Could You Give Back Your Adopted Child?

I think if you're having second thoughts and it won't harm the child, why shouldn't you be able to place it up for re-adoption? Do what's best for the kid.

While I think Soylent Green should always be an option for those we don't like, I wouldn't consider it in cases like this.

That's such a hard decision to have made, and probably best for the child.

Agree with burningpanda.
At least the boy is with a family who will actually love him now.

I think it was a very difficult decision, and she was quite brave to have admitted she was not able to give the child what he needed. Thankfully there was someone else out there who was able to do so. From what I understand, she spent a lot of time trying to find the most suitable new home for the child, so it's not like she just handed him back without a care in the world.

Sure, it's a sad and very confusing situation all around. But I know for a fact that there are far more children who would have had better lives had they been given up for a chance to find a more suitable home instead of having lived with someone who was not equipped to provide what they needed.

I think this is really one of those "judge not let ye be judged" kind of things. I wish everyone involved nothing but the best for the future.

I hope the kid never finds out he was given up twice.

Sometimes not trying at all is the better option, especially if you're ill-equipped to handle it.

The mistake was in adopting the child in the first place. "spceial needs" doesn't mean they just need a little extra love. It means they need someone who is up to the job.

It was simply a poor decision all around when they first went into it. Good thing for them they were able to undo their mistake.

What a painful story all around. It's so easy to rush to judgement on something like this. Too many kids are being raised by indifferent, uncaring biological parents. Keeping a child just because it is yours is not a good reason. Keeping a child because you said you would is also not a good reason. This child is better off now. Would he have been better off if she had never taken him in? Probably. Attachment issues are not something everyone could handle and it is hard to know beforehand if you are on who can. It took a lot of strength to do the right thing. And even more to talk about it knowing the kneejerk reaction most people would have.

Adopting when your husband is deployed or likely to be deployed is a terrible idea. Parenting alone can be challenging even under the best of circumstances. With the added difficulties of the child being adopted and being special needs, it was all the more important that she have the support of the father. This woman jumped in way over her head. Waiting until the time was right might have made things better for everyone involved.

Or if it was a case like someone mentioned above where she was just totally lonely and felt the baby would be the solution, waiting for husband to get back would have fixed her loneliness without a baby having to be involved.

Even if she didn't understand how hard it would be to mother the child all alone, her adoption agency should have encouraged to wait for her husband to be available at home. It might have been hard to accept that she wasn't ready right then, but that would have been easier to deal with than the heart-break she eventually went through.

As long as you keep your receipt you can return anything at Walgreen's.

Woops.

To answer the title question: no, I couldn't. However, I am familiar with heartbreaking stories of disrupted adoptions, involving older children who abuse siblings or start fires. My heart goes out to those parents. I've also heard about adoptions which are disrupted because a biological parent came forward or some corruption in the process was found. Doubly heartbreaking.

However, I read this story at its original source a few weeks ago, and there were things that disturbed me. I can't put my finger on what the author is trying to accomplish by posting the story. It does not make her look good. Is she trying to justify her decision? Was it really necessary to point out the coprophagia? What adoption agency approved this family with so many existing children and a father who was often called away? And how can she show so little concern about the sisters' attitude toward their brother? I can't pass judgment on such an elusive story, but it doesn't quite add up.

I admire this woman for her good heart to try to adopt in the first place. She wanted to do a great service for this child, but then discovered it was above her abilities. I find that many of her critics have never adopted a special needs child themselves. Do you notice that the person who does nothing- does not go through the immense sacrifice of the adoption process, does not sacrifice any of their time to try to love and care for a special needs child- gets no criticism. People are paid lots of money to care for special needs children that are not their own. This woman not only did not get paid for her time, she probably paid out a lot of her own money for adoption expenses. All she did throughout the adoption process is give. If the child was going to be happy with a different family than she did what is best for the child and for her own family. She saved two families with that decision. Why is it that if a child-care provider quits after 6 months there is no uproar? Even if the child was with the child care provider 10 hours a day? But if someone ADOPTS the child then no quitting is allowed! The baby doesn't know the difference. Our society likes to gang up on good people, and leave people alone who do nothing. This baby is too young to have any recollection of these events. Everyone needs to leave this woman alone. She has gone through enough.