I will consider my kids’ children, even “accidental” ones, as my own, and would do everything in my power to provide for it and help raise it.

Adoption is the best choice for the child if the birth parents are unable or unwilling to marry and provide a home and family for the child. I have a daughter who is a high school freshman and if this happened to her I would never encourage her to get married at her age, no matter what the other circumstances were. Adoption is by far the best option at that age.

As a legal matter, no one can force a minor to give up a baby for adoption unless the minor is declared unfit to have a child due to drug addiction or some other legal reason. Young teens should be encouraged to choose adoption simply because the other options are much worse and there are a lot of infertile couples out there who really want and need to adopt.

I’d adopt the baby as my own. Assuming my daughter would let me, of course. If my 14-year old son had gotten someone pregnant, I would again offer to adopt the baby.

The young man received many years of guidance to choose the right, but not so much on making right what is wrong. Thirty years ago, he would have known that he had to marry the girl while she was still pregnant, but today he can’t quite understand how his girlfriend’s unmarried state makes him any less of a father to their child. He’s not alone; many older men can’t understand how it would make them any less of a grandfather.

I am a huge fan of adoption, so I would encourage it strongly. There are so many couples out there desperate to become parents. I would place the soon-to-be born child’s needs highest since they are innocent in all of it, and their best chance is to be raised by adults in a two-parent home. Also, it allows the young birth mother to reach her highest potential by not being a mom at such a young age.

I’ve closely known a couple teen moms, and even with loving families backing them up, they really struggle and their children fare poorly. It’s incredibly sad. (I’ve also known a couple teen moms with miserable family lives, and they are simply repeating the pattern of destruction they were raised in. That’s also incredibly sad.) And I also have several friends who have adopted, and though their kids are still young, so far everyone is doing great.

Adoption isn’t all roses. There are issues that often must be dealt with through all of the child’s life and difficult decisions to be made. But in a bad situation such as a pregnant 14 year old, I firmly believe it is the best option of them all. I wish more people would consider it.

Hmmm…. I guess I was just giving my reaction on the concept of adoption without really considering the 14 year old element to the story. That would depend on a lot of factors (culture, parental situation and age), but I think in those cases it would either be for the grand parents to adopt the child or the daughter to give the child up for adoption.

I would push for adoption. I have known so many people who were conceived out of wedlock and and were raised with assistance from the extended family with the best of intentions. I’ve never seen it work out well. The kids just don’t seem to understand their place in their family and in the world. The adopted children fared so much better than those who were kept. The urge to keep my own grandchild would be strong, but it would not likely be what would be best for the child in the long run. That is much more important than my feelings.

I see several problems with adopting a grandchild. I wouldn’t have the time and energy at that age that a baby deserves. The relationship with my birth mother/father child and the baby would be very confusing and turbulent for everyone. And finally, I wouldn’t want to die before the child entered adulthood. No matter how good my intentions are or how good I think my health is I am much closer to death than a thirty year old would be. The reasons for keeping a baby would ultimately be selfish no matter how I tried to justify it.

rk, in the case of the 14 year-old her parents are likely in their 30s or early 40s. Surely we both know people who had their own children at that age.

I also don’t see how keeping the baby would be selfish. Odds are many babies are “better off” (however you mean that) being raised by adoptive parents. Should every child that would be better off be put up for adoption?

For those arguing for adoption (not by the grandparents), I’d be curious to know if you’d support adoption in the case of a non-out-of-wedlock conception. Say two 21year old LDSs have a baby and die shortly after (in a car crash), leaving the baby alive. Their 42 year old parents are still around, as are their older siblings. Who should raise/adopt the baby?

#15,

Not even close to being the same situation.

I was a teen mom who kept the baby, and unless the girl is mature enough to devote their life to that child, adoption is the only way. I was almost 18 when I had my daughter. I married the father, and we are still married today. Those first years were so hard, and we missed out on so much. I only hope that we have provided a loving home for our daughter, even though I know we did not provide her with the best spiritual environment when she was younger. She was ultimately the one who suffered as are most of the children raised by teen parents. I attended a young mothers school for the last five months of high school, and it breaks my heart today to think of what happened to the babies of some of the girls that were there (and the girls themselves). They were so immature and definitely not ready to put the child first. Also at that age, you just don’t have the resources to support a child/family. If my daughter had become pregnant as a teen, I would have pushed for adoption through an agency. Even though my husband and I would have been pretty young grandparents, I don’t think we could have adopted the baby. The family dynamics would have been too hard.

If I had a daughter that I thought was sexually active I’d have a serious discussion with her about getting a norplant. I realize that in this case it is too late, but it is better to avoid this dilemma if at all possible. And even with the norplant I’d encourage condom use for obvious reasons. Oh, and gardasil shots.

My mother was 18 when I was conceived and was just shy of her 19th birthday when I was born. I love my parents dearly and am grateful to have them. BUT, I sometimes wonder how much simpler life might have been had I been adopted out. They tried marriage but it didn’t last and the resulting years were marred by their drama.

Heaven help me if my daughter (or my son and his girlfriend) comes to tell me she is pregnant…my heart would just break. But I would do everything I could to show her that adoption is best for both her and the baby. If she ultimately decided not to go for adoption I would help her to be the best most responsible mother she could be.

Adoption. I have a hard time understanding parents of teens who would discourage adoption. How many tragic situations have we all seen when a young mother keeps the baby or allows it to be primarily raised by her own parents? I have not seen that work out well for the child but somehow, everyone thinks that it will be different in their family. Adoption does involve pain, but the child almost always does well, and adoptions can be very open now. I think it’s hard for a young woman who is so immature and (let’s face it), naive to really see what is best for the child but I do not understand it when the grandparents fail to advocate for the best interests of the child.

@bbell. What’s the difference?

From what I’m hearing by those who advocate adoption, the primary reason for adoption is to give the child a “better life,” which I take to mean a more secure social and financial environment. If this is the case, should it not hold for situations beyond teen age pregnancies? Should all low income people, for instance, give their children up for adoption?

I should also point out that much of this discussion is situated in a culture where mother and father are seen as the primary, if not sole, caregivers. In other cultures, though, extended family members provide a significant amount of care. Grandparents, or aunts and uncles, take a much larger role in caregiving and many of those kids seem to turn out fine.

From what I’m hearing by those who advocate adoption, the primary reason for adoption is to give the child a “better life,” which I take to mean a more secure social and financial environment. If this is the case, should it not hold for situations beyond teen age pregnancies? Should all low income people, for instance, give their children up for adoption?

The fact is that we don’t have the legal ability to do an adoption in other cases of at-risk kids. In the case of teen pregnancy we have a one-time window of opportunity to give a couple a child they desperately want and to give a child a home that they might otherwise never have. Why do you have a problem with that?

I should also point out that much of this discussion is situated in a culture where mother and father are seen as the primary, if not sole, caregivers. In other cultures, though, extended family members provide a significant amount of care. Grandparents, or aunts and uncles, take a much larger role in caregiving and many of those kids seem to turn out fine.

We don’t live in those cultures. Hence the need for adoption. If those “other cultures” want to de-emphasize adoption in favor of their communal family situations then they are free to do so. Here in the U.S., though, adoption is the best alternative for the babies we are discussing.

“Let me make sure I’m understanding you. A child should be put up for adoption in any circumstance where the adoptive parents would provide a more likely environment for the child to avoid jail, poverty, and unwed pregnancy (among other things). Is that right?”

My position: a child is entitled to live in a home with a married mother and a father. Anything less than that brings pain and instability to a child’s life.

MCQ,

I think we all know here that we’re talking about the right or appropriate thing to do in a particular context, and that may or may not be the legal thing to do. Given that clarification, do you think the right thing to do is to encourage all parents who are likely to create an environment where their children are more inclined to do jail time, live in poverty, and conceive a child out-of-wedlock to give their children up for adoption? That seems to be reasoning at work in several comments (although not necessarily your comments).

I don’t have a problem with adoption, and I fully support it in most cases. I do have a problem, though, with those who claim that adoption is the best option for situations where the extended family network is able to provide an environment that is as good as adoptive parents can provide. I think family members have extra obligations to each other. In situations where those obligations cannot be fulfilled, or family members do not want to fulfill them, then it would be best for the baby to be raised by another family.

The title of the post is “If your 14 year old daughter was pregnant what would you do?” I imagine that most of your readers (and bloggers) fall into the category of being able to provide a “good” environment for children. Hence, I’m quite surprised to hear so many say that adoption is “by far” the best option.

Ron,

I’m curious to hear how you understand the First Presidency Letter. I’m not sure it necessarily argues against what I’m saying.

I simply do not believe based on both data and life exp that the extended family network scenario is even close to being as stable and beneficial to a child in these circumstances as a clean adoption to two sealed parents.

Ok, bbell, let’s add sealing (and I imagine recommend-holding) to the criteria of a “good” environment. If we have a scenario where extended family members meet that criteria (in addition to the others spelt out above), is adoption to another family still by far the best option?

FWIW, I’m emotionally vested in arguments with foggy reasoning; and this seems to be a particularly foggy one in our (LDS) culture.

The facts are from an LDS perspective is that the church does not encourage grandparents to adopt there grandchildren in this scenario. Its to messy and allows the messed up biological parents to be involved with their biological children. I can tell you from a long history with YM that children that are being raised wholly or partially by grandparents are usually not in an ideal situation and the end results tend to be less then ideal.

RG – since I am 40 years old in a happy marriage and have a 14 year old daughter I can fully imagine the scenario. If you look at my previous comments I haven’t even addressed what is best for the child. I have only addressed so far how it would affect the current family members I already have.
I do not see it being beneficial for my 14 year old daughter to keep the baby even though I think I would be an awesome almost mother to the baby. I do not see how she would be able to actually parent the child more than I and my husband would be parenting it. Expecting her to practice motherhood failure for the first few years of motherhood is setting her up to fail.
My 14 year old is dependent on me and my husband for everything. Everything. Everything! How exactly can she finish education and support herself and raise a child? Only by intentionally failing at it and expecting someone else to shoulder all of the real responsibilities.
I am a good mother to a 14 year old girl and I am careful about what she does. You don’t dump your child in the deepend without a lifejacket and expect them to swim….they will drown. You do sign them up for swim lessons and you do let them plan in the water at their own pace.
My daughter has a job for $5 babysitting and housework. I drive her there. Sometimes she feels stressed when there is a lot of homework plus work. Work is two days a week and YW is one day a week and school is every day so she is pretty wiped out by Friday.
She is a teenager. She thinks she knows things but she doesn’t. She sometimes feels very overwhelmed with negative emotions. I very purposefully don’t overburden her with asking her to take care of younger siblings because there is only so much a teenager can handle.
My daughter is an A student, has a good self esteem, is generally liked by adults, she has many talents, she is considered very mature, she is generous and smart and has a lot of initiative and is helpful. If she were stranded on a desert island she would immediately attempt to build shelter and find food while everyone else was still in a daze. If you want help at Thanksgiving-she’s the one to ask. If you want help in the yard – she’s the one to ask. If you want help getting a 3 year old to bed – ask her. If you want a kid to do her homework on her own and do geometry in 8th grade she can do it. But this is all she can handle happily. I already wonder should I refuse to let her have the job? But no, I think she’s handling it ok. I wonder does she worry too much about grades? But I think no, she’s just being responsible. When she complains about going to YWs I wonder if she’s too overloaded, but I think she can handle it.
There is NO WAY on earth that my daughter could handle motherhood in any real way without seeing that she wasn’t actually capable of doing it so I fully expect her to choose adoption in this situation because she IS so mature and she IS so wise and she IS so smart and she IS so responsible.
I also don’t think it would be beneficial to me, to my husband, to my marriage, to my other kids, to the family as a whole…..even though I think we could weather it just like we have weathered cancer, post partum depression, job loss, learning disabilities, and other difficulties in our history as a family.
Is it clear cut? No. Is it always going to be better? No. But I think in most cases, adoption is better for the birth mother. I think it would be cruel to expect her to keep the baby.

“I don’t have a problem with adoption, and I fully support it in most cases. I do have a problem, though, with those who claim that adoption is the best option for situations where the extended family network is able to provide an environment that is as good as adoptive parents can provide.”

unless someone from the extended family network legally adopts the child, then the child won’t have the blessings that come from being sealed to a mother and father.

RG – never said you did. I was just giving my opinion about the extended family support situation that my daughter would have that you DID mention and expanded from that. Perhaps I shouldn’t have put your name, but you did ask the question, and I was answering it from my perspective where I didn’t even address the needs of the child that other people had focused on, but on my current experience as a mother to a 14 year old girl. I assumed you were interested in my answer and I really wanted to express my opinion. I’m sorry if I implied that you were advocating for a certain expectation, that was not my intention.

I happen to believe that we have extra obligations to family members. I happen to believe that those who are in a position to fulfill those obligations are morally obligated to. I think that two temple-recommend holding LDSs in their 40s (i.e., the grandparents, aunts, uncles of the baby), with stable income, are _at the very least_ a viable alternative to adoption.

“Unwed parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own. … When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration,” emphasis mine.

MCQ,
I couldn’t have said it better myself. The point RG seems to be missing is that Living with two parents that are sealed is different than being sealed to two parents.
If an extended family member wants to step up and take responsibility for the baby that’s great, but in the church’s view, taking responsibility would include legally adopting the child and having him/her sealed to them.

RG, you may want to consider that the “foggy reasoning” is on your end.

“This isn’t (or shouldn’t) be about anyone other than the innocent baby. What is best for the CHILD.”

I agree with you. But I also think that what is best for the other child (or my child) in this situation (birth mother) is the same– adoption to a loving home with married parents. I also think it is what is best for the third child (assuming he is a child) to not be an teen dad and fail miserably. (UNLESS, as the church suggests, there is a chance of a successful marriage and the opportunity for the three of them to be a family…..which at age 14 few would suggest.)
I think most of the time being a good mother if you are 14 or 15 means placing the child for adoption.

I was 38 when my son and his ex-girlfriend S came to me and told me that they were pregnant. Her family was quite dysfunctional and wanted her to keep the baby. If they had fought her on an adoption, I would have fought for custody of my beautiful granddaughter, my first. However, since they were no longer together, they decided on adoption. I was supportive from day one. My son was unusual also in being fully involved in the process. Yes it was my first, yes it was heartbreaking. I went to counseling with S and to classes to prepare her for the choice of single parenting or adoption. We went through LDS social services and All of us were part of the process. It was a lovely, hard experience which I would never want to repeat but has taught me so much about the love of my Savior, the repentance process and so much more. Would I encourage adoption? I most certainly would!

We have a difference of opinion. So does the First Presidency as stated in a 1994 general letter:

I fail to see how I’m disagreeing with the First Presidency here. I’m not advocating the mother keep the baby, as I’ve stated before.

My point is simply that it very well _should be_ a contest if extended family members are capable of fulfilling (and willing to fulfill) their obligations.

This is where you’re wrong. They have no obligations. And even if they did, those obligations would be far less important than the best interests of the child, who is much better off being adopted by an intact couple who can be sealed to the child and create a family.

I’m not arguing against adoption. I’m arguing for the viability of grandparents (or extended family members) raising/adopting the child.

That is by far inferior to adoption by an intact couple who can be sealed to the child and create a real family. In the vast majority of cases, grandparents or extended family members will not be able to do that, and the fact that the birth mother or father or both would be around and involved in the child’s life would most certainly be confusing and counterproductive. You just don’t get it RG. You’re dead wrong on this.

Children should be raised in a stable environment (where they will likely avoid jail, etc.).

It’s not about avoiding jail. It’s about giving them the best chance to be successful. Adoption to an intact couple who are looking for a child and who can be sealed to the child does this. Giving the child to grandparents or extended family has some chance of success, but it’s not the best chance. Adoption is.

Children should be raised in a LDS home where both parents are sealed.

Finding grandparents or extended family who are sealed and willing to take the child might not be as easy as you think. But even if you can find them, they are not going to be as excited to take the child as a couple who has been waiting and praying for a child for weeks, months or years. These couples are already screened and approved by LDS social services. Extended family, not so much.

Children should be raised in a situation where they can be sealed to a mother or father. I agree in since this doesn’t necessarily rule out grandparents or extended family.

Sealed to a mother AND father, not OR. And it usually does rule out granparents and extended family members. Most grandparents are not going to be sealed as parents to their grandchild, especially when their daughter or son is still around and could conceivably want to be a parent to the child someday. Putting a child with grandparents or extended family is a stop-gap measure, not a permanent solution. Adoption is permanent and it gives the child the best chance to lead a normal successful life. Not a confusing hillbilly life where mom is someone you thought was your sister and grandma is who you thought was your mom and dad is the guy you thought was your cousin.

Children should be raised in an environment where they are wanted. I fully agree. If adopted/raised by extended family, the extended family should be _willing_ to fulfill their obligations.

Can’t you see the difference between being WANTED and being given to someone who is “willing to fullfill their obligations?” First of all, there are no obligations. No grandparent or extended family member has any obligation to care for the illegitimate child of their family member. No obligation whatsoever. None. If they are willing to take the child, that is nice, but it is completely inferior to a situation where a couple wants a child and has been seeking one and would be over the moon with joy to have one. That is a far dufferent situation and far more likely to be a loving and successful situation for the child.

It really is no contest.

I am a mother of five, and grandmother of one. I am also an adopted child (a perspective that I have not yet seen represented here).

Though my adoption was many (MANY) years ago, and as far as I know, neither parent was LDS, I am enormously grateful to my birthparents. Having raised 5 children of our own, my husband and I are well aware that even with a strong gospel presence in a home, children make their own (sometimes poor) decisions. Contrary to the teenage wail, it is not just their life that is affected when poor decisions are made. We have a sibling who is, with his wife, raising two grandchildren as their legal guardian. These are wonderful, kind, loving people, and they are struggling every day with the lack of energy that comes with aging, and the astounding difference in the culture from when they raised the daughter who birthed these children. I don’t know that they would change the decision they made after the last 3 years, but it is very difficult in ways they never anticipated.

I would lose pieces of my heart should I have to watch a grandchild pass out of my life through adoption, but as an adopted child, I carry those same pieces of my birthmother’s heart with me every day with gratitude and humility. I have wonderful parents who cherished and loved me, and the blessing of adoption still resounds through the generations of my own children and grandchildren.

Everyone tends to assume that their own experiences (or emotions, or feelings) are the “universal”. My own experiences with this question are only anecdotal and a small part of the picture. Speaking from that experience however, adoption and the love and unselfish decision of a pregnant, unmarried woman (and perhaps her extended family) blessed every good thing in my life. There is not enough gratitude….

RG, I think your idea that the grandparents and/or teen mother’s sibling have a “responsibility” to adopt the child is mistaken. Where does that come from? How can it be their responsibility when it’s generally not even in the best interests of the child? MCQ’s #61 I think sums up my thinking as well, very well. But I have had some experience in my medical practice with families who seem to share your beliefs. They give the children born to children (whether literal children or incompetent, completely unprepared adults) the gift of ongoing, multigenerational family dysfunction. At least you do not advocate the 14 year-old “taking responsibility for her mistakes” by trying to raise the child, but I have seen that kind of attitude as well, to everyone’s detriment.

While my comments are directed specifically at MCQ, I hope they clarify my position for others.

MCQ, are you being serious when you say that there are _no_ obligations here, or do you want to say that they are unable to fulfill their obligations?

Tell me where you disagree with the following paragraph:

One has an obligation to create a healthy environment for the children one brings into the world. One has an obligation to create a healthy environment for the children that one’s children bring into the world (although to a lesser degree). One has an obligation to create a healthy environment for the children that one’s brothers and sisters bring into the world (although, again, to a lesser degree). A healthy enviornment is an emotionally/psycholgoically/socially and financially stable environment which maximizes the child’s chances for happiness and success. In an LDS context this would also entail being sealed to a mother and father. In the end there are many things that might curtail one’s ability to fulfill these obligations (such as giving birth as a 14 year old).

I’m reading between the lines here, but I’m assuming you’d agree with what I’ve said in the last paragraph (and truth be told your statements about “no obligations” are just silly).

If this is the case, then I suggest our disagreement is probably along two lines: 1) What does it mean to be able to fulfill these obligations? Or, are extended family members able to fulfill these obligations? And 2) What happens when one is unable to fulfill these obligations?

I think we would agree that regardless of ability, an unwillingness to fulfill these obligations is reason for adoption to parents that can and are willing to create a healthy environment.

So far you’ve provided no reasons to apriori rule out the ability of the extended family to create a healthy environment. If the grandparents do not feel that they are capable of creating such an environment (because of their age, for instance) then adoption outside the family may very well be the best thing. If age isn’t a problem, but fear of a socially unstable environment due to a young teenage mother still living at home, then adoption outside the family may very well be the best thing. If young grandparents are going to resent the child, then adoption to others may very well be the best thing. If sealing is not a possibility, then adoption to others may very well be the best thing. I see no reason, though, to rule out from the get-go extended family as being able to provide a healthy environment. If there are two relatively healthy temple recommend holding grandparents (or aunts, uncles), that have provided a healthy environment in the past and are willing to work at reconstructing this environment (taking into account the potential psychological trauma of still having to raise a teenager who birthed the baby, for instance), I fail to see how it is a “no contest” option to choose another family. This is the same characterization I’ve given of extended family above; and your characterization of them as hillbillies is disingenuous (if not bigoted) on your part.

To clarify for E (#65). I’m not saying that extended family members have a responsibility to adopt the child. I’m saying that extended family members have a responsibility to create a healthy environment for the child; and if they are unwilling or unable to create this environment then they should look to those who are willing and able (e.g., adoption parents found through LDS services).

MCQ, I’m interested in your thoughts as far as 2) is concerned. Is every case where one is unable to fulfill these obligations a case where adoption is a clear winner? I ask because it seems that at the very least this would entail arguing for the adoption of a whole socio-economic class of babies; or, if the possibility of being sealed to a mother and father is a precondition of creating a healthy environment, then you’d have to argue for the adoption of all non-LDS babies by temple recommend holding LDS parents. I’m guessing you won’t go this far, but how doesn’t your reasoning take you there?

RG,

The family’s obligations are to provide for the best interest of the child, even in cases when that means letting the child go.

You’re right, of course, John….but I’ve had to eat my words so many times in my getting-to-be-long life that I’m much more careful about solid pronouncements. I don’t see the decision as a moral decision for the parents. The moral (or in this case immoral) decision has been made. This would be, in most cases, a choice between several moral decisions. And like I said before, it’s not fair to expect the grandmother to adopt and raise the child; nor is it fair to force the teenager to give her child up if she doesn’t want to; nor is it fair to force the child to be raised in a dysfunctional fashion. You really have to take everything into account, including that old adage that “life must be lived forward, but understood backward.”

And you know, I said I’d change my mind and move to the Yukon, but you never know what you’ll do until you’re in that situation. Semantics aside, I can decide I’m not going to drink beer—and in most cases, know that is what I will not do. But there might be exceptions……

My statement was based mostly on what others have said they would do if their children died. Or wouldn’t do. Everything changes once you actually experience that situation. Not to thread-jack. That’s one example. I’ve had people tell me, “I know I can’t imagine how you feel, but I’m sure I wouldn’t fall apart.” Yeah, right. I’ve had friends declare “I’d leave my husband in a New York minute if he cheated on me” only to discover it’s not so cut and dried and easy-peasy when it happens to you. So it’s not all about deciding moral choices beforehand. It can be about judging others with high and mighty pronouncements. Quite a different ball game when the shoe’s on one’s own foot.

But, like I said, you have a point.

I wonder if there are studies on this issue. I also know a beautiful young mother of four whose mother put her foot down and forced her to put her baby up for adoption when she was 16. I don’t think she’s ever forgiven her mother. I don’t know how the baby’s doing.

I actually grew up with a girl who was legally adopted, sealed and for a time raised by her childless aunt and uncle. This is precisely the scenario that RG so vigorously defends. This girl considered them Mom and Dad until the end of Jr High when she went to live with her “real mother.” From what I heard her teenage years were problematic. I’m not quite sure what actually went down, but it is fair to say that having her birth mother in the family did serious damage to her adopted parental authority. When something gets uncomfortable at he adopted relatives home, the child can run easily to the birth parent.This is a big flaw in having family members adopt.

Others have respnded to RG very well here. I especially endorse what MAC has said 100%. And annegb, your #71 is pure poetic wisdom.

Did you hear that, MAC? You’re 100% MCQ endorsed, which I take to mean that MCQ is unable to engage the argument so s/he’s handing it over to you.

There is no shortage of stable families who want to adopt. In fact, the competition among them is so intense they’ll make great sacrifices to get the baby and give it a good life. It should be a no-brainer. It’s not like they’re making hot dogs out of it.

It should be a no-brainer.

Bradley, have you been following this conversation?

Did you hear that, MAC? You’re 100% MCQ endorsed

Is that retro-active?

I’d be satisfied with this crowd simply admitting the viability of the option.

It isn’t that anyone disallows the option of adoption within the extended family. But considering that there are 1000′s a worthy childless couples waiting to adopt, why is a baby being sealed to a couple within that child’s extended family better than being sealed to any worthy couple? What is the origin of any obligation for the extended family to adopt if able?

I’m glad that RG is advocating his point of view because it gives everyone else a reason to think through and articulate how their views differ. There are a few situations where I think RG’s concern for family responsibility should factor into not adopting out of the extended family. One is the birth of a severly handicapped child, the kind that doesn’t have hundreds of wonderful, childless couples wishing they could take him home. The other is the case where the young mother has kept the child, and the next one too, and she isn’t handling the job, and the children, no longer babies, are faring poorly. My cousin took in her sister’s children in such a situation, putting off bearing more of her own for a decade. I think my cousin did the best thing that could be done for her sister’s children. Turning mother and child into adopted siblings, though, seems like a bad idea for the most part.

The question as posed with a pregnant 14-year-old is a relatively easy one; there is no way for a 14-year-old American girl to fufill the duties of a parent. A 17-year-old, though, could take on the job. Still the wrong choice per Church counsel if she remains unmarried (We would tell an unmarried 27-year-old it’s time for adoption.), but a harder one to convince everyone of.

#87 – John Mansfield – I’m so glad I just waited for the answer that articulated my view. I am too tired today to do the mental work myself.

Just because my 14 year-old niece gets pregnant does mean I am obligated to consider adopting the baby so it can stay in the family.

In my experience, when the baby stays with extended family, it gets VERY painful when the child becomes old enough to understand who their real mother is.

I vote for giving the child a clean break, a chance to grow up without the emotional baggage that comes from constantly being reminded your mother wasn’t ready to have a child.

No matter what, eventually the birth parent story will be explored by the adopted child. I would rather that happen as an 18+ year old rather than a confused 6 year old.

Why shouldn’t each and every one of these families give up their children for adoption (or at least all their children born to the them from here on out)? And if being sealed is a necessary criteria for a good environment, then why aren’t you calling for all non-members to give up their children for adoption?

Who is to say that children who are not part of celestial families won’t, if worthy, be adopted into such families? Just be a little patient.

But in the near term, it does happen in a very similar way with child protective services. The line between acceptable and unacceptable parents is just not at the same place that you seem to want to put it. For example, homelessness in and of itself is not sufficient justification to remove children from a family even though many pathologies associated with homelessness may well be. But this has nothing to do with the protecting the family unit as much as it does protecting the child from loss.

In the case of an unmarried teenage parents, it has been shown that the negative social-emotional impact of staying with the birth parents (and from an LDS perspective; negative spiritual impact) exceeds the negative impact of familial loss. It has nothing to do with the birth family’s need to meet their obligations.

Never mind that the reality is that a very, very small percentage of families actually adopt out children. So your argument is a little like complaining about the air conditioning not working in January. In almost every case the family will not let the child go out and the child suffers because of it.

In short, improving socio-economic status does not yield a net benefit when considering the impact of loss to a child, whereas adoption outside the birth family does (IMO) almost always lead to a net positive impact. For reasons that others have mentioned and based on my own observation. (btw what is the obsession with socio-economic status? As if that is the ultimate objective of society. This kind of progressive clap-trap, you and MCQ should have struck up an immediate bromance, not all this arguing).

Just because my 14 year-old niece gets pregnant does[n't] mean I am obligated to consider adopting the baby so it can stay in the family.

Consider it this way. There is you, and there is an unknown person that lives on the other side of town. Who has more of an obligation to care for your niece?

Now, this doesn’t necessarily get you to having an obligation to adopt your niece, and I’ve confessed to that in the last paragarph of 90; but if you’re as willing and able to construct a healthy environment as the best of the unknown people living across town why wouldn’t you be an equally viable candidate?

If your response is that the birth mother is still in the picture, then this reverts back to the argument about who is able to create a healthy condition. I’ll say more about this in my response to MAC.

RG, I think all of your arguments have been responded to. You seem upset that people don’t find them persuasive. I think you have advocated for your position as well as you can. There is no benefit in resorting to name calling and insults. In the real world, far more people choose your approach of keeping the baby with the extended family than allowing the child to be raised by others. You can take comfort in that. I just find it sad.

Nice threadjack Nathan.
I’m ok with it…
No custody battle now or later.
Child will have 2 parents simultaneously.
If Mom/Dad is not mature enough to stay married are they mature enough to raise a child?
Child does not have to live with baggage of “Mommy kept me because she’s stuck with me.”
Placing a child for adoption is not easy. If she has made this choice then she clearly believes that this is what is best for that child. Cut her some slack please. This is a clear case of “2 wrongs DON’T make a right.” She made a mistake getting married. Don’t force her in to making a second mistake by trying to single-parent when she clearly is not ready to do that. Children are not a consequence.

Amen to Ron and E. Grandparents raising the child or co-parenting with a single mom is not a good idea. This child will have a much better chance with an adoptive couple in an intact relationship.

One tired old argument you hear in the bloggernaccle is that in other cultures they do things differently. Who cares? We live in the here and now and have to deal with the current environment that we exist in.

Tired cultures like in our own country. My cousin’s daughter (in Bountiful) got pregnant out of wedlock and a combination of grandparental possessiveness *and* priesthood counsel that raising one’s own child is a pathway to repentance led them to keep it.

What good are official pronouncements/letter if no one has access to them and/or has read them?

We have a young Mormon couple who just adopted the child a 15-year-old LDS girl put up for adoption. My heart aches for that young girl and her parents, but I cannot imagine a better situation for a child conceived in those circumstances. And the joy of that previously childless couple is humbling to behold.

If my 16-year-old daughter told me she was pregnant, there is no question I would favor adoption for my grandchild. But rather than preaching to my daughter, I’d send her to visit that couple.

I gotta agree with RG.

I think choosing to adopt or not rests with the unwed parents and grandparents. In the case of a 14 year old ( I am the mother of a 14 year old), and no, this child is not old enough to become a parent. I also need to add that studies have shown, the younger the teenage girl the larger the age span is between her and the father. This is probably a date rape situation.

In every case, great care should be taken to fervently pray and fast to have a witness of the right course of action to take. Ultimately the decision has to rest on the young woman, and for the family to support the decision. Do not force the young woman to give up her child. She will resent you forever for this, and because she is trying to fill the emptiness, she may go out and have another unwed baby. This happend to two girls I know.

I think there are many factors to consider. I think a lot of the unwed mother data is skewed because of socio-economics and family dysfunction. In the cases of people who had the resources and were emotionally stable; I have seen 17-21 year old unwed mothers who have gone on to marry in the temple ( not to the baby’s father). One of these mothers later became a Stake YW Leader and another a Bishops counselor’s wife. I have seen grandparents raise grandchildren as their own (sealed and adopted) who have done a wonderful job. I had a great-aunt who was an unwed teen mom. Her daughter grew up to be a BYU professor. My great-aunt never had another child.

On the other hand, I have seen in one case adoptive LDS parents get divorced, one family became inactive, and another terrible abuse of the younger adopted child by an older also adopted sibling.

I was 45 when we adopted my youngest daughter, and bring an older parent is a wonderful thing. I am so thankful we choose to adopt her from China.

I also have to add, don’t guilt young women into giving their baby up for adoption. I don’t think it is fair to treat them as surrogates for other people. If the young woman chooses to make the sacrifice of adoption, it is a marvelous blessing for the adopted family, for her, and for the child, but she needs to make that decision, receive a witness and to live with that peace only the Holy Ghost can provide.

There are so many children in the world who need and deserve parents. People who say there aren’t children to adopt, are really saying they only want a white newborn. Yes, there is a shortage of those babies, but potential parents can open their minds and stretch their hearts they may find the child who G-d wants them to have, is perhaps; not white, not American, not from an LDS birth parent. I can testify they will love that child just as much as a biological child.

I think all of your arguments have been responded to. You seem upset that people don’t find them persuasive. I think you have advocated for your position as well as you can. There is no benefit in resorting to name calling and insults. In the real world, far more people choose your approach of keeping the baby with the extended family than allowing the child to be raised by others. You can take comfort in that. I just find it sad.

If you think I’m advocating _more_ people having extended family raise their children then you haven’t read (or understood) what I’ve written. And the fact that I’m the one singled out for name calling leads me to believe that you indeed haven’t followed this discussion closely enough.

MAC’s 93.

Let me make sure I’m following you here. Deciding about adoption involves weighing the benefits and drawbacks of each alternative. Where the benefits exceed drawbacks, then that’s the course of action that should be taken. Benefits of adoption are usually a stable relationship with two parents, a better socio-economic situation, giving those who really want a child the opportunity to have one, etc. The drawbacks are usually familial loss, etc. The benefits of keeping the child are usually maintaining connections with the birth family, etc. And the drawbacks are usually things like the trauma of dealing with a young and unprepared mother. Not all benefits and drawbacks are of equal weight. For instance, familial loss outweighs an improved socio-economic situation. Is that right?

Other than this, have we come to a consensus on the viability of qualified extended family members adopting the child?

RG, the “familial loss” drawback can be lessened or even completely removed by having an open adoption. My youngest son sees his birth family, including birth grandparents, aunt, and uncles, every 1-2 months. We would love for our two older children to have the same opportunity, but their birth parents don’t want it.

But the point I really want to make is that throughout this discussion, very few people have mentioned the wishes of the birth parents themselves, which should be paramount. No one should be involved in the decision at all except the two birth parents and their respective parents, and even the birth grandparents need to tread carefully and make sure that they are not removing the birth parents’ agency in the process of supporting and counseling them. Any other extended family members have no say whatsoever in what happens to that baby. They may feel they have an obligation to the baby, but unless the birth parents themselves invite them to exercise an obligation, it doesn’t matter whether they feel they have one or not. If the birth parents wish to place with baby with a member of their immediate or extended family, that is their prerogative. It is also the prerogative of the family member(s) to exercise their own agency in deciding whether or not they can take on the parenting of that child. But if the birth parents choose to place the baby outside of the biological family, then all other family members absolutely need to respect that decision and not put pressure on the birth parents to keep the baby in the family.

“The joy of the adoptive parents should _not_ be a factor in this situation since, as JAB points out in 107, there are actually many babies available for adoption, any of whom should bring this joy.”

I agree with the first 14 (counted ‘em) words here. Their joy should be a non-issue in the initial decision. It’s politically incorrect, but a harsh truism. Screw ‘em. I hate when I get dumped on with that kind of responsibility. Seriously. A teenager who is pregnant out of wedlock doesn’t owe it to society to give their child away. That should be the last of their concerns.

On the other hand, why shouldn’t adoptive parents want a healthy white baby (unless they’re Hispanic, or Asian, or, oh, Navajo—let’s say a “healthy race-of-the-parents” baby)? They don’t owe anybody just because they can’t have biological children. I wanted healthy white babies—surely you all did, or do, too. It’s not a sin. People can handle what they can handle and if they can’t handle adopting a special needs child, that’s their decision.

A lot of judgements made here. A lot of deciding for others. If your 14 year old pregnant daughter decides to adopt, bringing joy to others is the frosting on the cake, but not the reason for the decision. If you are childless and decide to adopt an AIDS baby of a race other than your own, good for you and good for society (assuming you’re not a total wreck of a human being). But you don’t owe anybody. In either case. Except in the existential sense that we are all our brother’s keeper. Which, in the long run, can be a rather inefficient way of living.

I have been a part of adoptions where the birth mother met and approved the adoptive couple ahead of time. That is a normal part of the process now. Why in the world would you want a young girl to be ignorant and oblivious to the facts regarding the adoptive couples that are out there?

we need to let the girl and her parents receive a witness of the Holy Ghost so she/they can have peace.

As I said way back at the beginning of this thread, no one should be compelled to do anything. But if the question is: “what is the best option?” Then the answer is almost that adoption is best because it gives the baby the best opportunities.

The unmarried birthrate is what really matters in the data. I know 3-4 women who are in their thirties who had a first child at age 19 in Utah after an early temple marriage. All it takes is 20 temple marriages at 18 and a child before 20 per 1000 women and we get the data that we see.

We are now discussing agency and teen mothers. I have 5 kids for now. My oldest is almost 12. I tell this kid when to get up, what to eat, what to watch, how to shoot a jumper etc essentially this kid is under my control. I cannot imagine allowing a 14-17 year who I am financially responsible for to make a decision on their own about raising a child under my roof. We have lots of parents on this thread. Where am I wrong? Can a 14 year old tell their parents that they are bringing their baby into the house and that is the final decision?

JABENSON,

“I agree, but they should not put forth the idea that they tried for years and years and could not find a baby to adopt.”

I’m going to agree with you on this one. Usually when you hear that it is because they have been registered for years with LDSFS. As an adoptive parent of 2 I can say that if all you have done is complete a home study with LDSFS, you aren’t trying.

The problem is that LDSFS is heavily subsidized by the church and CHEAP. The cost of an adoption through LDSFS is 10% of that couple’s previous year income, but its capped at $10k. Real adoptions cost much more.

For our first child, we waited for LDSFS for 2 years with the typical complaining about having to wait, but then our eyes were opened to the fact that other agencies have potential birthmothers for whom they haven’t yet found a family to place with. We transferred our home study to a local private agency in September and we brought our baby boy home in time for Christmas.

Did we pay more than we would have paid through LDSFS? Yes. Was it a sacrifice to pay that instead of the $10k I would have paid LDSFS? Yes. But this is my family. What else can you spend that money on that you can have sealed to you forever and ever?

If you know someone who is waiting for a child through LDSFS, please remind them that they DON”T have to wait forever. There are other avenues to adoption if they are just willing to sacrifice a little more.

bbell, yes the birth parents have to make the final decision about THEIR child, no matter how young. I know it sounds counter-intuitive for a parent to let a teenager make that decision. And no one would advocate parents just sitting back and not offering very strong counsel and guidance in the matter. Likewise, I think that parents can and should put limits on things that are going to have a profound impact on their own lives–for example, insisting that if the expectant teen chooses to parent, grandma and grandpa will or will not do such-and-such to assist in the upbringing of that baby.

But forcing the teen to either choose adoption or choose parenting is disastrous in the long term. This is not just an opinion put forth on a whim by me, and it’s not just about feeling sorry for the poor teen who has to say goodbye without any thought to the child’s well-being. You talk to any caseworker working with families in this situation, and they will tell you the same thing. There is a really fabulous book called For the Love of a Child, by Monica Blume, an LDSFS caseworker. She addresses this issue in some depth. Teens who are not only allowed to exercise their agency, but also strongly encouraged to go to Heavenly Father with their decision and to listen to the revelation He offers them, will often, with family support, make the right decision. And in the process they not only grow closer to God, but also start to re-develop their own sense of themselves as good people who can make good choices and follow through with them. This is vitally important for the future success in life, spiritual and otherwise. Teens who have the decison taken away from them (even though it might be the right one), do not develop this same spiritual capacity and will often repeat the same behaviors and mistakes that got them where they were in the first place.

Also, when the adopted child grows up and begins to question why they were adopted, it’s extremely important for them as well to know how their birth parents came to the decision to place. I believe an adopted child will be more at peace knowing that their birth parents prayed and followed Heavenly Father’s will in placing them, or at least that the birth parents truly believed adoption was the right choice, than that child would be in learning that their birth parents were forced into placing them.

If, however, a pregnant 14 yr old girl is making a decision about whether to adopt or keep the baby, the fact that there are many infertile couples looking for a baby is relevant, and a proper part of her decision. Saying that fact should not be a factor is a head-in-the-sand philosophy. All relevant facts are important and should be weighed by the young girl in this situation.

First, my response was to Nathan’s situation, not the 14-year old. But,the fact that the baby will enter a healthy environment is relevant. The fact that the baby will be treated as a blessing by the adoptive parents is relevant. The fact that the mother might feel a connection with one set of adoptive parents over others is relevant. The fact that adoptive parents will feel joy in getting a baby is only relevant as far as these three points are concerned. Appealing to this joy as a primary reason for adoption (“this whole argument could be solved if everyone could just once watch the joy that comes when an adoptive couple finally gets a baby”) shifts concern for the baby onto concern for the adoptive parents. Coincidentally, I think concern for the adoptive parents is something worthy of concern; but since the fact of the matter is that there actually are large numbers of (healthy) babies available for adoption, I find it much harder to be concerned. I hope that clarifies.

And on the issue of agency, I think we’d agree that generally speaking the younger the mother is the less she is the primary decision maker; although she always remains a very important part of the decision. And furthermore, I imagine that we would agree that whatever the decision, we should usually support it to ensure the best health of the baby and the mother/birth parents.

Ron- Yes, I am also an adopted parent. Our child was found in China. Yes I am aware LDS Family Services is a lot cheaper than China. Infertility was not our issue as we were in our mid-forties with 4 biological children. Our oldest was 18.

I have pointed out to others there are other options, and they still want to stick with LDSFS, that may be the best course of action to take, but they should not put forth the idea adoptable kids are in short supply. It discourages others. I cannot tell you how many people told us not to pursue adoption as it was “too hard”. Guess what? I am sure glad we did not find out how easy international adoption was, cause I probably would not have had 2-4 biological kids if I had known. For me pregnancy and delivery was so much scary and harder. I think there are lots of families, who do not qualify for LDSFS ( they shouldn’t) with the resources and desire to adopt an orphan or abandoned child who do not know just how attainable domestic/international adoption can be.

For us, it was 1 year to the month from start to finish including the home-study. The cost of the adoption was the price of a car. We stretched out our old car awhile longer, paying the adoption off in stages. For us, human life=car was an easy choice to make. We took seriously the admonition of the scriptures to provide for orphans. Hong Mei’s presence has enriched the lives of my older children in so many ways. My older kids understand many children come into this world and are starved and neglected and that we have the power to change the course of at least one life.

BBell-as the mother of adult and teen children elijee is correct. That is the price of parenting, sometimes you cannot control what may happen to them. You can do your darndest, but life happens. Girls who I have know whose parents forced them to give up their baby, had another one a couple of years later. These grieving girls want to fill the emptiness they feel, and when they are old enough to defy you they will. Your relationship and trust with that child is destroyed.