Monogamous Couples Blessing Polygny Families?

[Lysistrata]

Golly Steve, you're being ornery!

Dr. Allen stated,

"I think this might even work legally as a legal parent can give rights to whoever for their children if I understand it rightly. I imagine there is a legal process where this could be done. It would be worth checking."

I don't see deception in those words. Just concern for families without children and children without families.

We all agree that there are single women out there that need homes and we are willing to wink at bigamy and anti-poly laws. Dr. Allen wasn't suggesting anything illegal but some of your posts about adopting husbandless women are suspect! (Respectfully poking you in the ribs, dear sir!)

 

[steve]

i will let the gentille reader come to their own decision.

i think that we have an obligation to be aboveboard where we can, but i have no wish to be ornery.

 

[sweetlissa]

Lets look at it from another perspective...

The adoption process is long and difficult. I watched my sister go through it. It takes at least a year for the adoption to be finalized, and that year is full of checkups and surprise visits that make it necessary for the child to live with the family that is doing the adopting. In that time there is a bunch of bonding that takes place. Once the adoption is final and an appropriate amount of time goes by for social services to take their nose out of your business, it could be well over a year. Then the child is uprooted again and put in yet another home. I don't find it morally repugnant like Steve does (close though) but I don't think it would be good for a child.

SweetLissa

 

[Tali]

Steve just called from the road and asked that I mention that he had a typo goober that needed to be noted.

He meant "gentle" reader in his post, not some odd rendering of "gentile." :lol:

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Lisaa said:

the child is uprooted again and put in yet another home. I don't find it morally repugnant like Steve does (close though) but I don't think it would be good for a child.

Now this is legitimate issue that I think does need to be seriously considered and weighed. One thought is exactly that there is stress to the child or children. I can see that and it is something that has to be weighed.

Plus, this even gets into gender differences. Sometimes men are less inclined to make decisions based upon emotional stress whereas women will often make decisions based more upon the emotional elements. So men might brainstorm differently in this about the same way a mom and dad sometimes think differently about their child getting hurt in some sport. Sometimes a mom is more hesitant to let a child enter a contact sport whereas a dad is sometimes more willing. It is kinda of like the situation when a child as a toddler falls to the ground and the mom is a little more worried whereas the dad is sometimes like, he'll be fine. The two genders seem to simply read and feel stress in themselves and for others differently, which has indeed been scientifically confirmed by physiological studies of the genders.

But then again it could also depend upon the ages of the child/children. The younger the more resilient and easier it could be, especially if the children were very very young.

Too, in my mind I think it might also depend on looking at something long term versus short term. Is a child being placed in a short term amount of stress, a year or two, better than many years in a state or government system where they have no true home for many years, or where they might be adopted by those who are not Christian?

I don't know if I have a good answer to that. I suppose it may be an issue where the Spirit has to guide one while a due examination is given to all of the factors involved. Some children it might indeed do them harm and thus not be a good choice. But in others cases it might mean that it is actually an effort of mercy if the child/children are in need of a godly home and this is the way in providence God highlights it before several who see it as his hand opening a door.

Too, it might depend upon the speed of the services of adoption and the specific regulations.

So brainstorming here is what I am doing and considering if there are monogamous couples who have ever thought about this obstacle as an opportunity to explore deeper a way to possibly serve.

Dr. Allen

PS. But what do I know...I might be one of those "Gentile" readers/writers....lol.... :lol: just joking

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

Re: Monogamous Couples Blessing Polygyny Families?

I think possibly there is another option. If a poly couple knew of or was able to be introduced to a single woman who was wanting to give her child up for adoption then they could do a direct adoption (closed adoption). I am not sure of the correct legal terms and I am sure that what is involved varies by state.
I had a coworker who suffered from uterine cancer at 17 and was not able to have children. When her older sister had 6 kids and was about to have the 7th when the bf walked out on her. The sister worked it out so her sister adopted her child and to my understanding it was not that complicated. BUT they also are native american SO due to the Indian Child Welfare Act, the law requires that the child has to stay in the tribe so that might have made it easier.
Thanks to that law if my dh dies I can not keep my children without a member of the tribe in the household because I am not native american. :?

 

[Anonymous]

If a poly couple knew of or was able to be introduced to a single woman who was wanting to give her child up for adoption then they could do a direct adoption (closed adoption). I am not sure of the correct legal terms and I am sure that what is involved varies by state.

An adoption done directly between a First Mother and the prospective adopting family is called a "private adoption". A "closed adoption" is where none of the parties meet one another and no names, addresses or other identifying information is exchanged. An agency or an attorney would have to be involved to facilitate the process since none of the parties have contact with one another. Thankfully, "closed adoption" is fast becoming a thing of the past. "Open Adoption" has been the trend for sometime now.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Anonymous]

Now this is legitimate issue that I think does need to be seriously considered and weighed. One thought is exactly that there is stress to the child or children. I can see that and it is something that has to be weighed.

Another issue that needs to be seriously considered and weighed would be the feelings of the First Parents ! They have the right to decide who gets to raise their child! For a mono couple to do something like this is very dishonest.

Lissa is right, adoptions can't be finalized right away. Most states allow about a year (a few only allow 6 months) for the First Parents to change their minds and reclaim their child. No adoption can be finalized until this probationary time period is up. That means that the child will be with the mono couple until the adoption process has been completed. Once again! The First Parents have the final say-so on who gets and raises their baby! Most females in crisis pregnancies (who choose NOT to abort) keep their babies. Most of the mothers who do give their babies up for adoption typically have an open adoption agreement allowing some level of continued contact with their children. That being the case, your plan really wouldn't work and would be dishonest and unethical in a number of ways.

Please have some respect for First Parents and the difficult decisions they face ! The family they choose to adopt their child needs to be the same family that raises the child!
The story about the grandparents is very different from what you're proposing.

Blessings,
Fairlight