[DRAFT] Adoption is Futile!

[The South Falls]

Validity: Nations that have a court system.

[DESCRIPTION] After biological parent @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ had her child wrongfully taken away for abuse 3 years ago, the child was put into the foster system, and given an adoptive parent. Now, the conviction has been overturned, and the mother wants her child back.

[OPTION] "I didn't abuse her! Even the court knows it was a miscarriage of justice!" says the biological mother. "I am her true mother! I bore her right from my womb, and she deserves to be with me! I wasn't in my right mind when I testified that I abused her, and I shouldn’t have been punished with the loss of my child! She's my greatest treasure even if I haven’t seen her for 3 or so years! For the sake of me, please let me take my child back!"

[EFFECT] Kids are shunted from adoptive parent to biological parent often.

[OPTION] "What about me?" The adoptive mother says, smothering her child. "She signed the documents to give Jane away, whatever state of mind she was in, and I have cared for her whole life! I understand that justice was miscarried, but I have cared for that little child her entire life! I'll lose my child, who I’ve slaved to care for, for as long as she can remember! Just let her visit her kid, maybe once or twice a lif- I mean year.
Please, @@LEADER@@, make all adoptions final, and stop this madness!"

[EFFECT] Adoption records are chiseled into stone tablets, never to be altered.

[OPTION] "How about we compromise!", says your Minister of Children, @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ "We can make some adoptions revocable, but only for people who meet certain criteria, like passing a test, being interviewed by multidisciplinary professionals, evaluated by at least seven psychologists. This way, we can properly vet the people who want their children back, and decide whether it would be safe for us to give the child back! Plus, we could institute a fee, and make a profit!"

[EFFECT] Children reach the age of majority before their adoption cases are processed.

[OPTION] "This is all the madness caused by adoption!" says Violet Poobah Tsirhc Susej. Biological parents were made to be parents by our lady in purple, and adoption flies in the face of all of that! If we want to stop this nation being one forsaken by Violet, we must make all adoption illegal! If you can’t have children, then Violet wanted it that way!"

[EFFECT] The streets, playgrounds, ball pits, and candy stores are deserted.

[OPTION] "This is all the madness caused by adoption!" says Cult of Cyan Leader Maurizio Lobina. Biological parents were made to be parents by our man in blue, and adoption flies in the face of all of that! If we want to stop this nation being one forsaken by Cyan, we must make all adoption illegal! If you can’t have children, then Cyan wanted it that way!"

[EFFECT] The streets, playgrounds, ball pits, and candy stores are deserted.

[Trotterdam]

#602 Hobby Lobby

[The South Falls]

#602 Hobby Lobby

Oops... I'll just reserve this spot for another issue I'm trying to write. My internet was down, and it just got back up. Didn't see that one...

[Chan Island]

#602 Hobby Lobby

Oops... I'll just reserve this spot for another issue I'm trying to write. My internet was down, and it just got back up. Didn't see that one...

It happens. Just take it in stride and make another draft.

[Drasnia]

It was a good idea. Too bad it was already done. Keep writing I really like the idea of more issues that help players RP @@LEADER@@'s personality,so if you want to try something like this again, you have my support.

[The South Falls]

I just wrote another issue. I'm also trying to write more Leader's personality issues.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

In the future, if you want to start a new draft, start a new thread. Now you've made Drasnia look insane by suggesting that an adoption issue is duplicated by an issue about hobbies.

Anyway, THIS draft is interesting, but seems familiar to me. Let me do some checks and see if I can find the issue it reminds me of.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Right yeah, #785 Born To Be My Baby is similar, though that's about surrogate mums not foster mums.

No overlap here.

Will come back and comment on the issue later.

[United States of Natan]

I like it, probably just needs a few tweaks.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Alright, so let's start with real life.

Fostering is a temporary arrangement, where the foster parent essentially provides care on behalf of the state, but is not considered to be taking the place of the biological parents.

Adoption is generally considered a permanent arrangement, where the adoptive parents fully adopt the roles and rights of parenthood in place of the biological parents. This is generally done for reasons of child protection.

It is possible for a biological parent to apply to regain parental rights, but the default position is that those rights have been lost and the order of a court is needed to restore them. A court's judgement would tend to favour adoptive parents, though in a few exceptional cases children do get returned to biological parents. By far the most common outcome is that a mediated agreement is reached, where all involved get to be part of the child's life, and responsibility is shared. Critically, IRL this is a case by case judgement, as everyone is able to recognise that the right answer is always "it depends". It depends on the biological parents, the adoptive parents, the reasons for the child going into care, the changes in situation, the child's interests, the child's wishes, and so on and so forth. At the heart of it all is a principle that child welfare comes first.

The scenario outlined here lacks verisimilitude. There's no court in the western world that would decide to wrest a child away from adoptive parents after 12 years. At best a biological parent would be applying for permission to access that child, not to remove them from the child's adoptive parents.

It might be better to reframe this as more of an edge case. For example, maybe make it a miscarriage of justice where the conviction for child abuse was overturned. Or make it about children unjustly forced into care, like the children born out of wedlock in Ireland in the 20th century.

Try and find the balancing point where this is actually a challenging ethical dilemma.

[The Sherpa Empire]

[EFFECT] You can be sued for taking back your child after an adoption in @@NAME@@.

Taking a child that you don't have custody of is a felony, not a civil offense, even if it is biologically yours. I knew someone that tried that when he had a relationship go bad. He lost a custody battle over his daughter, tried to take her anyway, and ended up in prison for kidnapping.

[Australian rePublic]

Why did it take so long to decide she wants it back?

[Chan Island]

I think the real problem is that nobody in their right mind would choose anything other than option 2. Why would anybody wish to remove a child from a foster parent after said foster has taken care of the child for 12 years?! You'd have to make the foster look bat****, which is unlikely, make the other options more rational or change the premise entirely.

[Trotterdam]

At the age of 12 years (or more, if the forced custody wasn't done as a newborn baby), the child is almost old enough to decide for herself where she wants to go.

[The South Falls]

Alright, I tried to meet the concerns that I could. Any other issues? I'm not gonna submit this 'till I get people that expressly say: "this is ready for submission."

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Getting a lot closer, and I think it's a good idea to take your time on submission.

[DESCRIPTION] After biological parent @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ had her child wrongfully taken away for abuse 3 years ago, the child was put into the foster system, and given an adoptive parent. Now, the conviction has been overturned, and the mother wants her child back. Opposing sides have poured into your office for the debate.

The first sentence is a bit clumsy in grammar, as it suggests that abuse took place but that it was wrong to take the child away. Also there's a lot of run on with consecutive clauses. Try to rearrange and clarify it.

The last sentence is a redundancy, and can probably be cut.

[The South Falls]

I made the change, and since it's been about 48h, I'll bump this by asking: Any other things that are getting on your nerves? Any grammar issues that I've missed? Anything wrong, basically.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Shaping up, a little way to go.

[DESCRIPTION] After biological parent @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ had her child wrongfully taken away for abuse 3 years ago, the child was put into the foster system, and given an adoptive parent. Now, the conviction has been overturned, and the mother wants her child back.Opposing sides have poured into your office for the debate.

The last sentence, which I've struck through, is redundant and can be cut.

[OPTION] “I want

These "smart quotes" need to be replaced by straight quotes throughout before submission.

That is " not “

my baby back! I had her, so I get it!”, the biological parent says.”I didn't abuse her! Even the court knows it was a miscarriage of justice!!

Don't repeat information already established in the opening description. Avoid double exlamation marks.

Only I know what it’s like to bear a child, and I am her true mother! I wasn’t of the right mind when testified I abused her,

Weird grammar here again. "I wasn't in my right mind when I testified that I abused her" would be better.

and I shouldn’t be punished with the loss of my child!

Chronology failure, she's already lost her child.

She’s my greatest treasure, even if I haven’t seen her for 3 or so years!”

Sentence is odd in grammar.

For the sake of me, please make all adoptions revocable, so I can get my child back!

Again, weird grammar. More importantly though, a weird argument. Wanting her child back is good motivation for asking for her child to be returned to her, not for asking for all adoptions to be revocable.

Will come back to later options as we work through.

[The South Falls]

Alright, I implemented the changes. Any thing else?

[The South Falls]

I'm bumping this issue again because it's remained unanswered for 10 days. I wanted to know if there were any issues with the other options. I didn't see any problems, but since the editors are generally more perceptive, I'd like their opinion, please.

[Chan Island]

It's shaped upend matured quite well, and is now a genuinely difficult dilemma. Not quite there yet, but nothing to add for now.

[The Official United Nations]

[OPTION] “How about we compromise!”, says your Minister of Children, @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ We can make some adoptions revocable

The sentence from 'We' should probably have quotation marks at the start. The next option also has this issue.

If the typical approach is that the 'parent' who adopted now has the rights, then that should be reflected in the options favouring them. Since people can occasionally visit their 'children' despite custody disputes, you could mention something like that if you wanted.

[Trotterdam]

If the typical approach is that the 'parent' who adopted now has the rights, then that should be reflected in the options favouring them. Since people can occasionally visit their 'children' despite custody disputes, you could mention something like that if you wanted.

I would assume that regardless of whether it's the original or adoptive parents who win the custody rights, the other couple would retain visitation rights, since it's been established that neither couple have actually been bad parents (despite now-refuted accusations). Not allowing at least visitation rights would be a crazy option, I think.

(Wait, was I assuming too much when talking about couples? On rereading the issue, I see that only mothers ever get talked about, for all we know both of them might be single mothers. To be fair, there are nations that have banned marriage...)

[The South Falls]

[OPTION] “How about we compromise!”, says your Minister of Children, @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ We can make some adoptions revocable

The sentence from 'We' should probably have quotation marks at the start. The next option also has this issue.

If the typical approach is that the 'parent' who adopted now has the rights, then that should be reflected in the options favouring them. Since people can occasionally visit their 'children' despite custody disputes, you could mention something like that if you wanted.

I added visitation rights, with the adoptive parent being reluctant to give them.

[The South Falls]

Taking another bump. I'd still like suggestions, and I'm not submitting till I get a definite "This should be submitted."