The Student Room Group

You were put up for adoption … in error

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Simes
The media are not allowed to reveal the child's name or sex and English does not provide a neuter term other than 'it'.


Actually the pronoun "he" and any variant thereof has been said to have been used as a gender-neutral pronoun, in the context of the unknown.
(i.e. he referred to a person you don't know the sex or gender of.)

Original post by BruceJender
Let me help you.

"And they probably won't come back"


Stop being so sensitive and/or pedantic. :colonhash:
Original post by e aí rapaz
It has to be a balance I suppose, between the child's welfare in either alternative and the rights and welfare of the parents. Because let's not forget that two adult lives are potentially being destroyed here.

For me personally, it doesn't seem like the child's welfare would be negatively affected enough to outweigh the needs of the parents. I'm no expert but that's my view.


But that's not how it works - social services are legally obliged to put the child's welfare first

For me, as someone whose been involved with adoption, social services and both adoptive parents and parents who've had their kids taken away, I'd say its probably for the best to just let the child be settled. Birth parents coming in early on can be so so disruptive for a child.
Reply 42
Original post by XcitingStuart
Actually the pronoun "he" and any variant thereof has been said to have been used as a gender-neutral pronoun, in the context of the unknown.
And indeed that is how I was taught English and was valid for centuries. But then the PC business got involved with language and it became taboo to use 'he' to mean 'a person'. (Can we still say 'taboo' instead of blacklisted, or is that no longer kosher?)
Original post by banterboy
I won't be surprised if the Dad tries to take revenge on whoever is responsible. It must be extremely tempting and I know this is exactly what my Dad would do.


Because clearly the best thing for your offspring is to grow up with one parent in jail...

Also clearly no one person is responsible, if anything its down to conservative government cuts.
Original post by redferry
Because clearly the best thing for your offspring is to grow up with one parent in jail...

Also clearly no one person is responsible, if anything its down to conservative government cuts.


If I were a father I'd sooner die in prison than see my child raised by a bunch of strangers.
Original post by banterboy
If I were a father I'd sooner die in prison than see my child raised by a bunch of strangers.


Should probably look after your child properly then :wink:
Original post by redferry
A stable upbringing is always preferable to causing further distress by moving the child again.

Given its not intrinsically better to be with you birth parents there would be no advantage to the child of returning it.

You have to realise a year ago is a third of tat child's life, and a very significant amount of time developmentally


What are you talking about? There is such a thing as parental rights too - it's not always just about 'what's best for the child'. If that was the case, the state would be removing children wholesale from millions of parents to for being too young/immature, for not having money to lavish on the child, for not reading bedtime stories to them, etc. It is only in the extreme cases - gross negligence, physical and emotional abuse - that the state abrogates parental rights to keep the child.

Similarly in this case there should have to be shown to be an extreme negative effect on the child to being returned to their biological parents for them to be refused to take it back.





Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ClickItBack
What are you talking about? There is such a thing as parental rights too - it's not always just about 'what's best for the child'. If that was the case, the state would be removing children wholesale from millions of parents to for being too young/immature, for not having money to lavish on the child, for not reading bedtime stories to them, etc. It is only in the extreme cases - gross negligence, physical and emotional abuse - that the state abrogates parental rights to keep the child.

Similarly in this case there should have to be shown to be an extreme negative effect on the child to being returned to their biological parents for them to be refused to take it back.





Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm talking about the fact that our social services are not designed to take parental rights into account. The child's rights will, by law, be their primary concern.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending