Who should get the baby?

Platapus · 12-28-12, 05:58 PM

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/1...ustody-120712/

http://www.examiner.com/article/terr...ecret-adoption

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/healt...e-her-adoption

Synopsis:

Staff Sergeant Terry Achane was married to Tira Bland.

Tira became pregnant and Terry deployed to SC. Terry was led to believe that Tira miscarried the baby.

In actuality, Taria traveled from TX to UT to have the baby. She put the baby up for adoption without Terry's permission. She evidently intentionally gave the adoption agency a false address for Terry so he could not be contacted.

It appears that Taria deliberately put the baby up for adoption with no intention of allowing Terry any input. It also appears that Taria falsified some adoption documents to indicate that she did not know where the bio-father was.

The Freis family adopted the baby. There is conflicting reporting in whether the Freis family was aware of the father's lack of permission.

When Terry found out that he had a daughter, he immediately tried to get custody. The Freis family has been fighting this for over a year.

Recently, a UT judge has ruled that the child (now 2 years old) needs to be turned over to the biological father.

The issue is that while the baby should be with a biological parent, the Freis family has been raising this baby for almost 2 years.

Thinking only of the well being of the child, should the child should the child stay with the only "parents" she has ever known, or go with a stranger who happens to be the bio-father?

Platapus · 12-28-12, 06:07 PM

My opinion is that she should go to the biologic. He did nothing wrong and is actually the victim here. While the child has only known the adopted parents, she is only two. She will quickly bond with the bio-father and will probably have no memories of the adopted family.

Of course the real question is how much prison time should the mother get.

GoldenRivet · 12-28-12, 06:10 PM

he gets the baby

she goes to prison to die

Oberon · 12-28-12, 06:22 PM

Threaten to cut the baby in half, and see what happens, then award the baby accordingly. Worked for Solomon.

Failing that, go with the biological father, however he must be able to prove that he will be able to adequately care for the child as a single-parent, aka he will have to either leave the armed forces or arrange child care for the time he is away, perhaps with his parents.

Certainly though the mother requires a legal punishment, what she did was morally and ethically wrong, and if the Freis family adopted this child knowing that it was without the fathers consent, then they definitely should have her removed and be punished accordingly.

Jimbuna · 12-28-12, 06:32 PM

A toughie and I don't profess to be God but whatever is best for the child is the best option.

Cybermat47 · 12-28-12, 06:46 PM

The biological father. My great-great Uncle was killed in the Somme before he had a chance to see his daughter. I don't want that sort of thing happening any more.

Sailor Steve · 12-28-12, 06:52 PM

Terry. He is the girl's father, and he did nothing to deserve this.

Platapus · 12-28-12, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Terry. He is the girl's father, and he did nothing to deserve this.

Steve, you being local to the story, can you cite any stories that may go further in detail?

I am especially interested in the conflicting reporting whether the adopting family was aware that the bio-father did not consent.

Sailor Steve · 12-28-12, 07:02 PM

Apparently a judge has already decided in his favor.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23261566

Skybird · 12-28-12, 07:12 PM

Psychology knows the concept of "attachment", or bonding, a very profound theory going back to Bowlby and Ainsworth. It postulates the importance of the newborn's and very young child's relation to adult persons it interacts intensively with during it first 2-3 years, when it develops its attachment to one or two most important key persons, namely the mother.

In the first 6-8 weeks after birth, there is a preliminary phase, and the second phase last until the age of around half a year, when the child already learns to differ between persons. The most important phase is the following one and a half year, roughly to the age of two years, when the real attachement, hte bon ding, occurs between the child and - mostly - the mother, because it is the mother interacting the most with the child at that age, and most directly. A closing fourth phase is postulated, lasting for another year until the age of three.

The attachment theory is one of the most profound theory of development psychology and is mostly beyond criticism today, since it overcame initial resistance from psychoanalytical theories in the 50s, I think. The first three years are seen as a key to later psychohygienic conditions in the young human's psychic and personality development. This is one of the reasons why I am so unforgivingly attacking the deconstruction of the family institution and the denial of the imperative importance of healthy and solid and close relations between mothers, and children.

The baby/child does not attach to the biological mother, but to the person that interacts the most with it, and is "closest" to it. Mind you, we are talking about a phase in psychologic development when gender roles still are unimportant and mean nothing.

It seems the foreign family took the baby while it was young, and I assume the child has almost completed it's attachment process to these parents. Assuming that it was given into a good home with a solid family background, that is why I vote for option two: the child should stay where it is.

In principle the father was not and could not have been worried about his baby as long as he did not know it existed. If his background qualifies for a description of being "good" in the wider meaning of the word, he has my sympathy, and my regret. But I rate the child's wellbeing in this difficult-to-judge case as more important, and I base on well-established psychological research data. The attachment theory is not just like any wild guessing or assumption. It qualifies for the rank of a paradigm.

The cheating mother should be brought to court, of course.

razark · 12-28-12, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Thinking only of the well being of the child, should the child should the child stay with the only "parents" she has ever known, or go with a stranger who happens to be the bio-father?

The adoptive parents, if you only consider the child.

However, the father has rights, and the child should go with him, when you consider the whole situation. The mother needs to be held accountable for the hell she's made of the child's life.

Platapus · 12-28-12, 08:02 PM

Good info Skybird.

This is not an easy issue to decide.

Skybird · 12-28-12, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Good info Skybird.

This is not an easy issue to decide.

Definitely not. I could imagine that if more detailed info would be available, giving a more complete and different picture maybe, I maybe would come to a different decision, in favour of the father.

I think issues like this cannot be decided and never should be decided by principle rules, laws and blueprints, but must always carefully checked on a one-for-one basis. Dealing out absolutes, does little good. Check the individual case for the factors and qualities that define it and that always make it unique.

12-29-12, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Of course the real question is how much prison time should the mother get.

No, another real question is how much time should the Friels get and how much time should the agency people get.

Quote:

The adoptive parents, if you only consider the child.

No Razark as they are not the adoptive parents, they have applied to be the adoptive parents and been told it was illegal.

View Poll Results: Who should get the Child
Terry, he is the biological father	9	75.00%
The Feris family, they have been the only parents the child knows	3	25.00%
Someone else (please explain)	0	0%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

12-28-12, 05:58 PM	#1
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Who should get the baby? http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/1...ustody-120712/ http://www.examiner.com/article/terr...ecret-adoption http://www.opposingviews.com/i/healt...e-her-adoption Synopsis: Staff Sergeant Terry Achane was married to Tira Bland. Tira became pregnant and Terry deployed to SC. Terry was led to believe that Tira miscarried the baby. In actuality, Taria traveled from TX to UT to have the baby. She put the baby up for adoption without Terry's permission. She evidently intentionally gave the adoption agency a false address for Terry so he could not be contacted. It appears that Taria deliberately put the baby up for adoption with no intention of allowing Terry any input. It also appears that Taria falsified some adoption documents to indicate that she did not know where the bio-father was. The Freis family adopted the baby. There is conflicting reporting in whether the Freis family was aware of the father's lack of permission. When Terry found out that he had a daughter, he immediately tried to get custody. The Freis family has been fighting this for over a year. Recently, a UT judge has ruled that the child (now 2 years old) needs to be turned over to the biological father. The issue is that while the baby should be with a biological parent, the Freis family has been raising this baby for almost 2 years. Thinking only of the well being of the child, should the child should the child stay with the only "parents" she has ever known, or go with a stranger who happens to be the bio-father? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-28-12, 06:07 PM	#2
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	My opinion is that she should go to the biologic. He did nothing wrong and is actually the victim here. While the child has only known the adopted parents, she is only two. She will quickly bond with the bio-father and will probably have no memories of the adopted family. Of course the real question is how much prison time should the mother get. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-28-12, 06:10 PM	#3
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	he gets the baby she goes to prison to die __________________

12-28-12, 06:32 PM	#5
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,473 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	A toughie and I don't profess to be God but whatever is best for the child is the best option. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

12-28-12, 06:22 PM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Threaten to cut the baby in half, and see what happens, then award the baby accordingly. Worked for Solomon. Failing that, go with the biological father, however he must be able to prove that he will be able to adequately care for the child as a single-parent, aka he will have to either leave the armed forces or arrange child care for the time he is away, perhaps with his parents. Certainly though the mother requires a legal punishment, what she did was morally and ethically wrong, and if the Freis family adopted this child knowing that it was without the fathers consent, then they definitely should have her removed and be punished accordingly.

12-28-12, 06:46 PM	#6
Cybermat47 Willing Webfooted Beast Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Australia Posts: 5,408 Downloads: 300 Uploads: 23	The biological father. My great-great Uncle was killed in the Somme before he had a chance to see his daughter. I don't want that sort of thing happening any more. __________________ Historical TWoS Gameplay Guide: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2572620 Historical FotRSU Gameplay Guide: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho....php?p=2713394

12-28-12, 06:52 PM	#7
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Terry. He is the girl's father, and he did nothing to deserve this. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

12-28-12, 07:02 PM	#9
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Apparently a judge has already decided in his favor. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23261566 __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

12-28-12, 07:12 PM	#10
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Psychology knows the concept of "attachment", or bonding, a very profound theory going back to Bowlby and Ainsworth. It postulates the importance of the newborn's and very young child's relation to adult persons it interacts intensively with during it first 2-3 years, when it develops its attachment to one or two most important key persons, namely the mother. In the first 6-8 weeks after birth, there is a preliminary phase, and the second phase last until the age of around half a year, when the child already learns to differ between persons. The most important phase is the following one and a half year, roughly to the age of two years, when the real attachement, hte bon ding, occurs between the child and - mostly - the mother, because it is the mother interacting the most with the child at that age, and most directly. A closing fourth phase is postulated, lasting for another year until the age of three. The attachment theory is one of the most profound theory of development psychology and is mostly beyond criticism today, since it overcame initial resistance from psychoanalytical theories in the 50s, I think. The first three years are seen as a key to later psychohygienic conditions in the young human's psychic and personality development. This is one of the reasons why I am so unforgivingly attacking the deconstruction of the family institution and the denial of the imperative importance of healthy and solid and close relations between mothers, and children. The baby/child does not attach to the biological mother, but to the person that interacts the most with it, and is "closest" to it. Mind you, we are talking about a phase in psychologic development when gender roles still are unimportant and mean nothing. It seems the foreign family took the baby while it was young, and I assume the child has almost completed it's attachment process to these parents. Assuming that it was given into a good home with a solid family background, that is why I vote for option two: the child should stay where it is. In principle the father was not and could not have been worried about his baby as long as he did not know it existed. If his background qualifies for a description of being "good" in the wider meaning of the word, he has my sympathy, and my regret. But I rate the child's wellbeing in this difficult-to-judge case as more important, and I base on well-established psychological research data. The attachment theory is not just like any wild guessing or assumption. It qualifies for the rank of a paradigm. The cheating mother should be brought to court, of course. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-28-12, 08:02 PM	#12
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Good info Skybird. This is not an easy issue to decide. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode