are right to a certain extent they do, and I plan that my severely disabled dd will not live at home when she is an adult. all going well a good place will be found that suits her. now getting my nt ds out will most likely be a lot harder.
strangely when having children I didn't even consider when they would leave home.

sarah293 · 12/01/2009 12:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ilovelovemydog · 12/01/2009 13:04

Think it may be that a lot of people don't know many disabled people, so it's all a bit of a mystery.

Seems to me too that there is a British reserve about discussing disabilities. DD (aged 2) asked a lady in a wheelchair why she wasn't walking. A man nearby said DD was terribly rude. Fortunately the disabled lady was quite happy to discuss why she couldn't walk.

LottieDugalo · 12/01/2009 13:07

I have read through and i am angry and deeply saddened.

When I was pregnant I was pregnant with my baby I didn't know whether my baby would be 2 ft or 10 ft, red haired, blonde, clever, charming, rude or monstrous, but I did know that I loved my baby be it disabled or not, I have two children, one is severely disabled and one is not, I love them both deeply. If you are putting conditions on your baby then maybe you should think again about whether you should be getting pregnant or not.

I read someone saying love isn't everything, but it is to us some days, we have no help from our families and little respite my OH works long hours to support us and there are days when I'm so exhausted and tired of dealing with ignorant rude people that my love for my dd is all that pulls me through the drowning feeling, fwiw the vast majority of the time it is fighting for equipment etc that breaks me not my dd.

I do think adoption is much better than abortion, there are many amazing foster carers adoptive parents who give wonderful homes to disabled children.

kelly2278 · 12/01/2009 13:11

Shocking. Somebody comes onto this board looking for assistance, and this is the response she gets...? I accept that her views may not be in keeping with those of the vast majority of the people on this board, but that doesn't excuse the responses.

To the OP: you would probably find it much harder to give up a baby, healthy or otherwise, than you expect. So, if you are absolutely certain that this is what you would do, I would suggest gritting your teeth and having the test. In my opinion, an early termination is better than bringing a baby into the world, and then giving it up. Just my opinion, of course.

madwomanintheattic · 12/01/2009 13:15

it's a generational thing too - it's not that long since people with disabilities were banged up in institutions. fortunately the money savers, i mean govt, worked out it was cheaper for families to stay as families (and even cheaper still if they made it virtually impossible to get respite or support lol).
our own experiences of parents of children with disabilities are still relatively unknown, yes there are millions of us, but it hasn't really permeated into visibility for the majority yet.
another couple of generations down the line there will be far less angst.

it just means that some attitudes seem a little difficult to cope with for those who are already enlightened lol. not that we asked for enlightenment, it just sort of happened when we weren't looking...

pagwatch · 12/01/2009 13:15

[sigh]

this was posted in SPECIAL NEEDS ! That is why it has received such a response.
As I have said before if op had asked for this thread to be deleted and reposted in pregnancy or somewhere else more appropriate it would not have been quite so antagonistic.

madwomanintheattic · 12/01/2009 13:19

i think trying to make decisions on a what if basis is always going to problematic.

i always assumed that if i got caught naked by someone with a camera i would cover up my fanjo and my boobs. i didn't, i covered my face.

you just don't know how how you are going to react until the (metaphorical) train actually hits you...

madwomanintheattic · 12/01/2009 13:20

information gathering is fine - but don't try to make any decisions. stay flexible, OP.

FioFio · 12/01/2009 13:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TotalChaos · 12/01/2009 13:23

agree with Fio.

sarah293 · 12/01/2009 13:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

kelly2278 · 12/01/2009 13:32

"[sigh]

this was posted in SPECIAL NEEDS ! That is why it has received such a response.
As I have said before if op had asked for this thread to be deleted and reposted in pregnancy or somewhere else more appropriate it would not have been quite so antagonistic."

Ah, I see. By the time I got to it, it was under 'adoption' - moved, presumably. Yes, I would have to agree that putting it in the SN section is perhaps a little insensitive!

pagwatch · 12/01/2009 13:32

agree with fio
And also want to know more about the naked photo scanario...

madwomanintheattic · 12/01/2009 13:32

it was a jape thing - all ho ho aren't we having fun yet...(not)... i was living in shared accom and having a lovely bath, and a camera appeared over the top of the (locked) door...

but once i had got over the erm... shock, i have found it a really useful lesson lol! i honestly would have put money on trying to cover 'problem areas' in that situation, as opposed to covering my face with my hands and closing my eyes, but clearly somewhere in my tortured soul i don't put much too much stock on body lol...

fio - i thought the OP had two other children that she didn't want affected by the burden of a disabled sibling? i've lost track a bit... am i supposed to be replying to someone else now?

pagwatch · 12/01/2009 13:33

Kelly

yes - just a tad insensitive