"Especially since it looked at crimes that the genetic parent commited." Did the studies that refuted establish that the genetic parent really was? There's a lot of men unconsciously raising children not genetically theirs too. But maybe they know it on an unconscious level and don't favour that child as a result?
Also who's challenged it? Parents I'd be sceptical of. I'd think you'd need input from parents and children and full facts on genetic info.
"Genuinely how is it devastating for the children?"
1 - it shows them they & their safety are not their parents priority - even if "it works out"
2 it teaches them their needs & feelings are less important than others - this makes them more vulnerable to abuse either from a step-parent, step or half sibling or even later when they're forming adult relationships.
3 - if it doesn't work out they're then victims of neglect or even abuse which I personally think nobody ever truly recovers from. Speaking as a child of an abusive marriage now aged 46 and still dealing with the repercussions myself. I can also spot a fellow victim at 20 paces in real life and there's a lot of us! Many of whom have parents who completely deny any wrongdoing occurred. I'm talking to the point of forgetting/denying hospital admissions & SS intervention.
4 being actual victims of childhood neglect/abuse makes them far more vulnerable to ending up in abusive relationships as adults. Or as has been stated becoming neglectful parents themselves.
"In my case my son was still a baby. Was I suppose to wait until he was old enough to speak to be able to have his consent to moving a man in?" Personally I'd say yes, until he's old enough you could get an opinion from him at least, a real sense of whether he liked him. Certainly until your child had enough time to get used to your boyfriend which certainly would take longer than 2 months!
Your honesty is impressive, how old is your son now? You may well not see the effects for many years. Even babies that are adopted are very carefully handled and supported because bonding issues etc really do happen from the beginning.
"because after being with someone for 2 months you have no idea what they are really like. Even if you had known him years beforehand you don't know what he's like in a relationship context." Totally agree. Look at all the abusive men who've committed the most atrocious acts and their friends had no idea what they were like. Street Angel house devil is a thing. My dad never displayed his true self outside the home. People described him as "a good bloke" "a true gent" "a loving husband" he was very careful about where he left bruises, trained mum to give all the usual excuses ("opened cupboard too fast and hit my eye" "slipped in shower" etc) and we kids did too - until we got old enough our own safety was less at risk and we had the maturity to recognise his behaviour was wrong and to challenge it. But it's difficult because we also knew we could be making things worse for mum.
I wouldn't have left my 5 month old daughter with a background checked professional childcarer I'd only known 2 months! Let alone a man I knew sod all about beyond charming, looks etc
"But I think that would be more reason to wait even longer, given your fragile mental state at the time." Agree.
"I know huggybear, he is a primary school teacher however so already had a full disclosure done so yes I do trust him whole heartedly" as stated upthread background checks don't mean someone is safe, just that at the time of the check being done they didn't have any cautions or convictions. My dad (abusive in every way you can think of) would pass a background check, several well known child killers and abusers would at one point have passed a background check. Some of them even did! Ian Huntley did, I think Savile did.
Adaline - they don't even necessarily show up arrests if insufficient evidence to charge.
Ohreally THIS thread is about mothers who put new partners ahead of DC. There's other threads - quite a lot - that decry men for doing so too. Neither is acceptable.