To ask if you believe that as a grandparent, you should be responsible if your teenager had a baby but then refused to take care of it?

[Namechangerextraordinaire1]

This is hypothetical, but I'm curious how others feel. Do you think as the baby's grandparent, you should step in? or do you think even as a grandparent you can say, I can't do this, it's not my making, and I'm not able to step in? Do you think there are so many variables it's not easy to give a blanket yes or no?

Yes, I think parents should be responsible for their children until they are 18. That includes financial assistance if they get pregnant and liability for the cost of criminal damage etc.

What’s with all the weird threads about grandparents caring for grandchildren lately?

If your teenager gets pregnant you’re under a moral duty to ensure that they make the right decision for them. In the vast majority of cases that’ll be for them to get an abortion.

I agree with this. For the child's long term wellbeing, its almost always better to stay within the family than to go into foster care or even adoption, unless there's abuse or neglect involved. Adoption is really quite traumatic even for babies, many often grow up with an insatiable desire to know their blood relatives.

My personal situation with my own teen who is 16 - if she told me she was pregnant and adamant she wanted to keep the baby I would support her to be a mum. I would teach her how to do things for the baby but I’d be expecting her to make the decisions and do the rearing under my guidance which I would hopefully be able to step back on in time.

In a situation that was more dramatic-
one of my children was involved in drugs/abuse etc then I would take care of the baby myself if I had to rather than see it go into care. However, if this scenario happened in ten years time I would have to see how capable I was by that point as I’d be close to retirement.

I’m mid 40s and have been raising DC for 20+ years.

I haven’t been broody in almost a decade and the idea of having another baby horrifies me. But yes I’d step up if my DC had a baby and couldn’t cope. I’d be annoyed and it would scupper my plans but I couldn’t let my grandchild be neglected or go into care.

Its not a black and white answer. There could be many reasons why a grandparent is unable to care for their grandchild: illness, disability, finances, lifestyle factors, not having a big enough house, or simply not wanting to take on that kind of responsibility. It's a huge commitment, raising a child, and no-one should feel obligated into doing it, grandparent or not.

Edited to add: I would absolutely have helped my daughters if this had happened to them when they were teenagers, but I'm saying that everyone's circumstances are different and it may not always be possible.

In an ideal world grandparents would be able to step up to support their child and grandchild. However there are so many variables I don't think its possible to give a blanket yes or no. Physical/mental health issues, financial issues, living arrangements and a myriad of other things could mean grandparents are unable to step up and any decision made about where a child should live and with whom should be made solely in their best interest.

And many don't. My ex ( and his siblings) we all adopted as small babies from different birth families. None of them has the slightest interest in finding out about them

I think more of the problems these days with adoption is that it's so slow and they keep trying to put kbaby with birth families and member and only when it repeatedly fails are they given for adoption. By then they've often stayed with a variety of carers and are older.

After that horrible case of that baby, Preston, who was abused by his two adoptive parents, would you seriously want them to go into care with no say over who adopted the baby .

Obviously, there are many fantastic adoptive parents out there. In fact, I even know a few wonderful people who have adopted.

how selfish can people be having a child and expecting grandparents to look after it. So much contraception around .

If a hypothetical teenage child had a baby at say 15 and the grandparent became the baby’s guardian, then the teenager went on to have baby after baby for the next few years, should the grandparent also take those children to live with them?

Teenager is too broad. Two of my friends got pregnant at 14 (both with adult men). We all accept that 14 is below the age of consent, children at this age are too young to be held to "if you were old enough to have sex..." because they weren't old enough. One of my friends her parents fully supported her. Baby was hers and she was mum, but they had her back and ensured she had an education and learned how to parent safely. She has a career, he's a grown adult in his 30s doing well. My other friend, her parents arranged for her to have a flat in a tower block miles away and cut her off. This was pre mobiles, I have no idea what happened.

My point is at 14, my child's bad choices remain my responsibility, less so at 18. I'd probably step in either way.

I’m a single parent, have 2 boys age 11 and 8. If either of them had a baby in a few years, no I wouldn’t take it on full time. I feel like I’ve done my time bringing up kids, I’d help out when I could but I don’t want to raise another child on my own. but also financially I couldn’t afford to take on another child.

Also if baby arrived and neither parent or family could cope then why not allow the baby to be adopted by a family who really wanted one.

I would really struggle with this as DH and I would
simply be too old. He will be in his mid sixties when our youngest is a mid/late teen. We are struggling already being older parents (both first time marriage/ first time parents). I would consider myself to have utterly failed my DD if she didn’t a) use contraception and b) choose termination under the age of 21.

If I was in this position and had the capacity to do so I would. I don’t think it should be a blanket rule. Some teen mums have grown up in chaos and the family home would not be a good editor a baby.

No - I don't think grandparents SHOULD end up looking after the child. Absolutely not.

However, most grandparents, if they are able to, would take on the responsibility I think.

Honestly as that child unless you really want the child no. Don’t do it out of duty.

Because I lived that life where then one grandparent died then I was just an inconvenience a problem a person in the way of their new dating life. I left an empty house to go to school came home to an empty house with microwave pizza and chips for my food.

I’m no contact with the living grandparent I wished they had died rather than the other one. I’ll go to their funeral to make sure they are dead. That’s all.

If my child refused to have an abortion, I'd be making it very clear that they would be the parent and not me. If they refused to look after it, I would involve social services.

I'd also be wondering where I went wrong if my teenager not only got pregnant but then didn't have an abortion and also refused to take responsibility and look after the baby.

In using the word ‘grandparent’ I would say yes. You take care of your grandchild.

What is the alternative?

Who knows. I’d like to think that I’d step in. If I could not do that then I’d report my DD to social services suggesting that the baby is taking into state care.
I wouldn’t opt out and leave the child at risk.

Irrespective of my medical history that would mean I wouldn’t be able to care for a child as they should be, I couldn’t afford to do so no matter how much I wanted to - we already have little spare money and definitely not enough to put a child in nursery so I could work, which we need me to do.

How can we vote if YABU or not when you haven’t said which side of fence you are on?

If a child became a teen parent and then had no sense of responsibility to look after the baby I’d consider that a failing on the part of the parent and so yes I believe as the grandparent the responsibility lies with you to look after the baby.