TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

My sister is dying and I only want one of the kids.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Where is the stepson's mom?

Even though the dad is in prison, will he even sign off on them taking the boy? I mean who has the legal right to decide that?

I can understand the questions, the concerns. Willingness HAS to be there.

huskerbb · Guru

I will never understand this mentality. Ever. Take the kid. Be a decent person.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I don't get it, either. And they will have financial help. The baby should get death benefits.

Excuse me - survivor benefits.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 4th of February 2016 01:50:55 PM

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
I don't get it, either. And they will have financial help. The baby should get death benefits.

Excuse me - survivor benefits.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 4th of February 2016 01:50:55 PM

Only if the BF filed tax returns.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
I don't get it, either. And they will have financial help. The baby should get death benefits.

Excuse me - survivor benefits.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 4th of February 2016 01:50:55 PM
Only if the BF filed tax returns.
flan

???? It's her sister who is dying, not the boyfriend.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
I don't get it, either. And they will have financial help. The baby should get death benefits.

Excuse me - survivor benefits.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 4th of February 2016 01:50:55 PM
Only if the BF filed tax returns.
flan

HUH? What are you talking about. If the sister worked and earned SS credits - the baby will get SS survivor benefits. Even Baby J gets them, although it is a laughably low amount of money b/c of my sister's sketchy work history.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, in my opinion, she should be taking her daughter's child! I would mortified if i died and my own sis wouldn't take my biological child and vice versa. It would be nice if she took the boy but there must be other bio relatives of the boy's father and boy's mother. So, if i could only take one then it certainly would be my sister's own child. Flame suit on.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, in my opinion, she should be taking her daughter's child! I would mortified if i died and my own sis wouldn't take my biological child and vice versa. It would be nice if she took the boy but there must be other bio relatives of the boy's father and boy's mother. So, if i could only take one then it certainly would be my sister's own child. Flame suit on.

No flame suit needed. I don't give a crap what anyone else thinks. This is what families do for each other.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
I don't get it, either. And they will have financial help. The baby should get death benefits.

Excuse me - survivor benefits.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 4th of February 2016 01:50:55 PM
Only if the BF filed tax returns.
flan
???? It's her sister who is dying, not the boyfriend.

Too many threads for my poor brain.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It depends on the situation.

I know when my kids were little, if anything had happened to my brother and my nephew and niece needed a home, I couldn't have taken them.

It would have killed me but I was hanging on by a thread doing all I could to take care of my own.

So there ARE times when it isn't in anyone's best interest to take on another.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

If she can't take them both I think she should explore the best options for having them cared for together.

Our Living Will states that we want certain people to make the decision of who is best capable to care for Gordito if something should happen to us.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Biology is biology. The LW doesn't say how long she has been with the BF and the 6 yr old. It isnt' her kid. And, there must be some other family members that aren't derelict bums. I would far rather be brought up with my blood relatives than raised by people who weren't. So, to take the 6 yr old and NOT her own sister's bio child would be a horrible thing to do in my opinion.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Sounds like the six year old and the newborn are half siblings, raise them together for crying out loud.

The sister who doesn't want the baby sounds incredibly selfish.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

I think you have to do what's in the best interests of the children.

NAOW · Vette's SS

Why would she have to stop working if she takes in the baby?

ETA: I can't even fathom this. There is no way I would adopt out my sister's child. And yes, I would be heartbroken if my sister refused to care for mine- and it would ruin the time left.

-- Edited by NAOW on Thursday 4th of February 2016 07:22:41 PM

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Biology is biology. The LW doesn't say how long she has been with the BF and the 6 yr old. It isnt' her kid. And, there must be some other family members that aren't derelict bums. I would far rather be brought up with my blood relatives than raised by people who weren't. So, to take the 6 yr old and NOT her own sister's bio child would be a horrible thing to do in my opinion.

She stated there are no other family members for the 6YO. Her decision on taking the 6YO but not the blood relative are very selfish. If she can only take one child, I get that, but it should be the blood relative.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

NAOW wrote:
Why would she have to stop working if she takes in the baby?
ETA: I can't even fathom this. There is no way I would adopt out my sister's child. And yes, I would be heartbroken if my sister refused to care for mine- and it would ruin the time left.

-- Edited by NAOW on Thursday 4th of February 2016 07:22:41 PM

Ditto, and there is no way my family would NOT take my child. They would gladly take her. My biggest decision is which one gets her.

huskerbb · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
I think you have to do what's in the best interests of the children.

The best interests of the child is that mom doesn't die--but apparently that isn't going to happen.

The next best thing would be to keep the child in the family. It's not like she's childless. She can apparently raise children. Not wanting to and not being able to care for a child are two vastly different things.

huskerbb · Guru

If something were to happen to one of my siblings--my mom, even at her age, would undoubtedly take the kids. If she were truly unable to, one of us would do it, or we would be disowned. You don't throw out a family member like yesterday's lunch. That child is as much a part of the family as the LW's kids. Give one of them away.

I'm not being serious, of course, but it puts a different spin on things.

huskerbb · Guru

I can't even imagine the hatred and contempt the LW must have for her sister. Her sister is dying, but oh no, don't ask me to do something that might be little inconvenient for a few years. I can't do that.

huskerbb · Guru

Maybe her sister didn't ask one of the LW's kids to be in her wedding.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
Maybe her sister didn't ask one of the LW's kids to be in her wedding.

Or maybe LW was planning on going on vaca during the wedding...

huskerbb · Guru

Or maybe she set the wedding during the time they had pre-planned to go on the vaca...

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
Or maybe she set the wedding during the time they had pre-planned to go on the vaca...

Maybe they only talked about it but hadn't actually committed... biggrin Keep going, I can take it.

chef · Guru

I'll take the baby. There. Problem solved.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

chef wrote:
I'll take the baby. There. Problem solved.

But are you going to the wedding?

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef wrote:
I'll take the baby. There. Problem solved.
But are you going to the wedding?

Only if I can have the last everything bagel evileye

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

I can't imagine giving away my niece. I just can't. There is literally no circumstance that would cause me to make that decision. We had some pretty lean years and we lived in a 3 bedroom house. I would have taken those children in a heartbeat during those years. I just can't imagine breaking up the family like that.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I know. Who does that kind of stuff? Who would hurt a kid like that. Oh wait, someone who said they wanted their soon to be niece to be in their wedding and then changed their mind without even telling them.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef wrote:
I'll take the baby. There. Problem solved.
But are you going to the wedding?
Only if I can have the last everything bagel

Better not bring that baby to the wedding!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I just can't imagine my OWN family not raising my 3 month old daughter. I just can't. I can't think of anything that would break my heart more. Yes, take in the 6 yr old too, but that may be fraught with legal difficulties. Just because she would want too doesn't mean she can when she has no biology attached. ANd, someone could appear out of the woodwork down the road as well.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I have managed to give birth to and raise 3 kids and I didn't have to "stop working", sooo not so sure why that is such a big deal? And, her sister is DYING and yet she is worried about the efforts of raising a baby. Well, they are only babies for a short while. In short order they can a lot of things for themselves. Once they get a bit older, they can take care a lot of their own needs from toileting, brushing their own teeth , making themselves a sandwhich and then start helping around the house. Geez. Raising kids isn't the Herculean obstacle that everyone likes to make it out to be. Yeah, there are times it is challenging but for the most part, if you just take a deep breath it isn't.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

And the LW mentions "brothers" who are "unable to take on any of this yet."

Sounds like the whole family may not have their priorities in order.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, the reality of life flan is that the women of the family tend to take these things on.

FNW · Guru

If something were to happen to us, my brother has agreed to take the boys. And I agreed to take his daughter, even when I was single and childless, and a low earner.

While I do think the sister should take the baby and not necessarily the boyfriend's son, I do agree with discussing the situation with the dying sister to determine her wishes.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.

Her sisters kid is as much of a part of the family as hers are. Adopt out one of hers.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.
Her sisters kid is as much of a part of the family as hers are. Adopt out one of hers.

You absolutely know that is different.

And we, as pro-life people, are supposed to support adoption, remember? If she had an unwanted pregnancy, we'd support her giving it up for adoption over abortion, now wouldn't we?

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

I am 25 and making ends meet with very little left over, but if the world ended and my sister three kids needed a home, I would not even hesitate. Heck, if my bf came to me and said his brother's baby needed us because of some tragedy, I would not hesitate. You do what you have to do, not supporting family is not an option.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.
Her sisters kid is as much of a part of the family as hers are. Adopt out one of hers.
You absolutely know that is different.
And we, as pro-life people, are supposed to support adoption, remember? If she had an unwanted pregnancy, we'd support her giving it up for adoption over abortion, now wouldn't we?

No, it isn't different. And this has nothing to do with abortion.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.
Her sisters kid is as much of a part of the family as hers are. Adopt out one of hers.
You absolutely know that is different.
And we, as pro-life people, are supposed to support adoption, remember? If she had an unwanted pregnancy, we'd support her giving it up for adoption over abortion, now wouldn't we?

Because it is still about personal responsibilty. And ,there is no option to abort so that is a straw man. In life we are sometimes called upon to take a road we didn't necessarily choose. You know that better than anyone and you got up and stood in the gap. So, i would HOPE my own sister would raise MY precious child. I just cant' imagine saying NO to my own daughter's child. That is beyond my comprehension if i was able bodied. However, if the sister was disabled or if the child only had elderly grandparents or something, then yes.

But, ok if she wants to adopt out that child, then i guess she may. But, I think that is clearly wrong in this case.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.
Her sisters kid is as much of a part of the family as hers are. Adopt out one of hers.
You absolutely know that is different.
And we, as pro-life people, are supposed to support adoption, remember? If she had an unwanted pregnancy, we'd support her giving it up for adoption over abortion, now wouldn't we?
Because it is still about personal responsibilty. And ,there is no option to abort so that is a straw man. In life we are sometimes called upon to take a road we didn't necessarily choose. You know that better than anyone and you got up and stood in the gap. So, i would HOPE my own sister would raise MY precious child. I just cant' imagine saying NO to my own daughter's child. That is beyond my comprehension if i was able bodied. However, if the sister was disabled or if the child only had elderly grandparents or something, then yes.
But, ok if she wants to adopt out that child, then i guess she may. But, I think that is clearly wrong in this case.

I'm not disagreeing, per se. But if she REALLY doesn't want the baby, the baby is likely to be better off with parents that do want it.

You are only thinking of the right thing to do and what you would do. What is best for the baby?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, i get what you are saying. If she can't truly give herself over to love this child, then yes, she should probably put the baby up for adoption.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.
Her sisters kid is as much of a part of the family as hers are. Adopt out one of hers.
You absolutely know that is different.
And we, as pro-life people, are supposed to support adoption, remember? If she had an unwanted pregnancy, we'd support her giving it up for adoption over abortion, now wouldn't we?
Because it is still about personal responsibilty. And ,there is no option to abort so that is a straw man. In life we are sometimes called upon to take a road we didn't necessarily choose. You know that better than anyone and you got up and stood in the gap. So, i would HOPE my own sister would raise MY precious child. I just cant' imagine saying NO to my own daughter's child. That is beyond my comprehension if i was able bodied. However, if the sister was disabled or if the child only had elderly grandparents or something, then yes.
But, ok if she wants to adopt out that child, then i guess she may. But, I think that is clearly wrong in this case.
I'm not disagreeing, per se. But if she REALLY doesn't want the baby, the baby is likely to be better off with parents that do want it.
You are only thinking of the right thing to do and what you would do. What is best for the baby?

Staying with her own family.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
She actually has a point that the baby would be easy to adopt out. The boy would end up in foster care most likely, but any baby under 2 without a special need would most likely be scooped up. At the very least, though, she should take on the legal guardianship and choose the new parents.

I had people ask me if they could adopt Baby J when we first got her. Told me if I didn't want the responsiblity, they would take her. Obviously, for us, that was not an option, but this woman doesn't feel the same.

And really, with her attitude, the baby might be better off.
Her sisters kid is as much of a part of the family as hers are. Adopt out one of hers.
You absolutely know that is different.
And we, as pro-life people, are supposed to support adoption, remember? If she had an unwanted pregnancy, we'd support her giving it up for adoption over abortion, now wouldn't we?
Because it is still about personal responsibilty. And ,there is no option to abort so that is a straw man. In life we are sometimes called upon to take a road we didn't necessarily choose. You know that better than anyone and you got up and stood in the gap. So, i would HOPE my own sister would raise MY precious child. I just cant' imagine saying NO to my own daughter's child. That is beyond my comprehension if i was able bodied. However, if the sister was disabled or if the child only had elderly grandparents or something, then yes.
But, ok if she wants to adopt out that child, then i guess she may. But, I think that is clearly wrong in this case.
I'm not disagreeing, per se. But if she REALLY doesn't want the baby, the baby is likely to be better off with parents that do want it.
You are only thinking of the right thing to do and what you would do. What is best for the baby?
Staying with her own family.

Why? Maybe her own family are a bunch of idiot *******s.

huskerbb · Guru

If her sister is capable of raising her own children, plus the additional boy, then she's capable of raising this girl.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
If her sister is capable of raising her own children, plus the additional boy, then she's capable of raising this girl.

That was a skate around the question.

You can't just ASSUME the baby will be better off just because they are family. She's NOT WANTED. Doing it out of a sense of duty doesn't mean she will be wanted and loved.

An adoptive family would WANT her.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
If her sister is capable of raising her own children, plus the additional boy, then she's capable of raising this girl.

You don't turn away your OWN blood in favor of raising someone else's kid. She should take both if she has to choose, she should be choosing the baby.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If her sister is capable of raising her own children, plus the additional boy, then she's capable of raising this girl.
You don't turn away your OWN blood in favor of raising someone else's kid. She should take both if she has to choose, she should be choosing the baby.

Even if it means the baby would be resented and unwanted?