|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2002 : 10:16:06
|
Poll Question:
Is it better to reliquish custody of a child for that child's benefit over your own?
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
|
| Results: |
| Yes |
 [76%] |
16 votes |
| No |
[5%] |
1 vote |
| I don't know |
[19%] |
4 votes |
| 0 |
[0%] |
0 votes |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 21 counted »» |
Last Vote:
03/17/2007 13:31:41 |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 10:43:01 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, but I keep thinking, this is like asking if it's better to do good things or bad things. I don't mean to pick, but is there a specific reason you're asking?
quote:
Is it better to reliquish custody of a child for that child's benefit over your own?
---
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 10:47:54 [Permalink]
|
Relinquishing a child would do so much damage to them that it would be hard to imagine a situation, where their lives weren't in jeopardy, that it would be for their ultimate benefit.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 10:59:28 [Permalink]
|
I don't know, if someone had severe drinking and emotional problems, I'm not sure that it would be a good idea for that person to try to take care of a child if there were someone more capable available.
quote:
Relinquishing a child would do so much damage to them that it would be hard to imagine a situation, where their lives weren't in jeopardy, that it would be for their ultimate benefit.
-------
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 12:01:32 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure I understand the intent of the question, Trish. Would you rephrase it for me?
-me. |
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 13:46:04 [Permalink]
|
Would that all incompetant parents would relinqish a task that, would they examine themselves honestly, would find that they were not equal to! The squabbling that goes on between divorced parents using children as pawns is beneath contempt, and the way that the courts pander to these yokels is a national disgrace.
Even better yet would be to do the honest self-examination before bringing children into the world, and use birth control.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
Satan
New Member
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 15:29:30 [Permalink]
|
Assuming that the child actually benefits from this, and assuming that "benefit" is significant enough to warrant such extreme action (neither of which I saw clearly guaranteed by the question), then I suppose the only reason for not voting "Yes" would be for one's own benefit, which would, I assume, follow answering "No."
The altruistic side of me votes "Yes." (Yes, Satan is a caring person  .) On the other hand, the absence of any details on the particular circumstances make it hard to affirm a universal principle (as this poll question asks us to), makes the skeptic in me vote "No."
As a result, I just don't know, and vote accordingly.
Satan,
a.k.a. the Talking Snake Whom Atheists, Witches, Muslims, and Puerto Ricans Worship (If You Ask Anyone In This State) |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 15:56:59 [Permalink]
|
I am not sure that I fully understand your question. Does voting 'yes' mean, that you would the well being of child over your own well being when considering if you are relinquishing custody?
The hardest part would most of the time not deciding if they should put their child first, but what actually would be the best for the child. Since this is a very emotional issue few people would be able to make an objective decision there.
Most people would think, that putting the child first is the right thing to do, but you could make an argument for other opinions.
Sometimes, especially among poorer people, a child is considered an investment into a pension plan. You raise them and in turn they take care of you in your old age. If you have already spent years bringing up a child you would not just want to relinquish your investment so easily no matter what would be better for the child.
Other people think, that their children have some sort of obligation for them just for being conceived or born. Respect your elders. Not because they have done anything respectable, but just because they happen to be your elders.
|
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 19:13:15 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Trish. I thought I'd drop in and respond with a resounding YES to this.
I think you're doing the right thing by sacrificing your own desire to be with your daughter, so that she can benefit from more opportunities. I did the same with my daughter when I got divorced 6 years ago. Though I love her and cry over her, I know that I made the right decision.
The good thing is that she loves me, and always will. And your daughter will love you no matter what, too. Because you did what was best for her.
It's not like you're not there for her, and she doesn't have your support. This gives her strength and comfort to know that you're there for her unconditionally.
So while it obviously would be "better" if you were there AND she had all the opportunities, the fact that she lives somewhere other than with you is really minor in the whole scheme of things.
She knows that you're there for her always.
So do your best to put away the guilt. You are in reality providing her with all she needs from a parent.....unconditional support and love.
Sorry for rambling.
Later guys. I gotta get back to work around the acreage.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2002 : 23:15:11 [Permalink]
|
To answer some of the issues raised here...
Relinquishing a child would do so much damage to them that it would be hard to imagine a situation, where their lives weren't in jeopardy, that it would be for their ultimate benefit.
Is it more damaging for that child to not received mdical care because the parent does not have insurance and is therefore forced to forego taking that child to the doctor when ill? Is it more damaging for that child to be around an individual who is dying from cancer and all that entails, when that person is in in home hospice care? Is it more damaging for that child to be left to her own devices for much of the day because her only parent works nights? Is it more damaging for that child to be left with someone in while their parent goes to school full time and works full time?
I'm not sure I understand the intent of the question, Trish. Would you rephrase it for me?
Well, for all those questions I just asked in regards to Slater's post, those were the questions I had to ask myself last November. The custody issue had already been settled before my father died. My child was in a better school than I could have kept her in. She has insurance coverage with my brother. His home is more stable than mine, especially since I've been laid off twice in the last 2 years. I'm still not financially stable yet. And during that two year period I had to go off my medication until I found out that I could get medical coverage through the VA. I'm much more likeable when I'm on my meds than when off. (I'm on levothyroxin.) I guess is it better to let those responsibilities go to another if the home is unstable... I don't know.
I am not sure that I fully understand your question. Does voting 'yes' mean, that you would the well being of child over your own well being when considering if you are relinquishing custody?
It's hard giving up custody of a child. I've had to do so twice. Once during Desert Storm (I didn't know if I would be deployed) when she was 4 months old. And now, she's 12. Things haven't been easy the last couple years, I think my brother's home is a better place for her now - especially with the opportunities she has for school.
The hardest part would most of the time not deciding if they should put their child first, but what actually would be the best for the child. Since this is a very emotional issue few people would be able to make an objective decision there.
You kinda hae to set aside your emotions when making this decision. It hurts.
Even better yet would be to do the honest self-examination before bringing children into the world, and use birth control.
Yes, well I was younger and dumber 13 years ago. <shrug> No hope for it now.
Sorry, but I keep thinking, this is like asking if it's better to do good things or bad things. I don't mean to pick, but is there a specific reason you're asking?
Yeah, I guess that I've done so and it keeps bugging me.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2002 : 01:34:45 [Permalink]
|
Well, it seems to me that you made the right choice, as long as you can make your child understand your reasons. Make it clear to her that you love her and spend all your "free time" with her if you can; remain an active part of her life, and she will love and respect you for it.
-me. |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2002 : 02:02:40 [Permalink]
|
What a difficult choice to make!
As long as Cait understands your reasons, though, she should be fine.
My opinion: You need to stop second-guessing yourself...you did what you felt was necessary, and you'll 'undo' it as soon as you are able. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2002 : 07:38:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To answer some of the issues raised here...
Trish,
The only person that can answer the question of what is best for your child is you. Kicking yourself over the decision, while normal, isn't going to make it any better. It seems that your situation is a little different than completely reliquishing custody. You have assigned your brother and his wife as primary caregivers and granted them guardianship powers. So you haven't given up your child, just put her in a place much more stable than your own. (I won't say better. If stability wasn't in question, I have no doubt that you would not have considered this action.)
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2002 : 08:01:03 [Permalink]
|
Kids aren't really all that fragile. If they are well-cared for, and they know that you care for them, then was there ever a problem?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2002 : 08:12:11 [Permalink]
|
You have made what can only be the most difficult of decisions. I think the child's education is paramount and as long as you remain in her life, she will still love you. You have put her needs ahead of your emotions, but it must be hard to relinquish custody of your child.
If losing her for the short term means that you will have her again for the long haul, then swallow the hurt and eventually things will be O.K.
Be strong, she is your flesh and blood and will understand your reasons.
All the best.
I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth.
-- Thomas Huxley
Edited by - gezzam on 07/19/2002 08:16:11 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2002 : 08:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Back in Ireland we have the expression "Don't ask questions that you don't want to hear the answers to." If all you want is support for your decision then ask for it. Don't post a poll.
Is it more damaging for that child to not received medical care because the parent does not have insurance
Is the child in constant need of medical care for some condition or are we talking the possibility of future illness?
I don't know about where you live but in CA and NY there are massive public assistance programs aimed specifically at children and PSAs telling you how to access them.
and is therefore forced to forego taking that child to the doctor when ill?
Perhaps putting some money aside. Again I can only speak for the coasts but in both places a moderate cigarette habit costs in excess of $100 a month and Internet access is between $20 to $60. Skipping them, for your kid, for a few months should start a nest egg.
Is it more damaging for that child to be around an individual who is dying from cancer and all that entails, when that person is in in home hospice care? No, it isn't.
Is it more damaging for that child to be left to her own devices for much of the day because her only parent works nights? By age 12? No.
Is it more damaging for that child to be left with someone in while their parent goes to school full time and works full time? No. But what happened to the being left alone from the last sentence?
But you've made your decisions. Only you know all the details. So stick by them and trust yourself. You have no need for the acceptance of strangers.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
