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?

If you genuinely don't have the capacity, then it is more responsible to admit that then to have the child live in an unsuitable environment where its needs cannot be met. That's the same wether you are a parent or grandparent

If the parent is unable to care for the child, the grandparent or other close family member would be the next best option. If all family member are also unable, then unrelated adoption would be the third choice.

I’m so sorry that happened to you @chillpizza

I know several women who have done this, but not 100% happily. They have seen it as their duty but understand it is not ideal for the child. But I don't think all grandparents should feel obliged. I probably would (feel obliged) but fortunately mine are all post 20 now (though not necessarily ready to be parents).

I mean it depends, I’m 51 in good health married, enough money so I probably would (regardless if it was DS or DD’s baby) but in other circumstances I don’t think it would be in the baby’s best interest.

I don’t think there is any responsibility moral or otherwise no, because you had no choice or role in the situation. Plus some wouldn’t be able to give the baby a good life.

The question is far too wide to reduce to a "you should" or "you shouldn't" answer.
Not only is the age/health/financial situation/living situation etc etc of the grandparent relevant but also what do you even mean by "be responsible"?

For example, if your teenage son got a girl pregnant and she wanted to keep it but he refused to be involved, then "being responsible" would involve giving support to the mother of the baby, possibly at a distance to ensure that the feckless father couldn't induce more stress?
However if instead you are talking about having a teenage child who has returned to live at home with their baby and then dumped it on you while they go out clubbing, "being responsible" is presumably intended to mean "doing the hands-on childcare yourself"?

You should definitely "be responsible" around other people's babies wrt cutting up their grapes, always using a car seat and not letting them go near the pond unsupervised though....

There’s a good chance taking on the baby would damage the relationship with your child. If I’m spending my fifties or sixties living a constrained life I didn’t ask for I’m not going to be too cordial when seeing my child and they’re telling me all about their weekend of leisure.

If they're children yes. There's a big difference between 14 and 19. Legally and morally.

If your 14 causes damage you are responsible, because they're your responsibility. You are responsible for the consequences of your child's actions. I do believe that parents of child criminals should be held responsible to a degree. If your 14 yo gets pregnant that's imo more your fault that theirs. They're kids, you either didn't protect them or didn't educate them or something but it's on you. So you should pick up the pieces.

If you 19 yo living 3 hours away at uni fucks up and gets pregnant. Or is living with their partner etc then no, they're an adult, just like if they smashed someone's window, you wouldn't be liable.

You can educate them all you like it doesn't mean they will take any notice.

How about the teenager whose told about contraception, mum takes her to the family planning clinic and reminds daily about taking the pill. If they then don't bother and get pregnant how is that the parents fault?

Only if they forced the teenager to continue the pregnancy. Otherwise, I hope they could, but no expectation.