[Subject changed from "Did Tatiana just delete another thread?" --PJ]
I've just made a search for the thread about your quest to help your friend, and I can't find it. If I'm just overlooking it, let me know and I'll retract this.
Otherwise, a lot of people spent a lot of time giving a lot of helpful, realistic advice concerning your friend. It seems kind of insulting to delete all of that every time anyone questions your actual, physical and/or legal maternity to a kid that you know primarily from chatting on the Internet.
And this isn't the first time it's happened. Am I the only person who finds this rude?
[ January 25, 2008, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Apparently the thread was deleted. It did become somewhat contentious at the end, though. I might have deleted it myself if it was my thread.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Did Tatiana just delete another thread?
Yes.
quote:Am I the only person who finds this rude?
No.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This is why we need to shun thread deleters! GET THE PITCHFORKS!
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
*two nods*
EDIT: Not to the pitchfork idea. Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
Lol, reminds me of the Saturday Night Live Frankenstein sketch.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I missed where the thread was becoming contentious, so I guess I'm just confused. But if it was getting mean-spirited, I can understand deleting it.
-pH
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It was rude. But it may have been necessary, from her POV, because of her emotional investment in Sasha and the thread itself.
I don't fault her for it.
edit: Perhaps contentious is not the right term-- I struggled for the proper adjective and that was the compromise I came up with.
Without rehashing the details, Tatiana said she was becoming uncomfortable about the discussion (the tone and/or the details?) Later TomDavidson put out a very frank appraisal (not mean-spirited, IMO) of her and Sasha's situation, parts I agreed with and parts I did not agree with. Some people agreed with Tom (2 or 3?) and then the thread was deleted.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I read it right up until just before it was deleted, and I didn't see anything that may have resembled a personal attack. Tom made a reasoned post examining her relationship with Sasha, but he went out of his way to make it respectful. And that was the worst I saw.
There wasn't anything there I'd even consider worth whistling, let alone blindly deleting 4 pages of comments for.
It seems to me that Tatiana wants, more than anything, to be acknowledged as the legitimate mother of this person. If anyone degrades her by referring to her as this kid's "friend," or even "mother-figure," rather than conceding that she should have all the rights and priveleges of someone who gave birth to and raised this child, she will instantly delete the thread and anything else that went with it. It's almost Orwellian.
And again, it's not the first time it's happened, under very similar circumstances.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I didn't read the thread, and have no idea what is going on. From an outside perspective, this thread makes no sense at all. Can someone please explain the situation?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Not this again...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Was she part of the "we ain't gonna delete threads" club?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I didn't read the thread, and have no idea what is going on. From an outside perspective, this thread makes no sense at all. Can someone please explain the situation?
The threads about Sasha? Her adopted internet son? Ring a bell?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't believe the thread got contentious. Unless one's definition of contentious is "saying anything I don't want to hear."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Was she part of the "we ain't gonna delete threads" club?
I doubt it. It doesn't seem to be her style.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: It seems to me that Tatiana wants, more than anything, to be acknowledged as the legitimate mother of this person. If anyone degrades her by referring to her as this kid's "friend," or even "mother-figure," rather than conceding that she should have all the rights and priveleges of someone who gave birth to and raised this child, she will instantly delete the thread and anything else that went with it. It's almost Orwellian.
I agree, and am not surprised she doesn't want to take an unbiased look at her behavior in this situation.
I only hope she saved that post of Tom's on her hard drive before she deleted it, because it's one she needs to read and reread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, I can see someone getting offended if it was suggested that an adopted child was not really her son. (confused)
[ January 22, 2008, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And I can see why several people felt it important to point out that he's not adopted and not her son.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah. That would be different. Clearly, I have not been paying enough attention. I didn't know that there wasn't an actual legal relationship.
I'm backing away quietly.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it depends a lot on how Tatiana and Sasha view the relationship, and possibly on Tatiana's relationship with her own mother.
I have someone that "mother" is the closest word to describe our relationship, but I don't consider her a replacement or competition for my mother. Now that I think of it, I have such a father as well. I guess I have a few mothers, really, just as I have many sisters. The key is, would I be grateful for my own children to have such people in their lives, helping them along?
Keep in mind as well that the LDS church frequently says you don't have to be married or have born children to serve as a mother, to nurture and love people. Though I have gotten a different flavor than I describe from the discussion on Sasha, which I have generally avoided.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
There is a difference between a mother or a father and a mother figure or a father figure. There are plenty of people I look at as father figures or mother figures, but that doesn't make them my actual parents.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
what is the relationship?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Keep in mind as well that the LDS church frequently says you don't have to be married or have born children to serve as a mother, to nurture and love people.
This is a gross abuse of the verb "mother," in my opinion. I nurture and love people just fine without ever mothering them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's meant to be inclusive for people who haven't had those opportunities.
You have to take into account that LDS doctrine holds parenting to be a literal quality of God, whose perfection Jesus commanded that we emulate. And while God is our Father, we are also born again through Jesus and in a sense his children as well. Not figuratively, but of necessity. We must be born again in Jesus to become coheirs to God.
At least, I think that's what the Bible says.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
How ever you may choose to describe Tatiana and Sasha's relationship, what is evident to me is that Tatiana loves Sasha and is heavily emotionally invested in his well being. The word she and Sasha feels is most appropriate to describe her relationship to him is "mother".
As someone who, like Tatiana, has no biological children of her own and is unlikely to have any, I can fully understand why she would find it offensive when people imply that she doesn't feel the way a "real" parent feels and doesn't understand what its like to be a "real" parent. Such statements are condescending, presumptuous and insulting. First off, not all parents have the same kinds of relationships with their children. There are parents who abuse and neglect their kids and even among those who don't I find it hard to imagine that all of them have exactly the same feelings toward their children. Just because someone hasn't given birth or been responsible for an infant, doesn't mean that they haven't experienced the kind of genuine selfless love that parents often feel for their children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Keep in mind as well that the LDS church frequently says you don't have to be married or have born children to serve as a mother, to nurture and love people.
This is a gross abuse of the verb "mother," in my opinion. I nurture and love people just fine without ever mothering them.
Note that pooka used the word 'mother' as a noun, not as a verb.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's meant to be inclusive for people who haven't had those opportunities.
That's actually one of the reasons I consider it an abuse of the word.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can fully understand why she would find it offensive when people imply that she doesn't feel the way a "real" parent feels and doesn't understand what its like to be a "real" parent.
I didn't see anybody say nor imply that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Note that pooka used the word 'mother' as a noun, not as a verb.
Specifically, she said, "to serve as a mother, to nurture and love...." I reject the assumption that nurturing and loving constitutes serving as a mother.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's meant to be inclusive for people who haven't had those opportunities.
That's actually one of the reasons I consider it an abuse of the word.
According to the OED, the word "mother" has been frequently used that way for over 400 years. It seems more than a bit self-righteous to accuse people of abusing a word when they are using they are only using it in a centuries old, well established way.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Note that pooka used the word 'mother' as a noun, not as a verb.
Scott R, adding nothing to the discussion since 1999.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: As someone who, like Tatiana, has no biological children of her own and is unlikely to have any, I can fully understand why she would find it offensive when people imply that she doesn't feel the way a "real" parent feels and doesn't understand what its like to be a "real" parent.
And I find it deeply disturbing that some random stranger on the internet can convince a child and herself that she is his mother.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Specifically, she said, "to serve as a mother, to nurture and love...." I reject the assumption that nurturing and loving constitutes serving as a mother.
Then you are rejecting the English language.
from the OED
quote:
mother, n,
f. abstr. Freq. with the. Womanly qualities (as taken to be inherited from the mother); maternal qualities or instincts, esp. maternal affection.
mother, v,
4. trans.
a. With it. To act or behave like a mother.
b. fig. To protect, as with maternal care.
c. lit. To bring up, take care of, or protect as a mother; to look after in a (sometimes excessively) kindly and protective way. Freq. in pass.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: According to the OED, the word "mother" has been frequently used that way for over 400 years. It seems more than a bit self-righteous to accuse people of abusing a word when they are using they are only using it in a centuries old, well established way.
But Anne Kate isn't simply saying that's she has mothered Sasha. She's claiming that she is his mother and that he is her son. There's a huge difference there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As someone who, like Tatiana, has no biological children of her own and is unlikely to have any, I can fully understand why she would find it offensive when people imply that she doesn't feel the way a "real" parent feels and doesn't understand what its like to be a "real" parent.
Rabbit, I think the experience curve actually goes the other way: as someone who has no biological children of her own, you're unlikely to fully understand why Anne Kate is not a "real" parent to this young man. On the other hand, as someone who has cared about people without being their parent, I probably have a pretty good idea of what it's like to wish I were someone's parent.
quote:It seems more than a bit self-righteous to accuse people of abusing a word when they are using they are only using it in a centuries old, well established way.
When you're using the verb "mother" to describe taking care of somebody, especially if you're meaning to imply certain overprotective connotations, I'm not going to complain about it. When you're calling someone a "mother" because they took care of somebody, I will. I think any use of the word "mother" that's intended for the use pooka describes -- to make people who are not mothers feel like they are in fact mothers and not caregivers -- is a cheapening of actual motherhood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
She said, as near as I can recall, "I am his mother in every possible way except for legally."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I found it more odd when he was a minor living under his parents roof. Keep in mind that unlike many of our faith, Tatiana believes in "families" of choice and that the church will some day come around on gay marriage. Regardless of who may be right, that is her view when it comes to the elasticity of family terms and so I don't think this incident shows she is mentally ill and must be confronted.
P.S. Another note on "actual motherhood" is that LDS understanding is different. We all existed before we were born. What this means varies widely to different people. In some ways, my birth mother is acting as a proxy for God.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But Anne Kate isn't simply saying that's she has mothered Sasha. She's claiming that she is his mother and that he is her son. There's a huge difference there.
Let me repeat once more, unless you are claiming that biological parentage is the only real form or parenting, then you are being condescending, presumptuous and rude.
I don't know whether Tatiana's feelings toward Sasha are comparable to those you feel for your son, but neither do you. I don't know if the level of nurturing and care she has given him over the years qualifies her as a mother, but then neither do you.
Exactly how much care must a person give before they deserve the term mother? Is the parent who neglects and abuses their child not really a parent? Is a foster parent who cares for a child but never legally adopts them not a parent. Is a step-mother who never cares for the children at all a mother.
Where exactly do you draw the line, what gives you the right to be the one who draws that line and what makes you so sure that side of that line Tatiana is on?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've never accused Anne Kate of mental illness. (Edit: this sentence was in response to Rabbit's original post, which has since been edited.) I've "confronted" her on this issue mainly because I'm concerned that by pushing the issue in this way, she's creating divisions within Sasha's actual family where none are necessary. If this adoption were necessary from a purely financial standpoint, there are other ways to obtain funding; Hatrack alone has donated thousands in just the last year to various charities, and I'm absolutely confident that we'd pony up for Sasha's surgery as well.
I don't think sundering the family who birthed and raised him is worth the short-term benefit, especially since that benefit is still purely a hypothetical one.
quote:Let me repeat once more, unless you are claiming that biological parentage is the only real form or parenting, then you are being condescending, presumptuous and rude.
Again, my claim is this: if you have raised someone, you are their parent.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
So when people say "adopted internet son", are people implying Tatiana and this boy have never met?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, the sense I got that she's competing with the birth parents is something that concerns me as well. She can't replace them, and if she covets their role, she'll only come to unhappiness, in my opinion. If we can covet our posessions we already have (as some preachers say), I think it's possible to covet our children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Note that pooka used the word 'mother' as a noun, not as a verb.
Scott R, adding nothing to the discussion since 1999.
Pot, this is kettle.
Prepare for annihilation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think that teenagers often benefit from having caring adults other than their parents to talk to. Especially at the age when they are pulling away from their parents and trying to develop their identities as independent almost-adults. It can be tempting for the teenagers (and their adult friends) to think “why can’t my parents be as understanding/cool/kind/wonderful as [non-parent adult].” What they are missing is that it is the fact that the non-parent adult is not the parent that makes that relationship possible at that point. They don’t have the baggage, they don’t have the family dynamics to deal with, they don’t have the responsibility and fear and worry. They can just be a friend. And the teenager doesn’t feel the need to test and defy and differentiate from the adult friend. They have no memories of the friend treating them as anything other than the adult they so desperately want to be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I find it bizarre we're seeing open speculation and comments about Tatania in this thread that people probably would have not been willing to vocalize in her thread had she not deleted it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Note that pooka used the word 'mother' as a noun, not as a verb.
Specifically, she said, "to serve as a mother, to nurture and love...." I reject the assumption that nurturing and loving constitutes serving as a mother.
How about the assertion that a mother nurtures and loves?
It is true that not everyone who loves and nurtures is a mother; mother being defined as one's female parent; parent being defined as one's direct, biological progenitor.
People keep throwing out the qualifier "real" though-- "real" parent, "real" mother. What's "real" is being debated.
Tom's adherence to a strictly literal terminology would probably do a lot to make certain that this very personal debate is framed within terms that can be easily understood, and less divisive.
I'm willing to go along with Tom's terminology, honestly. I think. Maybe I'll change my mind if someone offers me some cookies...
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Pot, this is kettle.
Prepare for annihilation.
Hey man, as long as I get to be Pot during the coming apocalypse, it's all groovy, man.
<-- Huddles in the pre-apocalypic mutagenic glow.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Maybe I'll change my mind if someone offers me some cookies...
I'm tempted to offer you some cookies just to be a troublemaker. Anything to avoid actually working, you know. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm certainly considering she may one day read it, but not particularly hopeful that she will.
dkw: I think it's possible for parents of teens to have a hard time letting them grow up. I remember last year thinking if I wanted my child to move on to middle school or if we should home school.
I think God may have worked his hand in my getting a job so that wouldn't be an option. How odd.
P.S. Awww... doggie cookies.
I have some peanut butter bars with butterscotch chips right here under my desk. You are so close and yet so far, Scott.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Note that pooka used the word 'mother' as a noun, not as a verb.
Scott R, adding nothing to the discussion since 1999.
Pot, this is kettle.
Prepare for annihilation.
This is a great shirt. WARNING, profanity.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
90% of me is unopposed to decimation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How about the assertion that a mother nurtures and loves?
I don't think that's a given, either. That said, again, I think your mother is a female parent, and a parent is one of the individuals who raised you. They may have raised you badly or without love, but if they raised you, they're your parents. You are not someone's parent if you enter his or her life after he or she has already become a fully-formed person.
It's the "being a formative influence" thing that's most important, IMO.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What if someone raised you intellectually from obscurity, or spiritually, or emotionally? What if you're a baby duck and you imprint on a dog?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I find it bizarre we're seeing open speculation and comments about Tatania in this thread that people probably would have not been willing to vocalize in her thread had she not deleted it.
Agreed.
I used to be called verious people's 'cyber-mom' and even used the term myself. When my boys were young, I think I had an over-developed sense of responsibility toward a lot of young people I was friendly with. I have since backed away from that role, because I realized that I really didn't want to 'mother' my friends. I have children, and I have friends. Some of my friends are younger than me by a wide margin.
I don't mean any of that as a commentary on Tatiana, who is an extremely caring, wonderful person-- who is, in fact, much nicer than I am. I can't say that I understand how she feels, because sometimes it's hard for me to be a mother to my own kids, much less sombody else's.
I WILL say that I would never be so presumtuous as to dismiss someone's emotions or committments simply because I've never really experienced what they describe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't speak to family relationships in the animal kingdom. And I'm going to ignore any alternate meanings of the word "raised," because I don't think that saying Jesus "raised" Lazarus and is therefore his father does much if anything to unobfuscate the issue.
But I do think it is partly as an acknowledgement of the metaphorical association between a true parenting relationship and those intellectual, spiritual, and emotional connections that we tend to speak of "nurturing" as "mothering," or call priests "Father."
--------
quote:I WILL say that I would never be so presumtuous as to dismiss someone's emotions or committments simply because I've never really experienced what they describe.
I want to clarify (and re-iterate) that I am not dismissing Anne Kate's feelings towards Sasha, or his towards her, or the depth of her attachment to him. What I am saying is that she is not his mother, and that she puts herself in opposition to his actual family by unnecessarily claiming otherwise.
It is perfectly acceptable to be like someone's mother. It is perfectly acceptable to love someone and help someone, and to be loved and appreciated in return. But if we're speaking of presumption, I find it incredibly presumptuous to express irritation, as Anne Kate has, over a father's reluctance to admit a stranger into a legal relationship with his real son in a manner that actually requires him to legally renounce his own relationship with the son he's raised to maturity.
In a nutshell: she's not his mother. She doesn't need to be his mother to help him, or love him, or be a valuable participant in his life.
Anne Kate has spoken before of how she likes using Alvin allegories. To that end: this is like digging a new well, then cleaning the dirt off the stone. She can help him -- dig the well -- without making an issue of it. By demanding full "motherhood" in return, she's cleaning the stone.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I find it bizarre we're seeing open speculation and comments ...
Here's one piece of open speculation While normally, I'm against thread deletion, in this very specific case I think there might be a small benefit in the fact that the thread has been deleted. The thread did include discussion and a good argument about committing insurance fraud (or at least something akin to or debatable as such) albeit in a very good cause.
In this wacky new world of the Internet, maybe it is best not to leave such things around "just in case" (albeit a really small chance of a case).
CT: If you're still monitoring, purely self-interested question. On the second page of the old thread, you mentioned something about lead poisoning from Chinese pottery(?). How much do you know about this?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:But if we're speaking of presumption, I find it incredibly presumptuous to express irritation, as Anne Kate has, over a father's reluctance to admit a stranger into a legal relationship with his real son in a manner that actually requires him to legally renounce his own relationship with the son he's raised to maturity.
I guess I'm just putting two and two together here, but if her reason for the legal designation has to do with his physical welfare, and access to medical care, that's a horse of a different color -- or possibly a bunch of cats taped together.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have trouble believing that his medical treatment is absolutely dependent upon her motherhood.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, the thread is gone so I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It is perfectly acceptable to be like someone's mother. It is perfectly acceptable to love someone and help someone, and to be loved and appreciated in return. But if we're speaking of presumption, I find it incredibly presumptuous to express irritation, as Anne Kate has, over a father's reluctance to admit a stranger into a legal relationship with his real son in a manner that actually requires him to legally renounce his own relationship with the son he's raised to maturity.
Independent of the thread and people being discussed, I find Tom's comments to be exactly true.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: CT: If you're still monitoring, purely self-interested question. On the second page of the old thread, you mentioned something about lead poisoning from Chinese pottery(?). How much do you know about this?
Mucus, I am following the story, but I've been taking a general hiatus from providing medical information or assessment publicly for a while. (I suspect that googling "lead" or "lead glaze," "Chinese," and "pottery" and/or "ceramics" would point you in the right direction, though.)
I am additionally trying to avoid commenting in any substantive way on this specific discussion, given that an email was forwarded to me purported*** to be from this young man, and I responded to it, and that places me in the context of a physician-provider relationship under some definitions of the term. That comes with specific responsibilities regarding confidentiality, regardless of what my actual assessment of what is going on may be. The latter is irrelevant to that confidentiality requirement.
I can say that, with respect to publicly disclosed information, I think this is incorrect:
quote:If this adoption were necessary from a purely financial standpoint, there are other ways to obtain funding; Hatrack alone has donated thousands in just the last year to various charities, and I'm absolutely confident that we'd pony up for Sasha's surgery as well.
I am pretty sure that the question of a surgery has not been brought up. I am unclear in many ways on what has and has not been brought up in this case (whether publicly or privately), and how to fit that together with what I understand about medical practice. Doubtlessly my own poor memory plays a role in this, but thus for many reasons, I should not and will not be offering opinions on what is going on here.
Regardless -- and this is speaking generally -- I think when the notion of raising large amounts of funds from interested and caring people is brought up, it would always be good to have a disinterested (or at least, not intently precommitted) third party involved for oversight as a matter of course. Especially when the information is coming from multiple different sources, filtered through a variety of different people with different backgrounds and levels of information, and over large non-local distances. But that is the same caveat I would raise with any such endeavor, and it is in no way particular to this case.
---
I had mentioned on another forum that I am taking a break from getting involved in medical discussions for a bit while I think about other things, some related and some not. I am happy to continue talking privately with anyone that I have talked with in the past -- you know how to reach me. Other than that, though, I'll be ignoring any comments directed at me publicly regarding medical matters, and I hope that everybody will understand that this is not meant to be dismissive. It's just a good time for me to be doing other things, and I trust that my friends and acquaintances will both understand and support such a personal decision.
Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
---
Edited to add clarification: ***I am reading and rereading this post (it makes me anxious to post it for all sorts of reasons, and emotions seem to be running high all around anyway). On reread it strikes me that the term "purported" may have connotations I do not wish to convey. What I am trying to say is this:
I was involved in this situation publicly some time back, and then privately in some limited manner -- and it is the latter that I believe to bind me from speaking freely. However, in making it clear that I will not be commenting further and why, I do not want to be taken to have affirmed things which I was not able to affirm. I really don't know what is going on -- all I know is what was presented to me, and I wanted to be clear about the limits of that knowledge, since this discussion seem to continue to be moving towards people making real world decisions about something I am not at all clear about myself.
And since my prior involvement could have been taken to mean I was clear about the situation then (even if now refraining from discussing it for other reasons) -- and especially since the thread is now deleted, and memories tend to smudge and fudge details -- it seemed prudent and useful to clarify my actual lack of involvement and clarity overall.
I hope that doesn't muddle things further, but it is the best I can do. I'll leave it at that.
[ January 22, 2008, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh lord, did I start this with my comment that I could understand why the biological father didn't want to sign away his parental rights? I debated about posting that, but decided to go ahead because Tatiana said she couldn't understand why the father didn't want to sign and I wanted to offer a perspective, as a parent, that I could perfectly understand him not wanting to do that.
Although, it sounds as if the discussion went afield even beyond that, I don't recall any discussion of insurance fraud. Must have missed all that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: How ever you may choose to describe Tatiana and Sasha's relationship, what is evident to me is that Tatiana loves Sasha and is heavily emotionally invested in his well being. The word she and Sasha feels is most appropriate to describe her relationship to him is "mother".
I don't think anyone will argue the first sentence with you. But, to be fair, I haven't seen anything to indicate that Sasha thinks of ak as his 'mother'. That naming convention seems to flow the other way. Of course, maybe he does think of her as his 'mother in every sense except legally' (neglecting biologically, another sense in which Tatiana is most certainly not his mother). He doesn't post here so I really don't know.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No, Belle, I don't think you started this. A lot of other people expressed differing opinions or concern, too.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
There seems to be an idea floating around that the word "Mother" appears on some sort of friendship continuum. Like feelings of closeness can be best described as follows:
This idea doesn't make any sense to me. Being a parent is a primarily biological term, and doesn't imply any location on the friendship spectrum.
Some parents are good and loving, some are controlling and abusive, some are neglectful, and some are absent altogether. That's because the words "Mother" and "Father" weren't invented to describe how much you love someone. There are other words for that. They were invented to describe, primarily, a person who has directly donated half of a person's genetic material.
Of course, in human society we have found certain uses for the words "Mother" and "Father" outside the literal donation of a gamete. But even in those cases, parental titles are used very conservatively, and with an asterisk. For example, no one is going to mistake Angelina Jolie for her childrens' "real mother." But since she found these children at a very young age in a situation where they didn't have anyone to care for them, and she made a long-term legal commitment to act in a parental capacity full-time and in person until they are entirely grown and independent, no one is going to deny her the right to use the word "Mother." However, even in such an extremely legitimate case, when someone raises a child that is not their direct genetic offspring, the word "Mother" is still going to be used with an unspoken caveat.
Outside that sort of scenario, referring to someone as "Mother" or "Son" because you feel very close to them after chatting with them on the Internet makes as much sense as calling someone "Roommate" or "Co-Worker" after becoming roughly familiar with them on the Internet.
I haven't seen anyone on any of these threads accuse Tatiana of any kind of sexual deviancy, mental illness, or any other serious personal accusations I'd expect when someone serially closes threads whose content they're offended by. All people have done is occasionally suggest that there are other perfectly good words she can use to describe her relationship with Sasha. Words that aren't so emotionally loaded, words that are far more accurate, and words that would make dealing with Sasha's real parents, practically, much easier and less contentious.
The fact that she uses the word "Mother" itself doesn't worry me. I can understand someone using such an affectation in a funny, cute way. It can be a term of endearment without being taken totally seriously. But the fact that she goes to such extreme lengths to censor anyone who questions the literality and legitimacy of that relationship in any context is what really makes me wonder what's going on here.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Personally, I like the word aunt in situations like this, familial but no taking a name which ideall should belong to only one person. Considering the relationship began when the man was nearly a man (in his teens) and he has a mother, a different word might be less contentious.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
CT: Definitely no problem. I wouldn't want to make your recreational posting start becoming like work or worse, intruding into any issues of confidentiality. I'll do my own research for sure Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Personally, I like the word aunt in situations like this, familial but no taking a name which ideall should belong to only one person. Considering the relationship began when the man was nearly a man (in his teens) and he has a mother, a different word might be less contentious.
The Chinese do this. For children a complete stranger is almost always refered to as Uncle and Aunt. As a missionary I met thousands of nieces and nephews I had no idea even existed. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Based upon generations, my husband and I used aunt and uncle for pretty much everyone in China (I learned a few words in Chinese and have since forgotten them all). The "aunt" that was our age thought it was so funny every time we said it (that could also be because we were saying it wrong).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Which word? Don't they have several? I thought goo goo was father's little sister.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Personally, I like the word aunt in situations like this, familial but no taking a name which ideall should belong to only one person.
Why is it ideal that the name mother should belong to only one person?
For several years after my marriage, I called my mother-in-law by her first name but as I became closer to her. I began calling her Mom. It just seemed natural. Although my relationship with her is not identical to the relationship I have with my mother, it was a true mother/daughter relationship. Ackowledging that did not in any way degrade or change the relationship I have with my original mother with whom I am still very close.
My husband and I are paying for the education of several children in Africa. They call us their mother and father. This isn't something we asked for but evidently it is the tradition in their part of the world. They have adopted us.
I have friends who maintain a relationship with both their biological parents and the parents who adopted them as infants and are able to think of them both as "mothers" or "fathers". Another friend has told me he has no interest in finding his biological mother (even though his mother has occasionally encouraged him to look for his biological mother) because it would hurt his relationship with his true mother. I don't understand why this needs to the case. Parents are able to have more than one child and still love the first child just the same. People are able to love new friends without hurting their relationship with old friends. Why is it necessarily ideal that people have only one mother?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: CT: Definitely no problem. I wouldn't want to make your recreational posting start becoming like work or worse, intruding into any issues of confidentiality. I'll do my own research for sure
Love you!
(Thanks for understanding.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm a parent with an asterisk, but Anne Kate is a legitimate mother.
What a ****ed up world.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Welcome to the internet.
I've never thought of you has having an asterisk. But that's probably no consolation. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Personally, I like the word aunt in situations like this, familial but no taking a name which ideall should belong to only one person. Considering the relationship began when the man was nearly a man (in his teens) and he has a mother, a different word might be less contentious.
The Chinese do this. For children a complete stranger is almost always refered to as Uncle and Aunt. As a missionary I met thousands of nieces and nephews I had no idea even existed.
Same thing in India - if they're a generation older than you, they're Auntie or Uncle. In fact, if you ever offer directions to an older Indian tourists, or something along those lines, call them Uncle/Auntie, and they'll probably be incredibly pleased. People close to your age (same generation), but slightly older, are either "older brother" or "older sister," although these are said in whichever language is their native tongue (dada & didi in Bengali, for instance).
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Rabbit, you seem mostly concerned with the idea that someone can't have multiple mothers or that only biological mothers can be real mothers. I don't think anybody has said this. What they have said, as far as I can tell, is that what Anne Kate has done does not make her a mother and that it does not give her a right to try to force his parents to let her take him from them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: CT: Definitely no problem. I wouldn't want to make your recreational posting start becoming like work or worse, intruding into any issues of confidentiality. I'll do my own research for sure
Love you!
(Thanks for understanding.)
I'm sure there is also a professional ethics issue involved. Not that I think CT has done anything unethical but there is sort of a blurry line between offering friendly advice and giving medical advice when many of the facts are not available. I can see why CT would be concerned.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, you seem mostly concerned with the idea that someone can't have multiple mothers or that only biological mothers can be real mothers. I don't think anybody has said this. What they have said, as far as I can tell, is that what Anne Kate has done does not make her a mother and that it does not give her a right to try to force his parents to let her take him from them.
What I have said is that you don't know everything Anne Kate has done and so it is presumptuous of you to assume that she doesn't qualify as a "mother" to Sasha.
If you have more knowledge about Tatiana's relationship to Sasha than has been posted here, then I am in error. Otherwise, I will repeat that you are being presumptuous.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
If being presumptuous is the worst thing I'm being accused of, then I think I'm fine with that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sure there is also a professional ethics issue involved. Not that I think CT has done anything unethical but there is sort of a blurry line between offering friendly advice and giving medical advice when many of the facts are not available. I can see why CT would be concerned.
I have always been careful about this, and I have always limited my advice to be bound by this. Of course.
---
Edited to add: [moved to a separate post below]
[ January 22, 2008, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I have said is that you don't know everything Anne Kate has done and so it is presumptuous of you to assume that she doesn't qualify as a "mother" to Sasha.
We don't need to know everything that Anne Kat has done for Sasha. All we need to know is two things that she hasn't done for Sasha. She hasn't:
Given birth to him, or
Raised him from a young age as a substitute for parents who were unavailable.
Based upon what I read in the recently deleted thread, it didn't even sound like she'd met him face to face until just recently, as a fully grown adult.
She may be a lot of things to him, but regardless of anything else she's done, she's no more his mother than she is Dagonee's business associate or Claudia Therese's bunkmate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I guess what bothers me is that so many people are dismissing off hand the idea that Tatiana might have a genuine motherly relationship with Sasha. I find that sort of dismissal to be not just presumptuous but condescending and rude.
You are in essence telling Anne Kate that you know more about what the word "mother" means than she does. You are saying that without even knowing the details of her relationship to Sasha, you know better than she that "mother" is the wrong word to describe it. I will note that everyone here who has criticized Anne Kate for claiming to be Sasha's mother, has biological children. It is as though you are saying that no one who lacks biological children could possibly understand what it means to be a mother.
Can't you see why that is condescending and rude? I clearly don't know all the things you know about being a parent, but that doesn't mean I don't know somethings about being a parent that you don't. Until you know all of things I know, its very rude of you to suppose that things you know about parenting are necessarily more important and more correct than things I know.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I have said is that you don't know everything Anne Kate has done and so it is presumptuous of you to assume that she doesn't qualify as a "mother" to Sasha.
We don't need to know everything that Anne Kat has done for Sasha. All we need to know is two things that she hasn't done for Sasha. She hasn't:
Given birth to him, or
Raised him from a young age as a substitute for parents who were unavailable.
Based upon what I read in the recently deleted thread, it didn't even sound like she'd met him face to face until just recently, as a fully grown adult.
She may be a lot of things to him, but regardless of anything else she's done, she's no more his mother than she is Dagonee's business associate or Claudia Therese's bunkmate.
So based on your definition, I did not have a true mother/daughter relationship with my Mother-in-Law?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not everyone who criticized the word choice has biological children.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I will note that everyone here who has criticized Anne Kate for claiming to be Sasha's mother, has biological children.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true.
[Or, what dkw said. ]
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are in essence telling Anne Kate that you know more about what the word "mother" means than she does. You are saying that without even knowing the details of her relationship to Sasha, you know better than she that "mother" is the wrong word to describe it. I will note that everyone here who has criticized Anne Kate for claiming to be Sasha's mother, has biological children. It is as though you are saying that no one who lacks biological children could possibly understand what it means to be a mother.
I started this thread and I have no biological children.
In any case, I don't think we should start granting titles and changing definitions in an attempt at political correctness. I'm sorry that Tatiana can't have children. I'm also sorry that quadriplegics can't compete in weight-lifting tournaments, but calling a guy in a wheelchair Mr. Universe doesn't change that fact.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I will note that everyone here who has criticized Anne Kate for claiming to be Sasha's mother, has biological children. It is as though you are saying that no one who lacks biological children could possibly understand what it means to be a mother.
Icarus' children were adopted.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not everyone who criticized the word choice has biological children.
I'm sorry. All the posts I'd read were by those who I know had biological children. I stand corrected.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think JT has a child, either, just like Baron Samedi. (Unless JT has been holding out on us. *grin)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are in essence telling Anne Kate that you know more about what the word "mother" means than she does. You are saying that without even knowing the details of her relationship to Sasha, you know better than she that "mother" is the wrong word to describe it. I will note that everyone here who has criticized Anne Kate for claiming to be Sasha's mother, has biological children. It is as though you are saying that no one who lacks biological children could possibly understand what it means to be a mother.
We know everything we need to know about their relationship: (1) She didn't birth the kid, and (2) She didn't raise him.
If she'd done either of those two things I don't think I'd be bothered by her calling herself his mother. But the general consensus in this thread seems to be that calling Tatiana his mother is a gross misapplication of the term 'mother', as it's commonly understood. We don't need to know any more than those two things above to know that.
You seem to think that this is somehow insulting to her -- it's not. Calling the relationship something else doesn't marginalize Tatiana's feelings, and it doesn't minimize all her help and hard work.
It's not elitism by parents, trying to keep everyone else out of their club, either.
And I don't have any children. [edit: CT, I'm holding out on all sorts of stuff, but not that. ]
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: So based on your definition, I did not have a true mother/daughter relationship with my Mother-in-Law?
You could argue that your use of the word "Mother" is a short-form of "Mother-in-Law," which is a legitimate and legal relationship that she shares with you. So I think you could make a good case for that one.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: And I don't have any children.
Well, I was wondering. Because, rather like Chuck Norris, the sheer force of your masculinity might be impregnating women without your knowledge.
I'm just sayin'.
*eyebrow raised
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, to paraphrase something Tom often says about gay marriage, how does Tatiana's definition of motherhood diminish my own motherhood?
I mean, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I've never answered Tom's question to anyone else's satisfaction.
quote: calling Tatiana his mother is a gross misapplication of the term 'mother'
This seems a bit extreme. Also, my mother thinks it's neat that my husband calls her mom. She thinks it bodes well for the stability of our marriage that he feel kinship for her.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In any case, I don't think we should start granting titles and changing definitions in an attempt at political correctness.
I didn't call my mother-in-law "mom" in an attempt at political correctness. I called her that because I felt natural. It was appropriate to the nature of our relationship. She was in a very real sense my Mother even though she didn't either give birth to me or raise my as a child. Unlike you, I think that there are ways that people can develop true parent/child relationships beside giving birth or raising them as children because I have experienced one of those ways.
I do not know whether or not Tatiana's relationship with Sasha qualifies as a true parent /child relationship. All I know is that she claims it is. I think it is rude and presumptuous for people to dismiss that possibility out of hand .
quote:I'm sorry that Tatiana can't have children.
I don't know that Tatiana can't have children. All I know is that she doesn't have any biological or legally adopted children.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sure there is also a professional ethics issue involved ...
Just for the record (because I think CT already knows this, or at least I hope) I was not really expressing anything more than curiosity with an element of self-interest due to being Chinese and using plates,bowls, etc. I was simply curious if CT had recently come across perhaps a review article in Pubmed on the topic or similar publication(source) that prompted the specific comment and wasn't really seeking anything personal or any specific advice.
In any case, whatever the reason (and there seem to be a few to choose from), I'll do my own digging
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Chinese do this. For children a complete stranger is almost always referred to as Uncle and Aunt. As a missionary I met thousands of nieces and nephews I had no idea even existed.
I would quickly add a point of interest. Relative names in Chinese are a bit complicated even in normal usage with as pooka hinted, multiple alternatives. At least in Cantonese, the regularly used terms for my real uncles were essentially numbered from eldest to youngest and this made it pretty obvious which were "real" uncles and which were well, "honorific" uncles.
Edit to add:
BB: This is very off-topic. I may take this into a different thread. But a thought occurs, given your travels, have you visited any of Harbin, Dalian, Suzhou, or Guilin?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
There are children out there who WANT to be adopted, rather than children who already have a family who don't want to farm them out to someone else.
Just putting that out there. Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, to paraphrase something Tom often says about gay marriage, how does Tatiana's definition of motherhood diminish my own motherhood?
I don't think it does anything to your motherhood. But Sasha's mother might see it from a different perspective.
This is something that some people tried to explain to Tatiana (in this thread and others) to help her understand why she has such a hard time dealing with her "children's other parents," and that always leads directly to thread deletion. Hence the discussion.
Does that help?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Just for the record (because I think CT already knows this, or at least I hope) I was not really expressing anything more than curiosity with an element of self-interest due to being Chinese and using plates,bowls, etc. I was simply curious if CT had recently come across perhaps a review article in Pubmed on the topic or similar publication(source) that prompted the specific comment and wasn't really seeking anything personal or any specific advice.
Oh, yes, I understood completely. It certainly made sense to me that you asked, in case I had a good up-to-date review article. I've often done the same, myself.
And I also understand your courtesy and good manners in the response.
---
Because it might have been missed, I've move this from the edit at the bottom of my post above. This is just a restatement of that. For clarity.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sure there is also a professional ethics issue involved. Not that I think CT has done anything unethical but there is sort of a blurry line between offering friendly advice and giving medical advice when many of the facts are not available. I can see why CT would be concerned.
I have always been careful about this, and I have always limited my advice to be bound by this. Of course.
---
Edited to add:
Just to be clear, I have no qualms about anything I've done in that respect online, ever. Not only do I actually know everything I have done, but I have had advanced academic training in ethics, far and above what is typical for physicians, which is (I believe) far and above what is typical for other professions, except for law.
And I rest so easy at night, nonetheless. *smile
My concern isn't that I've stepped over any professional lines in any way whatsoever. My concern is that I am not sure personally what I hope to get out of that sort of interaction, and I think it is worth thinking about. I think that thinking about such personal expectations for engagement would be good for a lot of people to do, actually.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, to paraphrase something Tom often says about gay marriage, how does Tatiana's definition of motherhood diminish my own motherhood?
I mean, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I've never answered Tom's question to anyone else's satisfaction.
I would rephrase your question to say, "How does Tatiana's definition of motherhood diminish Sasha's real mother's motherhood?"
--------------
It may be rude to question her claim, Rabbit, but I think it's negligent not to. This is a case where being rude is an easy choice.
Just like it may be rude to bring up to a close friend that I think he has a drinking problem. He may not like it, but if I really care about him I have to do the right thing anyway.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm kind of concerned about Tatiana here, she seems to be going through a rough time. As such, I'm going to consider myself her father.
I hope you all are cool with that, because you don't have any place to tell me if I'm her father or not.
Tatiana, you're grounded.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
it's a tradition in Poland that you address your spouse's parents as mum and dad. I always found it a bit disconcerting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You seem to think that this is somehow insulting to her -- it's not. Calling the relationship something else doesn't marginalize Tatiana's feelings, and it doesn't minimize all her help and hard work.
It's not elitism by parents, trying to keep everyone else out of their club, either.
Since Tatiana feels she is Sasha's mother, insisting that mother is an inappropriate word is by definition marginalizing her feelings.
What I think is insulting is the persistent claim that you have a better idea of what it means to be a mother than she does.
If you and others had simply stated that her relationship with Sasha could never replace his relationship with the woman (or women) who gave birth to him or cared for him as a young child, then I would have no objection.
My relationship with my mother-in-law didn't replace the relationship I had with my mother. It was the same as the relationship I have with my mother. None the less, it was a genuine mother/daughter relationship and I feel comfortable saying she was a mother of mine.
I don't see why Tatiana and Sasha can't have such a relationship and why people don't see that they are being condescending and rude when they claim she couldn't be a real mother to Sasha.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I would rephrase your question to say, "How does Tatiana's definition of motherhood diminish Sasha's real mother's motherhood?"
True enough. But it's telling that we question Anne Kate's view on the subject in favor of the assumed point of view of someone of whom we have no knowledge. She's been sniped* out of the community, such as it is. But it's not the first time, and is unlikely to be the last.
*snipe like the waterfowl
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I agree with the Rabbit. Also, I'm not sure this thread serves much useful purpose. Or maybe I'm just sleep-deprived and grumpy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't (and am unlikely to) have biological children either and I think that the usage of the term "mother" is problematic in this situation.
If I ever have a mother in law, I may refer to her as "mom", but I would not introduce her as my mother (for example) and that is a relationship that has some legal legitimacy.
I think that it is wonderful of Tatiana to be so compassionate and fervent in her desire to care for people. I worry if she is trying to supplant actual parents. If there is some kind of neglect or abuse, I think she should report that. Otherwise, she should defer to his parents.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I think is insulting is the persistent claim that you have a better idea of what it means to be a mother than she does.
It may be insulting, but it also appears to be true.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I would be ten times as insulting and rude in this situation if I thought that would increase the chances of Tatiana taking a long look at her relationship with someone who, up until a week ago, she had never laid eyes on.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My relationship with my mother-in-law didn't replace the relationship I had with my mother. It was the same as the relationship I have with my mother. None the less, it was a genuine mother/daughter relationship and I feel comfortable saying she was a mother of mine.
Did your mother-in-law ever try to make your mother relinquish her legal parental status?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, here we get into stuff I don't know. If it was to gain access to medical treatment my mother could not provide me, no problem. If it was for medical treatment my mother simply didn't think I need, there would be cause for a kerfluffle.
I don't know which we're dealing with.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess what bothers me is that so many people are dismissing off hand the idea that Tatiana might have a genuine motherly relationship with Sasha.
I haven't seen anybody do that. What I've seen is people rejecting the assertion that having a motherly relationship means you are their mother.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: So based on your definition, I did not have a true mother/daughter relationship with my Mother-in-Law?
You could argue that your use of the word "Mother" is a short-form of "Mother-in-Law," which is a legitimate and legal relationship that she shares with you. So I think you could make a good case for that one.
You misunderstand me. I didn't start thinking of her as a mother when she first became my Mother-in-Law. Our legal relationship is more or less irrelevant to the issue. For the first 10 years or more of my marriage, I called her by her first name. But with time our relationship grew and I started to think of her as a mother. With time, it became more natural to call her Mom.
As a result of that relationship, I know that it is possible for people to develop a genuine parent child relationship by ways other than the two obvious ones you have listed. Since I grew to have such a relationship with my Mother-in-Law, I am certain that other people can develop such relationships even when they have no biological or legal relationship.
I have no problem with the claim that Tatiana's relationship with Sasha can't replace his relationship to the mother and father who have cared for him since his birth. I have no problem with the claim that Sasha's relationship to Tatiana will never be the same as his relationship to his other mother.
My problem is with the claim that because Tatiana didn't give birth to him or raise him from childhood, she couldn't have a real parent/child relationship with him or that saying she was a real mother to him some how degraded motherhood
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I would be ten times as insulting and rude in this situation if I thought that would increase the chances of Tatiana taking a long look at her relationship with someone who, up until a week ago, she had never laid eyes on.
Right! Because even though you have never laid eyes on either one of them and know no more about their relationship than has been posted on this internet forum, It is your duty to make Tatiana recognize the error.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Right! Because even though you have never laid eyes on either one of them and know no more about their relationship than has been posted on this internet forum, It is your duty to make Tatiana recognize the error.
So you're saying that in order to understand someone deeply enough and relate to them intimately enough to be able to make a judgement on whether a mother/child relationship exists, it is necessary to meet them face-to-face, get to know them outside an Internet context, and assess the situation personally?
Well, luckily Tatiana was able to do that with Sasha as far back as a week or two ago. I'm sure now she's fully equipped to start taking on that kind of responsibility.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What I think is insulting is the persistent claim that you have a better idea of what it means to be a mother than she does.
On what grounds would you suppose that I don't?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: As a result of that relationship, I know that it is possible for people to develop a genuine parent child relationship by ways other than the two obvious ones you have listed.
The problem is, those two criteria aren't the most obvious characteristics of a parent/child relationship. They are the defining characteristics of a parent/child relationship. Unless one of those exists, calling someone a parent is merely an affectation.
I have no problem with affectations, but when semantic preferences are used as justification to usurp actual parental responsibilities, it's the duty of anyone that cares to try to point out the danger before it gets out of hand.
This is, as far as I know, the first time Tatiana has tried to wrest legal custody from one of her "children's" legal parents. But it's not the first time she's stepped out of line to usurp parental authority.
One other time that she deleted a thread, I happened to save a copy of the first page to my hard drive before it happened. If you'd like to see what it was about,
It's not as extreme as trying to adopt a kid yet, but a lot of caring Jatraqueros tried with sincere good intentions to warn her about what, by general concensus, could easily become a big problem. She thanked us by deleting the thread.
As you can see, this is not a semantic debate. I am not concerned with the words people use, but I am concerned when they let themselves literally believe the lies, however well-meaning, that those words represent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Baron Samedi, It is my understanding that Sasha and Tatiana have interacted with each other for years by means other than this forum. I have no idea what the extent of the that relationship is, nor to the best of my knowledge do you.
If you have also interacted with Anne Kate for years outside of posting in this forum and feel you have earned not only the right to advise her in her personal affairs but also have a duty to correct her in her ways, then it would be most appropriate for you to do that using some of the other means you have used to develop this close relationship with her.
In this forum, we agree to treat each other with respect. If you feel a duty to treat her disrespectfully, then you should do it some place besides here.
***Please note that this is in response to Baron's post saying that he would feel justified being 10 times as rude as he has been if it would cause Tatiana to reconsider her relationship with Sasha. It is not intended as a general statement about peoples behavior toward Tatiana in this or other threads.
[ January 22, 2008, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ***Please note that this is in response to Baron's post saying that he would feel justified being 10 times as rude as he has been ...
I think that was JT.
---
Edited to add: I'm presuming that you are referring to the post you quoted earlier:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I would be ten times as insulting and rude in this situation if I thought that would increase the chances of Tatiana taking a long look at her relationship with someone who, up until a week ago, she had never laid eyes on.
Right! Because even though you have never laid eyes on either one of them and know no more about their relationship than has been posted on this internet forum, It is your duty to make Tatiana recognize the error.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I would be ten times as insulting and rude in this situation if I thought that would increase the chances of Tatiana taking a long look at her relationship with someone who, up until a week ago, she had never laid eyes on.
Right! Because even though you have never laid eyes on either one of them and know no more about their relationship than has been posted on this internet forum, It is your duty to make Tatiana recognize the error.
I know I'm not claiming to be anyone's parent, so whether or not I know them in real life is irrelevant. I'm also haven't accused her of making any 'error', so I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean. I am offering my opinion that (what we know of) the relationship does not sound like how emotionally centered people act, and, in this case (given the history) that bothers me enough to go on record mentioning it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's the thing: Tatiana has posted over a long period and in some detail about her relationship with Sasha.
I cannot remember reading-and though it's been awhile since I was posting regularly, I used to be very active-stories about how their relationship went beyond purely textual or even vocal on the phone.
How many holidays have they spent together? Have they ever cried together? Cooked a meal for one another? Gone to see a movie together? Shared any sort of physical contact, been there-not just a ready ear, but there-for one another when life becomes awful?
If those things have happened, I don't remember hearing about them. And Tatiana was not shy about discussing Sasha, either. I do remember reading plenty about how they had spoken, or heard thus and so from one another online and such.
It takes presence to be someone's parent. You can't be a parent through closed-circuit television, save through dire necessity, like if one or the other was afflicted with a disease or something like that. And even then, if one of the parents is inflicted with the disease, there will be a void. Of some degree. That's why it's tragic and sad when parents and children are seperated, because it's bad.
You say that Tatiana's feelings are being marginalized because she 'feels' like Sasha's mother. Well, the feeling is not enough. Not to claim motherhood the way it appears she's claiming it. When she says, "I am his mother in every way except legal," I think the word choice and qualification is deliberate. She should get the same consideration, moral and cultural weight, and importance in Sasha's life as any mother with her children.
Well, she shouldn't. Unless his mother is ill, absent, or just a really bad mother--and somehow I doubt we wouldn't have heard of that if it were so--that position is filled right now. Two people cannot occupy the same exclusive role at the same time. You don't get that level of being 'mother' just by a few years talking online and on the phone, and maybe sending financial assistance from time to time.
You just don't. You don't have to be a biological parent to be that sort of 'mother'. What's important is not the womb the kid popped out of, what's important is who feels, demonstrates, and sacrifices as a mother would.
You are not, Rabbit, Mother to the African children you speak of the way Tatiana clearly claims motherhood of Sasha, even though that's the word used. I am not father to my younger friends and family, some of whom I have spoken with for years over the phone and Internet, and even helped through hard times, as their fathers might have.
For someone who's getting so upset over the 'presumption' of biological parents, you're very free with dismissing and marginalizing someone (Icarus) who actually has the relationship (as father, not mother, heh) with children he isn't related to biologically.
And he's been posting on this subject, too.
So maybe you should examine your opposition to the viewpoint being put to you, and think again whether or not it's just because of a biological bias.
Tatiana does great insult to real mothers-biology doesn't enter into it-when she claims that she can earn that title just over a few years on the Internet and telephone.
She can't. She hasn't. I have a difficult time imagining how furious I would be if I were Sasha's father, and some Internet friend came along and said, "I'm your son's mother, every way but legally!" I think it would be difficult for me not to get violent, and I'm not a violent man.
We don't live in cyberspace. You can't be a parent just on good intent and communication. It takes more than that. You can be a parent figure, you can be motivated by the same virtuous impulses that guide every good parent to do their best and make sacrifices, but you aren't actually a parent.
If what you claim were true, I would be a cop, since in the past when I've been at bars, if I saw someone leaving drunk and getting into their car to drive, I would call the police.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ***Please note that this is in response to Baron's post saying that he would feel justified being 10 times as rude as he has been if it would cause Tatiana to reconsider her relationship with Sasha. It is not intended as a general statement about peoples behavior toward Tatiana in this or other threads.
My post?? You might want to double-check your facts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry, I got confused by the sequence of posts. I was posting in response to Baron's post that was in response to my post that was in response to ET's post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Look, All I'm really trying to say is that based on what I know about Tatiana, she deserves more respect from this forum than she is getting.
Based on my communication with her over the years, I'm willing to grant her the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to assume that since she has been talking here for a couple of months about the possibility of getting Sasha medical insurance by legally adopting him that she had also discussed this with Sasha and his parents before she showed up with legal documents to sign. I'm willing to assume that she isn't actually trying to wrest control of him from his parents or to replace them in any way. I am willing to assume that Sasha's mother (who Sasha lives with) signed the papers because she knows Anne Kate well enough to trust her and appreciate what she is trying to do for Sasha and not that she is some sort of monster who is willing to sign her son over to a complete stranger. I'm willing to assume that she had discussed this with Sasha father and he had initially agreed but then backed out. I'm willing to assume all that as a member of this board because I think Anne Kate has earned that much respect from us.
I'm also willing to respect that if she claims she is a mother to Sasha, that she has done enough that she and Sasha agree warrants that claim. I do that out of respect for Anne Kate.
I think Anne Kate is too quick to trust people and so has a blind spot for why other people might distrust her and her intentions. But that doesn't warrant some of the things people have said here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:For someone who's getting so upset over the 'presumption' of biological parents, you're very free with dismissing and marginalizing someone (Icarus) who actually has the relationship (as father, not mother, heh) with children he isn't related to biologically.
And he's been posting on this subject, too.
I had no intention of dismissing or marginalizing the relationship of adoptive parents with their children. I had no idea Icarus had adopted children.
I'm no sure how what I've said was dismissive or marginalized the feelings of any kind of parent. If what I said came across that way, I'm very sorry.
I still don't know how recognizing that parent child relationships can develop in many different ways is disrespectful to those who have more traditional parent child relationships.
(Also, I never used parent with a * to describe anyone.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I still don't know how recognizing that parent child relationships can develop in many different ways is disrespectful to those who have more traditional parent child relationships.
Here is the difficulty: Tatiana is not saying the relationship is developing. She says it's developed, in every way but legal. Which, by the way, she is also attempting to do.
As for me, I'm not even complaining it's disrespectful to 'more traditional' child-parent relationships. I'm saying it's disrespectful to the child-parent relationship, in whatever form it takes.
It's a subjective thing, but that doesn't mean it's wide open. You aren't a parent strictly online, it takes sacrifice and committment. And not one grand, sweeping save-the-day gesture, either. It takes more than that. It takes the time and presence that parents have sacrificed and put in to be a parent.
Tatiana is suggesting that the word 'parent' is smaller than it really is, to be so quickly filled.
quote:I'm willing to assume all that as a member of this board because I think Anne Kate has earned that much respect from us.
Yes, well, 'benefit of the doubt' doesn't mean 'proof against all doubt'. That she was totally unwilling to tolerate any questioning on a very important subject she hasn't made an effort to be clear on...well, that doesn't earn extra benefit of the doubt. It detracts from it.
---------
I will also be surprised if this works, the insurance plan, I mean. I have a difficult time imagining that insurance companies would permit such a blind spot for adults, because Sasha is an adult now. In my experience insurance companies balk at providing insurance to high-risk people who are new to them. Hell, sometimes they balk at providing insurance to long-time customers.
And that's another thing we haven't heard about, nor likely ever will. Judging by past examples, Tatiana will probably hold deep, lingering grudges against anyone who has been critical of her on this topic, which will flare up whenever it comes up in the future.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
People have fallen in love on this forum and everyone thought it was so romantic. I don't see that physical presence is necessary to an authentic relationship.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:It is perfectly acceptable to be like someone's mother. It is perfectly acceptable to love someone and help someone, and to be loved and appreciated in return. But if we're speaking of presumption, I find it incredibly presumptuous to express irritation, as Anne Kate has, over a father's reluctance to admit a stranger into a legal relationship with his real son in a manner that actually requires him to legally renounce his own relationship with the son he's raised to maturity.
I was referring only to feelings and other people's ability to make judgments on their legitimacy. That is a topic I have fairly developed ideas about in a variety of contexts.
I didn't read the previous thread, so I had no idea exactly what it was people were objecting to, and most people here were speaking in generalities about what it means to be a mother, and whether you can be one to someone you didn't give birth to, or care for since shortly after that.
I did not read the original thread, mostly because I'm not here much, but also because it looked personal. I like you all just fine, but I don't care to get all up in anyone's business, even if you seem to have posted wanting people to do just that.
I'm not going to comment on parental rights severing and insurance and whatnot, mostly because of the not caring, mentioned above.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My memory of the thread (which could be wrong) was that the father didn't want to sign over his parental rights and Tatiana couldn't understand that, since she was the boy's mother. She seemed to be implying that she knew better then the actual parents. It seemed like she was trying to take the place of the mother, not in addition to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:People have fallen in love on this forum and everyone thought it was so romantic. I don't see that physical presence is necessary to an authentic relationship.
Sure, it started on this website. Did they claim spousal place in each other's lives on the basis of online relationships, though?
I also don't think physical presence is necessary to authentic relationships. I think it's necessary to some kinds of relationships. Again, we don't live in cyberspace. That is not where our lives take place. And love is about more than just exchanging ideas and conversation, and even empathy, compassion, and mutual respect, as is done online.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I seem to recall something about a marriage proposal on a first date.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
i don't seem to recall consuming the marriage online, though Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I submit that just because it's possible to form serious emotional attachment to someone else simply through text-based contact doesn't mean it's possible to parent that way. At least not for any definition of 'parent' that I'm aware of. Parenting requires proximity in a way that friendship does not.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I don't think that's at all analogous, pooka. Actually, the most analogous thing I can think of, if you're going to talk about online relationships, would be this story.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The proposal was on the first date, but the first date was not the first time we'd met in person. There's no way he'd have proposed or I'd have accepted if that hadn't been the case.
In fact, he'd had dinner with my parents and siblings before the first date.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Possibly true of Sasha. As I've said all along, his perception of this situation is both critical and absent.
p.s. I was more thinking of quidscribis. But I do seem to recall your courtship was compressed to a degree most would not consider normal. so was mine, though we didn't meet on the internet.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Our courtship was brief, but we had a 13 month engagement.
Quid & Fahim didn't get engaged on the first date, they were engaged before they met. I think they waited a few days after she flew out to Sri Lanka to actually get married, though.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: People have fallen in love on this forum and everyone thought it was so romantic. I don't see that physical presence is necessary to an authentic relationship.
Being a parent and being a spouse are, again, not on the same continuum. A parent is not like a Ph.D. level friend, nor is it a Ph.D. level mentor. You don't meet someone, get to know them, get to be their friend, become inseparable, and then become a parent.
You do court a person you're attracted to in order to become their spouse. You don't court a child that you like in order to become their parent.
You're talking about "motherhood" as being defined by a loving, caring relationship. That kind of attachment to your child can turn you from a bad parent into a good parent, or from a bad friend into a good friend. But it can't turn you from a good friend into a parent.
Take this as an example. My parents beat me when I was a child. When I was too loud, my mother used to tie me up with rope and put me in a closet in the basement for hours so she wouldn't have to deal with me. One day when I took too long getting ready for school she waited until I came out of the shower, took my towel, and threw me outside naked right next to the bus stop. If I swore, my mom would make me swallow a teaspoon of tobasco sauce, and I couldn't talk sometimes for days afterward. When I turned 18 they threw everything I owned into a garbage can and kicked me out of the house. I haven't spoken with them in nearly a decade, and I couldn't be happier.
I'm now married, and my wife and I share a wonderfully kind, loving, happy and supportive relationship. Everything I ever wished my mother would provide me (and more, obviously) I can get from my wife. We've been together for nearly 10 years, and I've never for a moment regretted it.
So if I were to bring up "my mother" in conversation, would you assume that I was talking about the woman that raised me, or the woman I'm married to?
And just to kill the suspense, if it ever turns out that I'm referring to my wife as my mother, I hereby give you permission to shoot me in the kneecaps with a shotgun.
The fact that Tatania's relationship has mainly played itself out online may get in the way of her becoming as close to this child as his real, biological parents are. But that itself isn't the dealbreaker. He's a grown man and he's just now met her. She can become a lot of things in his life. There's a chance that she will someday become far more meaningful to him than his parents ever were. But she will never literally be his mother.
[ January 22, 2008, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting, too, that a spousal relationship is fundamentally different from a parental relationship.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Look, All I'm really trying to say is that based on what I know about Tatiana, she deserves more respect from this forum than she is getting.
To be completely fair, however - it's important to note that the things she was planning were not entirely above-board anyway. There was discussion the last time I saw the thread that she would enroll him in college, with no intention of him actually attending classes, just so she could get him insured. I'm no expert, but that seems like some type of fraud, or at the very least it's pretty low to manipulate the system in such a way.
There were suggestions made about how he could pursue treatment through appropriate channels, but she had blinders on about everything except one - adopting him and manipulating the collegiate and insurance system. Which doesn't seem right, no matter what you think about her self-appointed title of motherhood.
Her intentions may have been, in her mind, good ones but that doesn't mean that what she planned was right or appropriate.
I hope this doesn't sound as if I don't want the best for this boy, I do - I hope there is some treatment program he can take advantage of to get the help he needs. I just don't think Tatiana's plan was the best way to go about it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Just as an interjection that is not necessarily related to the specific topic at hand, but the more general concept of defining "motherhood."
There's something about Biological Parenthood that is nearly unique to it, though it does come into play with a formal adoption or other guardianship relationship as well-- the 24-7-365 complete and total responsibility for what your child is and/or becomes. Fair or not, true or not, whether it is embraced or not by the parent in question, the world pretty much judges you based on what you do to and for your children and also to a great extent by how they "turn out".
Again, many parents completely fail to recognize this responsibility and many more don't particularly live up to it well, but the responsibility is there for biological parents for sure, and, I think it's pretty safe to say, for legal guardians and adoptive parents as well (and those people almost by definition are stepping in precisely because the biological parents are unable or unwilling to meet the responsibility to their child). It is most definitely not there for relationships where there is no formal guardianship... and I, for one, find that an enormously important distinction of "real parent" versus "parent-like relationship" that several people have hinted at but no one has explicitly drawn yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:BB: This is very off-topic. I may take this into a different thread. But a thought occurs, given your travels, have you visited any of Harbin, Dalian, Suzhou, or Guilin?
I'm afraid out of that list I can only say I've been to Gui Lin. Beautiful country, gorgeous in fact.
I assume you've been to all those places?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Belle, agreed. And I suspect that it was it part the fact that I and others pointed out that this was fraud that upset her to the point of deleting the thread.
I said it there, and I'll say it again. It won't work, and it's fraud.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Suzhou is ok, but somewhat touristy. There are nearby cities that have the canals and similar appeal but less tourists, which I enjoyed.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I didn't read the thread, and have no idea what is going on. From an outside perspective, this thread makes no sense at all. Can someone please explain the situation?
The threads about Sasha? Her adopted internet son? Ring a bell?
I avoid most threads of that nature, because I feel that, as someone who is only 18, and not even close to having a family, I do not have an educated enough opinion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB and scholar: I think I will take this discussion into a less contentious thread entitled "Travel thread: China" Thanks
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not a lawyer, nor a psychologist, but I'm frightened. I hear warning bells so loud, it's hard to type sometimes.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I, for one, find that an enormously important distinction of "real parent" versus "parent-like relationship" that several people have hinted at but no one has explicitly drawn yet.
Interesting, Jim-Me. You see this sort of thing on tv and the movies all the time, but I don't know if it ever plays out in real life. There's always some kid who turns to a mentor figure and over the course of the movie declares, "He's like a father to me. I wouldn't be here if not for him."
Whatever the reality is, there's a strong pop culture tradition of others filling a parental role better than the actual parents. I would imagine many people believe it's possible.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Quid & Fahim didn't get engaged on the first date, they were engaged before they met. I think they waited a few days after she flew out to Sri Lanka to actually get married, though.
We met in person two months after having met online. We were married less than eight hours after that, and the only reason it took that long was because we were waiting for the witnesses to arrive. We could have married five minutes after we'd met and I would have been fine with that, as would Fahim.
-----
I'm really uncomfortable with a lot of what's been said about Tatiana in this thread, with the exception of Rabbit, with whom I tend to agree.
If you feel you (generic you) know her well enough to tell her how she's wrong or screwing up or what she should do, surely there are better ways of doing this, like in a private email.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sure there is also a professional ethics issue involved. Not that I think CT has done anything unethical but there is sort of a blurry line between offering friendly advice and giving medical advice when many of the facts are not available. I can see why CT would be concerned.
I have always been careful about this, and I have always limited my advice to be bound by this. Of course.
---
Edited to add:
Just to be clear, I have no qualms about anything I've done in that respect online, ever. Not only do I actually know everything I have done, but I have had advanced academic training in ethics, far and above what is typical for physicians, which is (I believe) far and above what is typical for other professions, except for law.
And I rest so easy at night, nonetheless. *smile
My concern isn't that I've stepped over any professional lines in any way whatsoever. My concern is that I am not sure personally what I hope to get out of that sort of interaction, and I think it is worth thinking about. I think that thinking about such personal expectations for engagement would be good for a lot of people to do, actually.
Once again I'm guilty of overstating my case when I said I was sure. Your behavior on line, in my experience, has always reflected not only your professional training in ethics but also your personal commitment to ethical behavior. I never meant to question either one.
My comment was based on my personal experience. My views of what is ethical both personally and professionally are constantly evolving. It doesn't seem to matter how much I've studied issues or how experienced I've become, new experiences and information will cause me to move the lines I've drawn defining ethical behavior. Some of the comments you made caused me to wonder whether recent experiences might have caused you to reevaluate the ethics of participating in medical discussions on line.
I should not have presumed that to be the case since it certainly was not. I really do need to be more careful about how I word things.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:There were suggestions made about how he could pursue treatment through appropriate channels, but she had blinders on about everything except one - adopting him and manipulating the collegiate and insurance system. Which doesn't seem right, no matter what you think about her self-appointed title of motherhood.
Well, I guess it is a bit like marrying someone to get them a green card. Unless you already loved them. Unless they were already married and you want them to divorce their spouse and come marry you and get the green card.
It wouldn't be my scene, but I wouldn't castigate someone for it. I guess I can see, with more information, that I would say the potentially jettisoned spouse is a sympathetic figure.
But the ethics of the insurance situation is a different matter from the definition of motherhood. I was lazy yesterday and didn't quote any of the LDS church's teachings.
quote:And motherhood, like priesthood, is a divine call to serve and to nurture others. Who that has witnessed the pure love of a mother for her child can deny that this kind of love is of God? Sisters, this same kind of Christlike love can and should be extended to others throughout your life. -Whetten, May 1999
quote: To the women within the sound of my voice who dearly want to be mothers and are not, I say through your tears and ours on that subject, God will yet, in days that lie somewhere ahead, bring “hope to [the] desolate heart.” 1 As prophets have repeatedly taught from this pulpit, ultimately “no blessing shall be withheld” from the faithful, even if those blessings do not come immediately. 2 In the meantime we rejoice that the call to nurture is not limited to our own flesh and blood. "Because she is a mother" Holland, May 1997
Neither of these is a pronouncement by the Prophet, of course, but they were remarks delivered in our general conference and I think some tolerance of an unorthodox view is warranted.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think that being angry at someone's birth father who raised him and still wants to be his parent for not abandoning the legal relationship to his own kid is scarily presumptuous.
And a little bonkers. The entire situation sounds very unhealthy.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The Rabbit, I can think of no better person to be misunderstood by.
No worries. Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis:
We met in person two months after having met online. We were married less than eight hours after that, and the only reason it took that long was because we were waiting for the witnesses to arrive. We could have married five minutes after we'd met and I would have been fine with that, as would Fahim.
Wow, I wish I could find true love like that! Actually, there was a girl I met early in my freshman year of college who completely surprised me with the interest she showed in me, and I think I'd have been ready to marry her right then if she asked me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So...what, now the discussion's just devolved into whether or not Tatiana's nutso?
I'm sure I don't know.
It has been reported that Tatiana was annoyed with the father for resisting her adoption of his son. I don't know if that's the case or not; I do know that the idea that some online creature knows better for a child than a normal, mentally healthy, present parent does is downright...stupid.
The idea that anyone knows a child better than a normal, mentally healthy, present parent is equally as stupid. (In case anyone remembers a conversation on this very same topic from a couple years ago, with many of the same participants)
Who exactly is normal and mentally healthy cannot be determined by virtual people in a shielded, filtered environment.
Some people have complained that we should give Tatiana the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand why we should (EDIT:) to the detriment of this kid's parents.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, her argument from the start was that the kid's parents were inadequate and possibly abusive. But that was according to Sasha's evaluation. She spoke of rescuing him, and people warned her then that it could constitute kidnapping on her part.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Rescuing" should be done by people in the child's locality who have the training and the legal authority to rescue children.
Does anyone disagree?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: "Rescuing" should be done by people in the child's locality who have the training and the legal authority to rescue children.
Does anyone disagree?
I don't!
I think that legal authority and responsibility are key issues in this discussion. I also think that it would be wonderful if Tatiana's strong calling to nurture young people and her obvious compassion could be channelled into some legal structure like being a foster parent. She would have legal authority, responsibility, and protections for her nurturing instincts and kids that really need her love and care. Kids that don't already have functioning parents.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think foster parents can do really wonderful work.
It can be heartbreaking though-- the tentative purpose of the foster care system is to get both the children and the biological parents in a safe place, mentally and emotionally speaking, so that they can all be reunited.
Foster care is not meant to be a permanent solution to a child's problems.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So...what, now the discussion's just devolved into whether or not Tatiana's nutso?
Yeah, this is definitely a big problem, and I hope it stops.
For the record, while I think that what she was suggesting was wrong, I was questioning neither her sanity nor her intentions. Her heart is definitely in the right place. I just disagree with her methods.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, oh, I know. I think that anything would be fraught with some difficulties. I think that it would make more sense, though, than trying to usurp parental authority. Especially since she has an affinity for teenagers. It is often very difficult to place teenagers.
I'm just trying to find some way of giving her really caring impulses (that now seem out of control) some structure and legitimacy. It would be sad if they were wasted or just got her into trouble.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Her heart is definitely in the right place.
I wouldn't know. If her heart is saying, "I know better for a child than that child's parent," and it is evident to a wide section of the population that the parent in question is normal and mentally healthy, then her heart is in the wrong place.
But like I said-- I wouldn't know the specifics about any of this.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So we can now move from the definition of the word "mother," to the definition of the word "heart" as used to express motive. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
While the goal is usually to reunite kids with their parents, some kids in the foster care system either have no parents or parents who have given them up or had their parental rights terminated. Those kids are eligible for foster placement leading to adoption.
I know several families who have adopted this way. And one family who took foster placement of three siblings thinking it would be short term while the mother got her act together, extended to a year, and now the mother reliquished her rights to the kids and the family will likely adopt them. Which is not what they'd planned when they signed up to foster three troubled kids, but they're good people and don't want the kids to be abandoned again.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Her heart is definitely in the right place.
I wouldn't know. If her heart is saying, "I know better for a child than that child's parent," and it is evident to a wide section of the population that the parent in question is normal and mentally healthy, then her heart is in the wrong place.
But like I said-- I wouldn't know the specifics about any of this.
No, what her heart is saying is "I want this child to be well, and whole, and happy, cared for and aware that he is cared for". That's unquestionably the right place. Whether or not the course of action that she's chosen is the best route to get there is certainly open to question, but what's driving it is, at its base, a positive thing.
[ January 23, 2008, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks for putting that so well, Noem.
Yeah, what he said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm sure I know that I don't know that, Noemon, Rivka.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
a bunch of letters?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know and I don't care.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I should have seen that coming.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yup. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So...what, now the discussion's just devolved into whether or not Tatiana's nutso?
Yeah, this is definitely a big problem, and I hope it stops.
For the record, while I think that what she was suggesting was wrong, I was questioning neither her sanity nor her intentions. Her heart is definitely in the right place. I just disagree with her methods.
I agree with what rivka and Noemon are saying.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Just for a thought experiment, flip this around for a moment.
How would you react if you found out from your children that some adult they met online was trying to convince them that you are an unfit parent, and that your children should move in with them?
Or alternately, how would we respond if someone here with children told us a story about how their child is sick, and some adult they only know from the internet is trying to get them to become legally adopted for the purposes of insurance fraud?
Would we really look at that and say, "Obviously this internet stranger has your child's best interests at heart. That's probably normal behavior."
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I would look into legal possibilities to defend my family.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Mighty Cow, I think you are oversimplifying the situation.
quote: how would we respond if someone here with children told us a story about how their 18 year old is sick and the parent had no insurance and couldn't afford the treatment , and some adult they only know from the internet is trying to get them to become legally adopted for the purposes of insurance fraud in order to get proper medical treatment that you as the parent can't afford ?
I think the insurance fraud part is slightly fuzzy, as my boyfriend and I routinely discuss that if he ends up retiring from a state job, we will get married, so that I can have his health insurance for life. Marriage and adoption reset a lot of insurance issues, including pre-existing conditions.
I'm also unclear as to whether the father actually acknowledges that Sasha has lyme disease, or if he still thinks it is all in Sasha's head.
I might about things in a different way from Tatiana, but understating the complexity of the present situation doesn't help matters.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I agree with Phanto. Banna's additions don't change that. And if Tatiana really thinks the parents are being negligent, then she should call Child and Family Services.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think the part that people are referring to as fraud is not the potential adoption but that Tatiana wants to enroll him in college in order to get him insurance, but has no intention of him actually going to school. If an insurance company found out the college issue, it would likely be considered fraud, and the company could consider prosecuting.
Edit: I don't know why I put quotation marks around the word adoption. I have removed them, since they had no business being there.
[ January 23, 2008, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The college thing was what was being discussed as potential fraud.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Can you legally adopt (for insurance purposes etc) a young adult? Based on my experience with family court and divorce-related custody issues, I'd think that wouldn't even be possible. But obviously IANAL, so who knows?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think it depends on the state, maui babe.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My reference to potential fraud certainly was in re the enrolling in college with no intention of attending in order to get insurance.
Had there been an adoption, and that adoption legal, then of course the adopted child would be eligible for benefits from the parent. That's not an issue. Lying to the insurance company about a child attending college when he does not in fact, attend - that sounds like fraud to me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The legal requirement is that he be registered for classes. Intent is hard to prove, so there are specific legal standards to determine who qualifies and who doesn't.
If he enrolled and then applied for medical continuances through the proper channels it wouldn't necessarily be fraud. Hell...as long as the classes are paid for, even allowing him to fail them would cover the legal requirements, even if he rarely (if ever) attended.
Not that I and defending that, but I just wanted to be clear.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Most schools have attendance requirements. Failing to attend classes will often get you dropped.
This is especially true of overfull state schools, particularly community colleges.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Baron,
quote:It's not as extreme as trying to adopt a kid yet, but a lot of caring Jatraqueros tried with sincere good intentions to warn her about what, by general concensus, could easily become a big problem. She thanked us by deleting the thread.
&
The fact that Tatania's relationship has mainly played itself out online may get in the way of her becoming as close to this child as his real, biological parents are. But that itself isn't the dealbreaker. He's a grown man and he's just now met her. She can become a lot of things in his life. There's a chance that she will someday become far more meaningful to him than his parents ever were. But she will never literally be his mother.
I do wish you'd take more care not to put biological parenthood on one end of things, and all other forms as non-biological and thus inferior on the other, Baron.
Unless that's what you actually believe, anyway.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Has anyone here gone to college solely to defer student loan payments? Just wondering. I personally have not, but my husband did.
I guess in the end it's good because he now works in his degree field, but at the time I was rather frustrated by it because he was trying to run his own business and going to school part time for financial reasons.
Having someone register for school and not attend would probably result in a poor GPA, which I would find not very beneficial. So I'm pretty troubled by that scenario, if she was serious about that. Though I suspect she was just deflecting objections that starting school full time (and many states require full time enrollment to qualify for insurance) while undergoing treatment might be difficult. I just really hope that if she's going through with this, she doesn't accomodate the kid's preferences to the point of scrapping his academic future. Part of being a mother is loving the kid enough to say no sometimes.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
He could attend online courses. That might be easier. He could study from anywhere and attendance wouldn't be an issue. I took one in college and it wasn't bad.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Most online classes require you to do "class activity"-- logging on to the site and visiting the class bb, turning in an assignment, whatever-- to qualify as "attending", or you get dropped.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do wish you'd take more care not to put biological parenthood on one end of things, and all other forms as non-biological and thus inferior on the other, Baron.
Unless that's what you actually believe, anyway.
That *is* what Baron Samedi believes, to an extent. Do a search in this thread for the word "asterisk."
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
That's some mighty fine out-of-contexting you've done there, Rakeesh. Almost made it work.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do wish you'd take more care not to put biological parenthood on one end of things, and all other forms as non-biological and thus inferior on the other, Baron.
Unless that's what you actually believe, anyway.
That *is* what Baron Samedi believes, to an extent. Do a search in this thread for the word "asterisk."
When you're done with that, do a search for the word "inferior" and see if it comes up in any of my posts.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Right. Because "asterisk' connotes "legitimate." Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Here's what I found:
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Of course, in human society we have found certain uses for the words "Mother" and "Father" outside the literal donation of a gamete. But even in those cases, parental titles are used very conservatively, and with an asterisk. For example, no one is going to mistake Angelina Jolie for her childrens' "real mother." But since she found these children at a very young age in a situation where they didn't have anyone to care for them, and she made a long-term legal commitment to act in a parental capacity full-time and in person until they are entirely grown and independent, no one is going to deny her the right to use the word "Mother." However, even in such an extremely legitimate case, when someone raises a child that is not their direct genetic offspring, the word "Mother" is still going to be used with an unspoken caveat.
The emphasis, of course, is mine.
You are mistaken about common usage today. My children's "real father" is me.
EDIT: Stupid QB tags making my emphasis invisible . . .
[ January 24, 2008, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Right. Because "asterisk' connotes "legitimate."
You'll notice that in the section of my post that you just quoted, I called adoption "extremely legitimate." Is that not enough connotation of legitimacy for you?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Baron, You very clearly state that no one would mistake a particular mother with adopted children as their "real mother". If that doesn't imply that adopted parents are some how less real and therefore inferior to biological parents then I can not understand what it does mean.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Angelina Jolie IS her children's real mother. I certainly hope there isn't a caveat - there doesn't deserve to be one. I hate to speculate about a celebrity, but I've never seen or read anything to suggest that Angelina Jolie considers her adopted children to be less important or less her children than her biological child.
I think it's tremendously insulting to say otherwise.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Different != inferior. The President of the United States is different than a school-board member in Tooele, Utah. Does that make the President's office inferior?
I don't know where that idea comes from, other than a desire to feel persecuted.
[ January 24, 2008, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Icarus, I've been looking for a post I thought was by you. Perhaps it was in the deleted thread and maybe I'm misremembering and it was someone else who posted.
Was it you who posted something about there being people out there who had more money than you and might be able to better care for your child than you but it was insulting to suggest you should therefore sign over your children to them?
Maybe it was in fact someone else.
I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
I also think that in many cases, that decision is a good decision, a responsible decision, a loving decision and a very unselfish decision.
I would hope that most parents who adopted children felt that way about their children's biological parents and did not feel like those parents who signed away their parental rights were necessarily dead beats who had abandoned their child.
[ January 24, 2008, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
"Not real" is DEFINITELY inferior.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: The President of the United States is different than a school-board member in Tooele, Utah. Does that make his office inferior?
I think most people would agree that the office of school board member is inferior to the office of President. Certainly in the quantifiable terms of power, resources, respect, fame, etc, this would be the case.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I didn't post in the deleted thread.
Who said you did? My post was addressed to Icarus.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: The President of the United States is different than a school-board member in Tooele, Utah. Does that make his office inferior?
I think most people would agree that the office of school board member is inferior to the office of President. Certainly in the quantifiable terms of power, resources, respect, fame, etc, this would be the case.
His = The President's. Should have made my pronouns more clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You picked a pretty interesting comparison there, Baron. Bio parents:adoptive parents, POTUS:school-board member.
But anyway, you didn't call adoption 'extremely legitimate', to be precise. You called Angelina Jolie's case 'extremely legitimate. Other adoptions you referred to as being asterisked or having caveats, and you might want to take a look at the dictionary and see what most of the definitions of that word mean, by the way.
quote:I don't know where that idea comes from, other than a desire to feel persecuted.
Here's why: because you're going out of your way to make it very clear that on one side of the question, there are good, biological parents. Merely by making a distinction with those people on one side and everyone else on the other (however 'extremely legitimate' they may be), you're implying inferiority.
In my opinion, questions of biology are almost irrelevant when it comes to determining parenthood. What kind of parent am I if I just knock up a girl and run away, never seeing the child again? Well, hey, I did a lot! I donated my genes!
We're not talking legal issues here either, and I think that's clear too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: "Not real" is DEFINITELY inferior.
Your use of the word "real" to describe biological parents as distinguished from other parents is part of what implies inferior status to other parents. Add to that the asterisk, the caveats, the conservative and other words you use -- they all imply that adoptive parents have less stature as parents than biological parents.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Holy crap, Rakeesh, did you even read my posts? I was going to try to correct you, but you have so many errors in every single sentence that I don't know where to start. If you did that on purpose, well done. Your maze of misinterpretation is as complex as Beethoven's Grand Fugue.
I'll continue this discussion when my attention isn't divided. Meantime, read my posts, try to understand what I said, and don't even bother trying to tell me what I implied, because you're not even close.
[ January 25, 2008, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Perhaps you are not carefully considering what you are saying, because your words and your explanation of your words bear little resemblance to one another.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
What are you basing this on? My experience is that they do it because they think they'll have a better life if the child is adopted.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I just want to say that I really like and totally agree with Rakeesh's posts in this thread.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
What are you basing this on? My experience is that they do it because they think they'll have a better life if the child is adopted.
Of the LDS girls that I know that put their children up for adoption, the idea has always been that the child deserves a stable family with a mother and father. Growing up, that was definitely the idea. If I had gotten pregnant before graduating from high school, I would have been expected to give the baby up for adoption so he/she could have a family that was ready and hungry for it.
That is so the mindset that I'm used that I was shocked to discover that only 1% of babies born to teenage mothers are placed for adoption and that giving the baby up for adoption is seen as "ducking responsibilities." It seems both the most responsible and the most generous action possible, where ideally five people are better off. The teenage parents can continuing preparing for their life rather than having responsiblity (and usually poverty and a lack of education) thrust on them, the baby gets to be raised by parents who are ready and longed for it, and the adoptive parents get a baby.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Have you seen "Juno," Katie?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That is so the mindset that I'm used that I was shocked to discover that only 1% of babies born to teenage mothers are placed for adoption and that giving the baby up for adoption is seen as "ducking responsibilities."
Growing up non-Mormon, I was equally surprised when I learned from my LDS friends that teens were encouraged to give up their children for adoption.
I think there is an argument to be made for keeping the child in many cases. It doesn't always (usually?) force people into poverty or prevent further education, it just makes those outcomes more likely. These girls, their boyfriends, and their parents, should consider all of the options and decide what is best for their situation.
Posted by EmpSquared (Member # 10890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I was going to try to correct you, but you have so many errors in every single sentence that I don't know where to start. If you did that on purpose, well done. You're maze of misinterpretation is as complex as Beethoven's Grand Fugue.
Just sayin'.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Icarus, I've been looking for a post I thought was by you. Perhaps it was in the deleted thread and maybe I'm misremembering and it was someone else who posted.
Was it you who posted something about there being people out there who had more money than you and might be able to better care for your child than you but it was insulting to suggest you should therefore sign over your children to them?
Maybe it was in fact someone else.
I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
I also think that in many cases, that decision is a good decision, a responsible decision, a loving decision and a very unselfish decision.
I posted something vaguely like that. My point was not that it was wrong to give your children up for adoption, but that it was wrong to negatively judge someone for not giving their children up for adoption. The suggestion at the moment was that Sasha's father was being unreasonable. I don't think he is, and I would never judge him negatively for standing in the way of this adoption, regardless of the fact that Anne Kate can provide something for his child that he cannot. And so my point was that there is always someone who can provide for your child better than you can. In the case of really poor people, there are lots of people with a better financial ability to provide for their children. But that doesn't mean that if someone wealthy comes along and offers to do so, one is wrong for failing to take them up on it. The father is not being unreasonable here. It is unreasonable to judge him.
quote:I would hope that most parents who adopted children felt that way about their children's biological parents and did not feel like those parents who signed away their parental rights were necessarily dead beats who had abandoned their child.
My children's birthparents were a violent, drug abusing couple. The mother's early labor was triggered by a violent episode. The children were born at 28 weeks gestation with substantial developmental delays and substantial medical needs, and were immediately taken into DCF custody. They never spent an hour with their birthparents. Their birthparents, it should be noted, had the opportunity to regain custody by attending parenting lessons and committing to follow-up with DCF; they never made more than a token effort to do so. They never took any classes, and the birthmother visited the children in the foster home once. The girls lived for twenty months in a medical foster home and have lived with us ever since.
I do judge the birthparents negatively. They are deadbeats.
I would hope that in less extreme cases, adoptive parents are more charitable. It's not the same, but I have always kept the foster parents involved in the girls' lives. They even have taken to inviting us to their family reunions. (You get a lot of funny looks as the only white people in a black family reunion, let me tell you! ) I like to imagine that I would be the same way with birth parents under different circumstances, but I could not guarantee that it is true. At least with the foster parents there is no question of who the "real" parents are and who the "parents with caveat" are. I might be less likely to keep the birthparents in the picture if I thought that would lead to confusion on that score. But I hope I would at least be charitable in my estimation of them.
I agree that giving your child up for adoption can be a generous and responsible thing to do. I just don't agree that failing to give your child up for adoption is an ungenerous or irresponsible thing to do, under any circumstances.
-o-
I don't agree with Tatiana's actions. I do believe that her heart is in the right place. I don't trust myself to go on at length in this thread, though, on the merits or demerits of this plan, because I can't trust myself not to say things that are true but nevertheless hurtful. It might be worth it to say hurtful but true things if I thought that they would change Tatiana's intentions, but I don't believe they will, and so it just doesn't seem worth it. I have been pretty upfront about the fact that I don't think it's cool, but I have tried to restrain myself as much as possible.
-o-
You know, the girls share my last name, and have social security cards with my last name. They even have official birth certificates with my last name, listing my wife and me as their parents. It would seem to me that in the eyes of the State, at least, the "real" parents are my wife and I.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Anyone who thinks that adoptive parents of young children are not their "real" parents because they are not bio parents to the children does not subscribe to my definition of reality.
The official LDS policy on unwed pregnancies, as I understand it, is that the parents should be encouraged to marry if possible, to provide a two-parent, stable home. If that is not feasible or realistic or would result in an UNSTABLE marriage and home (such as when the mother and/or father are very young-- like, you know, 14, 15, sometimes even older, depending on the people involved), then adoption should be encouraged.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I don't think threads should be able to be deleted by anyone but a moderator. I don't like the idea of someone else (besides a moderator) having the power to delete my posts. Maybe the OP of a thread should have the option of locking it instead of deleting it. That way no information is destroyed.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well of course you would feel that way . . .
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Ha. I didn't even catch the self-pun.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I don't think threads should be able to be deleted by anyone but a moderator. I don't like the idea of someone else (besides a moderator) having the power to delete my posts. Maybe the OP of a thread should have the option of locking it instead of deleting it. That way no information is destroyed.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a thread becomes hurtful or personally insulting, I think the OP is perfectly within his/her rights to delete it.
I'm not weighing in on whether or not that has anything to do with this particular thread deletion because I wasn't paying much attention whenever it was deleted.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
If I become hurtful and personally insulting to you right now in this thread, you don't have the ability to delete my words. The recourse you do have is whistling my posts and letting the moderator get involved. He can delete my words in this post here. Likewise, if a thread becomes insulting or hurtful, the OP can go to the moderator. Just because the programming of the board makes it possible for an OP to delete other people's words doesn't make it right. You can count me among those who think thread deleting sucks.
(Just to be clear, I'm not actually commenting on this specific case. I knew that Anne Kate was prone to thread deletion, so I didn't post anything I would particularly miss if she deleted my posts. I'm replying to you on the principle of the thing, because I disagree with you. As far as Tatiana's thread, I don't particularly care.)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If a thread becomes personally insulting then the offending posts should be deleted. I guess there always exceptions. If I made a thread called "Let's talk about how pH sucks" then I would hope that it would be deleted. I don't think a thread that contains legitimate discussion should be deleted.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
There is often a problem when trying to determine someones intent in posting something, particularily when that person says "that's not what I meant".
Just sayin'.....
"Real, biological parents " seems, at least to me, to be two different characteristics of what was in question. It could be that Baron meant to imply that adoptive parents aren't real parents....or not.
Asking him to clarify would probably have gotten a more constructive answer from him rather than assuming he meant such a thing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But then the question becomes, what constitutes legitimate discussion? I mean, one could argue that certain parts of this thread (though CERTAINLY not anywhere near the majority), though very delicately worded, could be hurtful to Tatiana.
I also think that the time between when the offended individual whistles and when the moderator can actually make a decision about the posts can still be an extremely harmful period.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Are we really having this argument AGAIN?
Why, exactly?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I will note that everyone here who has criticized Anne Kate for claiming to be Sasha's mother, has biological children.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true.
[Or, what dkw said. ]
Same here....I don't.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: There is often a problem when trying to determine someones intent in posting something, particularily when that person says "that's not what I meant".
Just sayin'.....
"Real, biological parents " seems, at least to me, to be two different characteristics of what was in question. It could be that Baron meant to imply that adoptive parents aren't real parents....or not.
Asking him to clarify would probably have gotten a more constructive answer from him rather than assuming he meant such a thing.
He didn't "imply" that adoptive parents aren't real parents. He stated it. Flat out.
Kwea, did you read his posts, or just the phrase? He said adoptive parents are only considered real with an asterisk or a caveat, and that nobody would consider Angeline Jolie the "real mother" of the children she has adopted. It seemed to me that he has clarified his thoughts pretty thoroughly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a thread becomes hurtful or personally insulting, I think the OP is perfectly within his/her rights to delete it.
Why? They're within their powers to delete the thread, that's certainly true. But why are they within their rights? Just because their feelings were hurt?
If you're posting on a serious issue, why should you somehow have this right not to be hurt by contrary opinions? Is that what Hatrack is? A great big back-patting discussion board?
I'm not surprised you support thread deletion, though. If memory serves, at least once you decided you didn't like what you were hearing and decided to delete your words along with everyone else's.
You've got the ability to kill a discussion you started once it goes against you, that's not the same as having the right. Or do you think you should have the right to delete anyone's words once they become too critical?
Anne Kate should not have gotten, nor should she have expected, uniformly positive reactions to the proposals she was making. Hatrack is not a support group, and even in a support group you cannot rely on automatic support.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a thread becomes hurtful or personally insulting, I think the OP is perfectly within his/her rights to delete it.
Why? They're within their powers to delete the thread, that's certainly true. But why are they within their rights? Just because their feelings were hurt?
If you're posting on a serious issue, why should you somehow have this right not to be hurt by contrary opinions? Is that what Hatrack is? A great big back-patting discussion board?
I'm not surprised you support thread deletion, though. If memory serves, at least once you decided you didn't like what you were hearing and decided to delete your words along with everyone else's.
You've got the ability to kill a discussion you started once it goes against you, that's not the same as having the right. Or do you think you should have the right to delete anyone's words once they become too critical?
Anne Kate should not have gotten, nor should she have expected, uniformly positive reactions to the proposals she was making. Hatrack is not a support group, and even in a support group you cannot rely on automatic support.
Rakeesh, I know you have a personal issue with me. I don't really know why, but I know you're not the only one. And if you're going to bring up threads I deleted, they were completely unproductive and had degenerated into personal attacks that were causing me severe distress and affecting my ability to function in the real world. I have OCD; words hurt me a LOT, and as long as I'm still capable of reading them, I will continue to do so. I also can't keep myself from pulling pieces of skin from my scalp. I didn't mention any of this at the time because I thought it would just give more ammunition to the people who already seemed to be taking far too much pleasure in tearing me down. I'm not saying Hatrack should be a support group, but I don't think it should be allowed to degenerate into a schoolyard bully session, either.
Edit: Again, I'm not saying that Tatiana should or shouldn't have deleted the thread. From what I saw, she wasn't getting universal support, but there weren't any personal attacks against her, either. Not in THAT thread, at least. In this one...I can't say that this thread hasn't gotten a little too insulting to her, in my opinion.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:Maybe the OP of a thread should have the option of locking it instead of deleting it. That way no information is destroyed.
I think this is worth thinking about and makes a great compromise between those who feel some ownership of their threads and those who feel that the OP has no more right to them than anyone else.
I understand the latter group's position but belong to the former, for the record.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pH, honey, I mean this gently. I like you, so please understand that I mean this gently.
But, think about it. What would you do if this thread turned hurtful? You couldn't delete it, because you didn't start it. You would need to find some other way of coping with it. Right? Ignoring it, asking the moderator for help and so forth. The OP has those same options.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You've got the ability to kill a discussion you started once it goes against you, that's not the same as having the right.
In this case it kind of is. It's a right granted to the original poster by the software and, thereby, implicitly by the owners in their continued use of the software as currently configured. For whatever reason, it has not been worth it to the Cards or any of the janitors to take whatever steps would be necessary to prevent thread deletion. Nor, as far as I know, has thread deletion been made a no-no in the terms of service.
So I think yes, original posters *do* have the right to delete their threads... I think the phrase you're looking for, Rakeesh, is "to have a right to do something is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." (GKC, of course)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't see how the availability of those options to people who didn't start threads should mean that the OP shouldn't have the ability to delete the thread if it turns hurtful. And as I said before, I really don't know if that's what happened in Tatiana's case or not. I know she's had her feelings hurt before in threads related to Sasha (I think there was one about her helping him talk to his girlfriend on the phone), so I wouldn't find it surprising if she was a little vulnerable on the subject from the beginning. But I don't know, and I haven't been able to get ahold of her since this thread was started.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Just because the software doesn't prevent me from doing something doesn't make it a right of mine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: For whatever reason, it has not been worth it to the Cards or any of the janitors to take whatever steps would be necessary to prevent thread deletion.
It's a single checkbox.
I'm going to ask this again. What EARTHLY good is having this same argument yet AGAIN supposed to accomplish?
pH, do you think we don't all know how you feel about this? Rakeesh, I know you feel it's your duty to rehash old arguments, but please let this one go! Kate, do you really think you are going to change pH's mind or anyone else's?
While the locking a thread notion is interesting, I am fairly certain it is not doable. Deleting posts (and therefore threads) is something that can be allowed (or not, as the board admin decides); locking threads is only a power that admins and moderators have. Regardless, despite repeated and vicious argument on this topic, the PTB have chosen to stick with the status quo.
The last time this argument was rehashed, people left Hatrack over the venom. Personally, I came close.
CAN WE PLEASE DROP IT?!?
Thank you for your consideration. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I know you feel it's your duty to rehash old arguments, but please let this one go!
Sometimes that mood does strike me, yes. This isn't one of those times, though, mostly because my interest in this topic (and things stemming from it) is almost gone. *shrug*
I am a little annoyed, though, at your characterization of me when I didn't bring the issue up here, and my response to a subject someone else brought up was pretty mild.
You may now continue your refereeing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
CAN WE PLEASE DROP IT?!?
Seconded.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: There is often a problem when trying to determine someones intent in posting something, particularily when that person says "that's not what I meant".
Just sayin'.....
"Real, biological parents " seems, at least to me, to be two different characteristics of what was in question. It could be that Baron meant to imply that adoptive parents aren't real parents....or not.
Asking him to clarify would probably have gotten a more constructive answer from him rather than assuming he meant such a thing.
He didn't "imply" that adoptive parents aren't real parents. He stated it. Flat out.
Kwea, did you read his posts, or just the phrase? He said adoptive parents are only considered real with an asterisk or a caveat, and that nobody would consider Angeline Jolie the "real mother" of the children she has adopted. It seemed to me that he has clarified his thoughts pretty thoroughly.
And his second post mentioned 2 categories of "real" parents...biological, and those who raised and cared for the child from a young age.
It seemed to me at that point he had further clarified what he was saying.
Mind you, I am not saying a I agree, even. I just see this sort of thing a lot, where people assume someone meant one thing because of the "obvious" implications of what tehy said, or how they said it.
I first commented on this reading just the comment as quoted. I went back, and I have to say I disagree with his first post....but because of the second I would have asked him what he meant rather than assuming the worst.
I am also not personally invested the way you would are...but I will say this...
When I spend time with you and your family, Icarus, I never even remember that you adopted Mango and Banana, because there is no doubt that you and Cor are their parents. With no asterisk at all....which is one of the reasons JenniK and I like hanging not just with you and Cor, but with your whole family. I love seeing families that work, and there is never any doubt about the love we see between you and your kids.
As it should be.
So....that should clarify MY position about all of that, I would think. I don't consider a childs biological parents to be the only ones with a right to the words Mother adn Father. Step-parents, adoptive parents, family who raises the child....any of them who do this could have a claim to them.
Nor do I really care what anyone else thinks about it.....if I feel it is warranted, and the child feels the same, then what anyone else thinks is a moot point, IMO.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Okay, I should have known better than to try to deal with that while I was at work. I have a few minutes now before I have to go to sleep, so I'll try to make this post as error-free as possible.
People sure do love to be offended, eh? Are people really trying to insist that I meant something different than I really did mean by my previous comments? If I weren't here, it might be an interesting academic discussion. But I am here, I know what I wrote, I know what I meant by what I wrote, and I know what I believe. If you want to ask me about any of those things, I'm here and I'd be glad to try to clear up any misunderstandings. But don't try to convince me that you know the answers to these questions better than I do. You sound like Ron Lambert trying to convince a bunch of returned missionaries that they really worship the Lords of Kobol, but they just don't know it. It's silly.
I have known politically correct people who love to set traps like this for people. They choose innocuous words and phrases such as “well-spoken” and “you people,” turn them into secret codes, then wait for well-meaning people to use them in any context. As soon as that happens, you're caught and there’s no point trying to pretend you’re not an evil, closed-minded bigot. It’s a clever trick. I, unfortunately, don’t know all the hidden code words. If “real” is one of them, well, I guess you caught me. But I don’t play the word game and I’m not going to respond to your semantic accusations.
If you enjoy scanning my posts like you’re reading the Constitution, trying to determine the intent of the framers, have a good time. But the framer is among you, and if you’re going to pretend you have more insight into what those posts meant than I did, it’s going to be a pretty hard sell.
I don’t mind clearing up honest misunderstandings that may have resulted from my choice of words. But if you’re going to go into the debate insisting that I meant something that I obviously did not, and trying to trick me into admitting that I hate you, that’s a game you can play solo.
Have fun.
[ January 25, 2008, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You poor thing.
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: But even in those cases, parental titles are used very conservatively, and with an asterisk. For example, no one is going to mistake Angelina Jolie for her childrens' "real mother."
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: However, even in such an extremely legitimate case, when someone raises a child that is not their direct genetic offspring, the word "Mother" is still going to be used with an unspoken caveat.
Yup. You ran afoul of the secret liberal code. When you said adoptive parents weren't real parents, it was uncharitable of me to assume you meant that adoptive parents aren't real parents. How could you know that to me, "real" was a secret buzzword meaning "real," and "caveat" was a secret buzzword meaning "caveat," and "asterisk" was a secret buzzword meaning "asterisk"?! I mean, really, it's so crazy how your words have been spun to mean something so different! I should have asked you what "real," "caveat," and "asterisk" meant in those contexts!
Hey, so that I don't make this mistake again, could you tell me what "is" means to you?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not dropping it. It costs too much. You drop it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Orphaned Funny. It's a sad thing, Scott.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
One more thing. This isn't a response to the previous post, but I've got one more question for you before I bid farewell to this ridiculous line of inquiry:
Let's take an SAT-type reading comprehension test, and see how you fare. Read the following sentences and respond to the question:
"When shooting the scene set in the filthiest toilet in Scotland for the movie Trainspotting, the producers did not use real feces to coat the walls of the stall. Rather, they found that substituting chocolate made the shoot much more pleasant."
After reading that paragraph, would you conclude that:
The producers of Trainspotting found a substitute that served their purposes better than the original article.
Chocolate is worse than feces.
(forewarning: If you pick #2, be especially careful with any boxes of candy you receive this Valentine's day.)
That's it for me. I'm off to work. Hope there's enough fuel in my previous posts to power a wonderfully cathartic pity-party.
(And if any parents who didn't adopt your children want to join in, feel free to infer that I just compared you to feces. Now it's fun for everyone.)
I dunno why Bonds is being such a jerk over this. I mean, it's not like putting an asterisk on his home run ball in any way implies that it's, you know, illegitimate or inferior. It's just a different kind of home run record, that's all. Sheesh, the noive of the guy!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, geeze, man, just leave the discussion with a tissue or stay in it already! Man! Quit your whining, dude, whichever choice you make!
The fact is, according to you, you screwed up. You chose your words badly. Your little SAT example is pretty stupid, too.
Instead of just admitting that you decided to get all defensive and hostile. So, go to work, and hopefully enjoy all the self-righteous pitying your posts are obviously designed to generate. For you.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I would conclude that chocolate is not the same thing as feces. wouldn't you?
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
With all the heavy smack talking, it's a wonder that anyone new ever joins this forum.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Where is deadhorse when we need her?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I agree that giving your child up for adoption can be a generous and responsible thing to do. I just don't agree that failing to give your child up for adoption is an ungenerous or irresponsible thing to do, under any circumstances.
Thank you for your very thoughtful response that I've only strip quoted. I understand where you are coming from and mostly agree with you.
I do think that there are cases where refusing to give up a child for adoption is selfish or irresponsible. In some places, children who come abuse homes (similar to your children) can't be legally adopted without the consent of the biological parents no matter how severe the neglect or abuse. If the biological parents refuse, the kids end up in permanent foster care, sometimes being shuttled from one family to another until they are adults. I do think that such parents are being selfish and irresponsible.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I agree with Rabbit's last post. While I think that giving up a child for adoption when you can't provide two parents and stability for it is very sweet and unselfish, I do not think keeping a child is selfish.
In Rabbit's scenario above, neither is happening. The kid is neither available for adoption nor being cared for by his parent(s). That's pretty crappy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The trouble is, suggesting that some parents are being selfish and irresponsible by not giving up children for adoption to avoid raising them in poverty...
Well, that brings up some awkward questions. It begs the question, "Well then is it selfish for the poor to have children at all?" It bears something in common with a suggestion I've often hear from pro-choicers, for example, that abortion should be kept legal to help 'save' children of poor parents from growing up in poverty.
Please note I'm not saying it's the same thing, I'm saying there's something in common.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In some places, children who come abuse homes (similar to your children) can't be legally adopted without the consent of the biological parents no matter how severe the neglect or abuse. If the biological parents refuse, the kids end up in permanent foster care, sometimes being shuttled from one family to another until they are adults. I do think that such parents are being selfish and irresponsible.
I'm not familiar with such a place. Is that something that happens in this country, or elsewhere? I would agree that society needs to have the power to step in to protect children who are not safe with their parents.
EDIT TO ADD: But I think it really needs to be up to society, in the guise of the state, to step in there. if such parents don't decide on their own to give up their rights.
[ January 25, 2008, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am fairly certain that under some circumstances, a a parental right can be severed by the state, without requiring the original parents to sign it away.
In my own case, actually. After my mom remarried, my step-father wanted to adopt us but my birth father was nowhere to be found and couldn't be reached to sign away the rights. If what you're saying is true, Rabbit, I should never have been adopted, but I was. Got the birth certificate to prove it.
The courts can intervene and sever parental rights, it doesn't require both parents signing them away all the time.
Like Icarus, I'm curious where the courts are incapable of doing that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I am fairly certain that under some circumstances, a a parental right can be severed by the state, without requiring the original parents to sign it away
Well certainly they can do it (i.e., permanently sever parental rights against their will) in Florida. I'm willing to grant that the law may be different elsewhere. I'm certainly curious to know where, though.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And we know for certain it can be done in Alabama as well, since it was in my case though I don't know if it would have been different had my mom not been able to sign. At the very least, they severed my father's parental rights without his consent.
Edit: Ok, it looks like step-parent adoptions are treated differently in Alabama. However, the Alabama code is very clear that parental rights can be severed, I'm not going to quote the whole thing, it's really long so I'll just put in the most pertinent sections.
quote:Section 26-18-7 Grounds for termination of parental rights; factors considered; presumption arising from abandonment.
(a) If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material, and relevant in nature, that the parents of a child are unable or unwilling to discharge their responsibilities to and for the child, or that the conduct or condition of the parents is such as to render them unable to properly care for the child and that such conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, it may terminate the parental rights of the parents. In determining whether or not the parents are unable or unwilling to discharge their responsibilities to and for the child, the court shall consider, and in cases of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights may consider, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) That the parents have abandoned the child, provided that in such cases, proof shall not be required of reasonable efforts to prevent removal or reunite the child with the parents.
(2) Emotional illness, mental illness or mental deficiency of the parent, or excessive use of alcohol or controlled substances, of such duration or nature as to render the parent unable to care for needs of the child.
(3) That the parent has tortured, abused, cruelly beaten, or otherwise maltreated the child, or attempted to torture, abuse, cruelly beat, or otherwise maltreat the child, or the child is in clear and present danger of being thus tortured, abused, cruelly beaten, or otherwise maltreated as evidenced by such treatment of a sibling.
It continues on, but those are the ones that apply to our discussion - if a parent has abandoned or abused a child, they absolutely can have their rights severed.
[ January 25, 2008, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
There could be (and probably are) many cases where the parents are juuuuuuust present enough to prevent the state from terminating rights without their consent, but still not putting anything like a reasonable effort towards being there for the kid. I know there are some children that bounce between foster care and their parent's home without it ever getting settled either way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
According to the National Center for State Courts, grounds do exist in each US state on which to terminate parental rights. It doesn't appear from the list that these terminations require parental consent.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
I get that, JH.
To me, that speaks of an inadequacy in the state's laws on the subject.
I think it likely that abusive parents and mentally not well, and I wouldn't expect a mentally unwell person to exercise the best judgment. The state needs to exercise that judgment for them.
(I find myself curious to know just how offensive that statement is to those among us who favor minimal state powers.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There may well be a difference between what any given state court is likely to do and what it is able to do. Sometimes the culture can vary widely from one region to the next.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
If you see my edit above (you guys were faster than me and have already settled the point) you'll note in Alabama the mental illness of the parent can be grounds from removal.
I'm not disputing that the state doesn't make mistakes or that some children are not trapped in custody nightmares, but that's a failing of the people who carry out the laws, not the law itself. Provisions are there to remove children from abusive homes or homes where parents don't care about them. Whether or not child protective services always do their job well, that can be argued.
And, of course, there may be situations in which the services hold out hope the parents can get their act together and the family can be reunited. That should always be a goal, where possible.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In my own case, actually. After my mom remarried, my step-father wanted to adopt us but my birth father was nowhere to be found and couldn't be reached to sign away the rights. If what you're saying is true, Rabbit, I should never have been adopted, but I was. Got the birth certificate to prove it.
I have a friend in a similar situation. He has tried to legally adopt his wife's son but has been unable to because the father can't be located. His situation probably involves international law since the father is not a US citizen. I'm afraid I don't know all the legal details or even how far they have pursued the issue.
I have also personally known some families with permanent foster children who were unable to legally adopt them because the birth parents wouldn't relinquish their rights. I had assumed that this was the only legal possibility. Based on CT's link, it appears that the courts could have severed the birth parents rights without their consent but for some reason did not.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*sigh* It might be time to return to katharina. I had no idea who Icky was talking to.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sorry. I've taken to purposely calling people on Hatrack by their handles, even when I know their names.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's okay. It was time anyway. I guess this means I'm okay.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I, for one, am glad to see katharina back. For what it's worth.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I probably should have changed the topic earlier (or stopped it dead had the subject not moved on well before I saw the thread in the first place), as I have a sort of unwritten policy on negative threads about a specific Hatracker. I don't believe that's what this thread is (certainly not what it is now), but I think the name in the subject is not necessary. I could lock this thread and ask you to take the topic to a new thread if you wish to continue, but I'd rather not.
--PJ
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Thank you, Papa Janitor.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thank you Papa!!
Welcome back kat!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It bears something in common with a suggestion I've often hear from pro-choicers, for example, that abortion should be kept legal to help 'save' children of poor parents from growing up in poverty.
Please note I'm not saying it's the same thing, I'm saying there's something in common.
Sorry, in this thread we get to decide how we interpret what you said, regardless of any notes you add about what you really mean. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks, Pop.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks, Rabbit. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Mahalo Pop. That has been bothering me for a while. I'm glad you changed it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, Pop.
Katie, how does it feel? Is it like wearing a favorite dress you haven't worn in ages?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
<-- Huddles in the pre-apocalypic mutagenic glow.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I avoid most threads of that nature, because I feel that, as someone who is only 18, and not even close to having a family, I do not have an educated enough opinion.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)