Why MaAn want to keep a mother away from her child? - Page 7

Originally posted by: Rein123

If you adopted the child then the biological parents have no claim but if you are only fostering the child that even for less than year that you have no case and nor is it unfair. It is simply your bad luck nothing else.

In this case, Choti Anu was not with her mother, she was in a facility other than her home and was ready to be adopted. The biological parent(s) wouldn't have let go of their child and the child wouldn't have been sent with foster parents in the first place, right? Were Abhay or anyone incharge specifically instructed/requested to not let her be adopted?

I say this because, if I am not wrong, Anuj and Anupama went with a specific reason of Adoption.

The period of fostering is to ensure safety and interests of the child in the prospective home prior to legal adoption.

A child is no commodity to be left when desired and re-claimed at another time, right? Here specifically talking of relinquishing rights. If a child is ready to be adopted, it means that the foster home has the required permissions, if any (in case the parent(s) is(are) alive and the foster home is aware of them.).

Originally posted by: Rein123

In that case Anupamaa and Anuj are not the ones who can care for her. But I don't think that matters, if I as a parent am fit to look after my child why the hell should she be handed over to some random couple without my consent or permission? If I can take care of my child now and have the means to provide for her wellbeing no freaking way will I let the foster parents who just had her for a few months keep her. Fact is if I never gave up my parental rights then no body can tell me that they are going to keep my child as theirs just because they had her for a short while. As a parent I will not tolerate it, forget me I don't thing any parent would tolerate it. A mother who left her child in foster care temporarily would have done so because of a certain situation that may have made it difficult to keep her close for her own well being, there is a difference between putting a baby up for adoption and leaving in just plain foster care, i know this because my mom left me as a chikd with my grandparents as it was not possible to keep me around due to a situation but she did come back for me and that is what matters. For example if I had to leave my child at my sister's care because I had to leave for work overseas and taking the baby along was simply not possible and I really need that job so I leave but then I find out my sister who is childless wants to adopt my child, do you think I'll allow it? Hell no. There is a difference between a temporary caretaker and parent.

This is just like people renting a house start claiming ownership of the same and fight with the landlord.

@Bold - If that were the case, your child would not have been in an orphanage for some random couple to foster. Your sister case is totally different. It’s obvious you feel strongly about it. As I said let’s agree to disagree. You will not change my view and I’m not trying to change yours. Just simply stating facts. Oh and if you rent a house, care for the house and live in it, you do start to value it and treat it as your own, even if it technically isn’t. But we’re not talking about a house, we’re taking about a child. It takes very little time to fall in love a child especially one living with you for months. Much like how Anu/Anuj love Anu. I never said they are right for Choti and that her mother is wrong, I just said, I would never leave my baby, and I wouldn’t!

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

In this case, Choti Anu was not with her mother, she was in a facility other than her home and was ready to be adopted. The biological parent(s) wouldn't have let go of their child and the child wouldn't have been sent with foster parents in the first place, right? Were Abhay or anyone incharge specifically instructed/requested to not let her be adopted?

I say this because, if I am not wrong, Anuj and Anupama went with a specific reason of Adoption.

The period of fostering is to ensure safety and interests of the child in the prospective home prior to legal adoption.

A child is no commodity to be left when desired and re-claimed at another time, right? Here specifically talking of relinquishing rights. If a child is ready to be adopted, it means that the foster home has the required permissions (in case the parent(s) is(are) alive)

That is on the adoption centre on why they let CA be taken by Anuj and Anupamaa or who knows maybe they just bypassed the instructions. The question at the end of the day is did Maaya sign off her parental rights or not. If not then doesn't matter if CA was kept in a facility other than her home and can be presumed to be temporary. CA is not the only child left in such facilities other than their home for reasons known only to their parents.

It's possible that no instructions were given and they just assumed that CA can be put up for adoption.

Originally posted by: Snowstorm22

I some what agree. We don’t know why Maya give up her child or temp Put her child in foster care. Here in USA, lots parents put their kids in temp foster care in hope to be reunited with them again Soon. Maya came back for her child so unless it was for some stupid reason, the both Anu/Anuj have no right to keep her. Anuj is capable of his responsibility but his wife is another story for that reason alone Choti needs her real mom, who will put her first.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge, are the temporary foster cares specifically instructed to not let the child be adopted? If not, What happens if the child is indeed adopted? Would the biological parent(s) still be able to claim their right?

Reason I ask is @bold.

Originally posted by: LoLo

@Bold - If that were the case, your child would not have been in an orphanage for some random couple to foster. Your sister case is totally different. It’s obvious you feel strongly about it. As I said let’s agree to disagree. You will not change my view and I’m not trying to change yours. Just simply stating facts. Oh and if you rent a house, care for the house and live in it, you do start to value it and treat it as your own, even if it technically isn’t. But we’re not talking about a house, we’re taking about a child. It takes very little time to fall in love a child especially one living with you for months. Much like how Anu/Anuj love Anu. I never said they are right for Choti and that her mother is wrong, I just said, I would never leave my baby, and I wouldn’t!

If I leave my child at my neighbours house for a few months, does that give them the right to claim my child as their own? Developing a bond is one thing but claiming is another. Just because you love a child you can't stake your claim on them.

Treating a house as your own and fighting in the court for ownership are two different things. I just gave an example to explain why Anuj and Anupamaa's claims are wrong.

You would never leave your baby, but there are many other mothers who do it heartwrenchingly because they believe it is for the betterment of the child. Giving up your child especially as a mother is not easy but if the circumstances force you to do so then it should not be questioned.

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

Sorry for my lack of knowledge, are the temporary foster cares specifically instructed to not let the child be adopted? If not, What happens if the child is indeed adopted? Would the biological parent(s) still be able to claim their right?

Reason I ask is @bold.

I don't know frankly but I believe if no instruction is given then it is presumed the child is put up for adoption and the parents have given up their rights, adoption requires paperwork but giving up a child probably requires none. Perhaps that is what happened.

I have a doubt...if biological parents can come later and claim their kids which were adopted ...then why would any couple go for adoption?

Originally posted by: Rein123

That is on the adoption centre on why they let CA be taken by Anuj and Anupamaa or who knows maybe they just bypassed the instructions. The question at the end of the day is did Maaya sign off her parental rights or not. If not then doesn't matter if CA was kept in a facility other than her home and can be presumed to be temporary. CA is not the only child left in such facilities other than their home for reasons known only to their parents.

It's possible that no instructions were given and they just assumed that CA can be put up for adoption.

If there are no specific instructions/request provided by the living parent(s) why would the centre be obliged to assume that the parent will claim right one day?

That way, in the case of lack of knowledge of living parent(s), none of those kids gets the opportunity to be adopted.

If there was indeed a request/instruction provided to the centre and still sent the child for adoption, since the child is already in the prospective home, I would assume:

1. A case against the Adoption Centre.

2. A legal procedure for custody proving:

a. The biological parent(s) had reasons to let go of the child.

b. The current situation of the biological parent(s).

c. The current situation at the prospective home (which should not be difficult in case of Kapadias-Shahs😄).

d. A guarantee for future of the child.

e. Court driven inspection to ensure safety.

Originally posted by: deepzz

I have a doubt...if biological parents can come later and claim their kids which were adopted ...then why would any couple go for adoption?

Biological parents cannot claim the kids once adopted because adoption is a legal process where the consent of the Biological parents is taken before hand and they voluntarily give up their parental rights. There are legal documents signed here that can be shown in court. Once the child is legally adopted Biological parents have no claim.

Here it is not the case because CA is not adopted but rather just fostered, no legal procedure to adopt her has been completed and even if it has been initiated it will go down the drain given bio mom is there to stop and veto it. A child can be taken back from the foster home anytime which is why those people from the adoption centre had come back to take CA on Paritosh's complaint.

Coming to adoption, if the adoptive parents are neglecting the child then I guess the bio parents can intervene and drag the legal parents to court over the same. It all depends on the status of the child whether they are just fostered or adopted and how well they are looked after.

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

If there are no specific instructions/request provided by the living parent(s) why would the centre be obliged to assume that the parent will claim right one day?

That way, in the case of lack of knowledge of living parent(s), none of those kids gets the opportunity to be adopted.

If there was indeed a request/instruction provided to the centre and still sent the child for adoption, since the child is already in the prospective home, I would assume:

1. A case against the Adoption Centre.

2. A legal procedure for custody proving:

a. The biological parent(s) had reasons to let go of the child.

b. The current situation of the biological parent(s).

c. The current situation at the prospective home (which should not be difficult in case of Kapadias-Shahs😄).

d. A guarantee for future of the child.

e. Court driven inspection to ensure safety.

@bold why can't they? It's not about whether they are obliged or not, the point is if I never told you to put my child for adoption and you do so without letting me know about it just because you assumed I have given up my rights when in reality that isn't the case then you are liable and answerable for what has happened. You can't make decisions like this based on assumptions. So yes they are obliged.