Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Could "Adoption" be changed to this system?

Over here in my part of Australia, we have very few actual adoptions, as I think many people are aware of. When children in foster care require permanent care after their natural parents have had their rights terminated, there are generally two options.

A) The child is placed in the CEO's care (ward of the state) until the age of 18. This option I do not like, personally, as it affords the children no rights or guarantees of permanency or stability.

B) The foster parents currently fostering the child (be they relatives or general carers) are awarded a special type of guardianship called enduring parental responsibility. This ensures that they become the full legal parents of the child and have every right and responsibility of a biological parent. However, the child has no amendments to any documents such as birth certificates, no name changes, etc. They also retain links to their past and natural families where safe and appropriate.

Parental responsibility is different to guardianship in that it cannot be overturned, and is as final as

adoption, so cases where straight guardianship wouldn't be best are catered for. Also, if the child wishes they can use their legal parent's surname at school, sporting clubs, etc if THEY wish.

Is there any reason why this wouldn't be a viable alternative to all adoptions as they stand now? What would be the pros and cons to adoptees, adoptive and natural parents?

Update:

Let me clarify, it's not actually guardianship (that's my lack of a better word). You are the child's full, legal parents.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • I
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I have no problem with the idea of not changing the birth certificate. I adopted through foster care (in the US) and was really surprised when they told us near the end of the process that there would be a new certificate with our names on it, essentially showing that we gave birth to these kids on that day. It seemed at odds with everything else we had learned in training about honesty and respecting the children's rights to know as much as possible about their original families, to have feelings for them, etc. Everything else was about being open and honest and suddenly there was this big lie which seems totally unnecessary to me. I'm not threatened by the fact that someone else gave birth to these children. I don't need to pretend that isn't the case.

    At the same time, I think kids need parents, not "legal guardians." I think the new family that is created has lots of challenges as it is. I don't look at our children as "second best" to any other children we might have given birth to, but in a way I do see us as "second best" for them compared to the family they might have had if things had been different. Because we don't have a genetic link and because we missed part of their early years, we already have some strikes against us. Yet now we are the family they have and it's in the best interest of the children for this family to be everything to them that it possibly can be. I wouldn't want to have some kind of legal name for our relationship that defined us as somehow less than a real family. The phrase "enduring parental responsibility" doesn't sound like a family to me. There's no love in that phrase.

    I would rather see adoption, but without the falsifying documents and sealed records.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, it could, but it probably never would 'cause where would all the money come from? :(

    Seriously, this is all I want - lose the ability to turn it into a lie/wipe histories, such as adoption currently does, and I stop being anti-adoption 'cause all the other stuff's already covered by child protection laws.

    Source(s): Abandoned to adoption at 7mths old. I didn't have a bad adoption - my afamily are the best I could ever have chosen... but if I'd been able to choose, and I'd known then what I know now, I'd've chosen to be aborted before birth instead, 'cause at least that way the lifetime of agony I've gone through would've been over in minutes, instead of the decades that I've been suffering for now. I've been in reunion several months now, and even that's agonising. Abandoned early 1973. Reunited late 2009.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    i agree with the second scenario. if something happened to my sister and i ended up raising her children, i'd never want their birth certificates to be changed. i also wouldn't have them call me mom. they'd still be my godchildren and always be able to know where they came from. but i'd still be parenting, but would not try to take the place of their mother.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think the system you describe sounds very humane and do-able. It could completely eradicated the adoption agencies, the exchange of money for babies, and sealed records.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.