OH wants custody of baby niece?

[milkshakess]

So OH's younger sister has recently had a baby and there is possibility that the baby may end up in care.

She already has an 18 year olds on who has lived with their mum since he was 8.

She dips in and out of his life, she even forgot his last birthday, she hasn't really been a mum to him at all. Despite this he has turned out to be a lovely, smart and hard working lad.

Everyone was so surprised by the pregnancy.

From what we understand she was kept in hospital for 2 weeks whilst some kind of team were getting stuff ready for the baby.

I think the hospital staff were monitoring and observing her interact with the baby and something must of been flagged?

Her mum has sold her house and was due to move abroad in September but she had been visiting her and the baby at the hospital daily and helping.

OH isn't really close to his sister but he is close to her son, he calls OH the "best uncle" as him and the other uncles have all chipped into help raise him.
OH would sometimes not see his sister for years and she was always changing her number and would have to talk to her though her son.

Anyway the family don't want the baby to end up in care but everyone has young kids themselves ( we have toddlers and are trying for a 3rd).

OH wants to go for custody but the care would really fall on me and I work from home and have a very flexible job.

Just wanted input on the situation as OH and the family don't want the baby to go into care

I don't even think SW would think its a good idea for the Gran to take this baby.

They would probably prefer the baby is taken into care / adopted by people who on the balance of probability are able to support the child to adulthood.

Think how fucked up the kid would be to have gran effectively as only parent only for her to die while the child is still a dependant and to get taken into care and passed around there.

The have a max 45 years between the child and youngest adoptive parent for a reason.

Are you reading a different thread? The OP has two children, as she’s mentioned. She doesn’t have an ‘emotional attachment’ to this child because it’s a five week old baby who is still in hospital.

Oh well if gran's not willing to step up for her own flesh and blood they'll have to find someone else, since OP doesn't want to.

Yes, can you actually imagine trying to make this case to the LA? Hi social worker, we've all decided that 60something Retired Granny is going to take responsibility for this baby for the next 18 years. Yes, we know she'll either be in her 80s or dead by the time this commitment ends, but none of us have given any thought for the welfare of the baby because we've decided granny deserves to do it as penance.

I said the same

the older brother has uncles - in plural

so not just op dp

why aren’t they thinking of looking after baby

The op only mentions the DGM, the babies mother, DP and his brothers.

We have no idea if any of the other brothers, babies uncles are anywhere near in a settled position to take on this child.

It would be interesting to know what exactly OH has said to his siblings. I wonder if he's bothered to make them aware of OPs views?

They don't have age restrictions on adoption.
Ideally 2 years between youngest child and new child but not always. I don't know where you have got 45 years between child and adopter from.
There are loads of grandparents becoming long term kinship carers, especially if they have a support network which this gran does.

The Gran is in her 60s, raised her own children, raised a grandson.

There is absolutely no guarantee she'll be fit enough to care for a child for the next 18 years.
She probably loves the child dearly but knows her limits.

It is definitely not in the child's best interests to be cared for by a 60 year old.

yup. The baby's relatives can sort it out amongst them.

Thats certainly the policy where I am. Maybe different agency's have different policies.

Important Considerations:
Age Gaps: While there is no upper age limit, agencies often look for a reasonable age gap between the adopter and the child (e.g., preference for not more than 45 years difference).

The son was 8 when he went to live with nan, very different to a baby. If it does go the route of removal by the court and placement, and special guardianship at the end, you would agree contact in court and you'd have the right to make decisions about how much the child sees her mum in future. She can't 'dip in and out' unless you let her.

Kinship care is different to adoption

Or indeed a grandparent in their late 60s, which is also possible on the information given. DGM could be closer to her 90th birthday than her 80th by the time this baby reaches adulthood! If she were to survive that long, the odds of this turning into a young carer situation would be much higher than in a placement with younger adults.

It's interesting that none of the people advocating for this have been able to explain why it's in the baby's interests.

Actually the law says any relative who seeks to be assessed must be assessed. And age is not a factor to rule someone out for caring for a child - there is legal precedent. I've had a placement approved for a 12 year old with grandparents already in their 80s before. If there is a strong family network and a contingency plan for other relatives to step in should the grandmother get ill or die before the child is 18 this would in all likelihood be approved.

But kinship carers are a completely different situation to adopters.

And yes 45 ish years between the child and adoptive parents, while not a legal upper limit, is a fairly widespread practice among adoption agencies, to ensure the child has a decent chance of being raised to adulthood by the adoptive parents.

You've often banged on about how grandparents should step up for babysitting and how they're not old at 60.

And OP doesn't want to be forced to care for an unrelated baby on behalf of a man she is not married to. So that's that really.

Not to worry, there are several family members as well as the gran, they can sort it out between them.

Why do people insist on spouting this complete nonsense when they obviously haven't bothered to read the thread or even the OP's updates?

Accusing the OP of being emotionless is such a nasty, baseless thing to do and is absolutely not borne out by what she has written in the updates.

I'm embarrassed for you @Booboobagins.

Under a special guardianship order the local authority would no longer have PR. Also the special guardians have overriding PR which means they have power to make decisions that the birth parent/s don't agree with. Such as where the child lives, with whom, where they go to school and whether they spend time with the birth parents at all.

@milkshakess does your partner's sister want you to visit the hospital? You said she's not answering your partner's calls and is private (although you used the more loaded word secretive.)

Are you going to see her because she's unwell? You and your partner don't sound like you have much of a relationship with her to be turning up to visit her in hospital a few weeks post birth.
Or are you going to offer her support to help her keep her child?

Or is it to see the baby, because everyone wants to see babies and give gifts?
Or to try to work out what's going on with baby because you are already thinking it might in someway become your third and the girl you wanted?

If she's asked you to go then ignore me but if you are just going to see the baby and find out what's going on maybe have a rethink about whether it's reasonable.
There won't be any children's social workers there to speak to and you can do that elsewhere anyway.

Nobody said there wouldn't be an assessment. I'm talking about what the response would be to a particular and specific proposal.

I notice you aren't giving examples involving newborns. A child who's already 12 is a wildly different proposition. You've also had to add contingency plans that didn't exist in the example being discussed. Support of her brothers most certainly doesn't mean there's someone ready and willing to step in to provide full care at some unspecified point over the next 18 years, yet isn't doing it now despite being a much more suitable age for a newborn.

FFS babysitting to allow parents a occasional night out is a totally different ask to being the main carer for a baby.

Here is a link to a search result for 'Binus' and 'babysitting'. For anyone who CBA to click, the number is 0.

https://www.mumsnet.com/search/advanced#/?query=babysitting&username=binus&type=all&page=1&sort=_search

I don't know who you're thinking of, but it's not me. Not that babysitting is akin to taking responsibility for a newborn anyway.

Not to worry though, there's a special, not secret option which isn't the OP or a woman who might be nearly 90 by the time the baby hits adulthood. It's people outside the family sorting this out. Like, you know, Social Services.

And again, I note your failure to come up with a reason why a punishment placement with a retiree is in the baby's interests.

Oh dear.
It’s still what I would do. Because babies are not puppies, dogs. That’s exactly why I would do as I’ve already said.

Considering op first post says she has toddlers and thinking trying for a third …..