True of False?

Show all answers

Post your answer

LaraSue	False. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

GEE-GEE	False- Just because she is not "harmful" does not mean she is the best one to be with. Neglect is also a form of abuse but it is not harmful. She may not pay attention to the child or give it enough attention etc. Just because you give birth to a baby does not mean you are the best parent for the child. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Mommyof2	Define "harmful" Because it can cause serious harm to a child by not being in a stable home environment with stable people surrounding them. It can cause a lot of harm to have a Mother who was not ready to be a Mother and has no idea how to be one. In my opinion, if the Mother wants to give the child up for adoption, it 's because they know they can not give the child the life he/she deserves. The best person to raise the child is whoever will do it the best. Whoever can raise them with stability, love, morals, comfort. If that's the mother than great, if that's the adopted Mother, that's great too. The only thing that matters is the child has those things, no matter who they are with. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

lifecryme	it takes a little more than not being harmful to adopt. How about your socioeconomic standards? that a big issue. Do you make enough to raise the child? What kind of living environment will the child grow up in? good neighborhood or bad neigbhorhood? is your home a child-safety zone or does it have easy to access hazardous materials lying around? i mean there are so many ways that social services go around to make sure a person is capable of adopting a child and meets their standards. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

opedial	Can't answer a black and white question. It is true that if the mother is willing and able it is the best place for the child. If a mother does not have the capacity for parenting, and while will not abuse or neglect may be an unwilling parent who is resentful about being a parent, they are they better off with them or someone up for the job. And sometimes if a person can assess they shoudl not be a parent (without coersion of course) then maybe the child is better off with other parents in an open arrangement. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

J C	Not enough info. So she doesn't harm the child. But does her lifestyle promote a healthy living environment? Can she support the child? Is the father abusive towards the child? Need more input. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

5littlemonkeys	False Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Crucio	I think it’s complicated and depends entirely on the situation. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Gaia Raain	TRUETRUETRUETRUETRUETRUE Sometimes even true if she IS harmful to her child. After all, families learn and grow together. Parents learn just as much from their kids, as the kids learn from them. I have no place being the judge of when harmful behavior crosses that line, and I wouldn't WANT to be! So, wow, 10 TD's, huh? I guess those ten people have never yelled at their kids and made them cry, or accidentally stepped on a foot. I bow to you amazingly, wonderfully, gifted and perfect parents who have never made a mistake that could harm your child. Can I meet you and worship you? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Jennifer L	This question is an oversimplification. The reasons a birthmother has to parent the child or to place the child for adoption are many and are unique to every situation. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

furfur	Depends on what your definition of harm is. Surely we all recognize that physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, parents abusing substances, etc are harmful. Would you agree that the parents who can't provide the basic needs of food, clothing, medical care, and shelter are harmful too? Would you agree that an illiterate parent is harmful to her child as well? Harm does not equal love. If you are looking solely at harm, then she is not always the best person for the child. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Erin L	Well, in this country that's probably almost always true. I do think there are incredibly complicated circumstances that don't make it always that simple. For example, my daughter's birthmother was in a situation where she wouldn't have been neglectful, would have financially been able to provide enough, medical care was assesible, she wasn't facing addiction or anything. But she was in a social situation where if she parented her daughter she would have been socially ostracized (because dd was born with cleft/lip palate)- jeapordizing her relationship with all family, friends, etc. Her daughter she was already parenting would have been horribly negatively impacted, etc. In the end she decided that environment wasn't in the best interest of anyone, and with her deciding that I can't really say that it would have been better for my daughter to stay with her. Complicated, who knows?, shades of gray . . . Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Still Me	Hard to say. That's her decision. I would say if a woman is able to relinquish a child, then she probably has good reasons. And those reasons are not always visible or even necessarily known. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

starshyne59	True, if that is the only criteria. However, is the mother capable of supporting the child? Will she have the time to devote to a child to make sure it gets all the love and attention it needs? Since you asked this under the adoption category, I'm not sure if not being harmful is the only consideration you need to think about. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

jgf5822	absolutely true. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

lqdchaos22	true Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

LaurieDB	True -- she's the mother, after all. ETA: Gersh, you know that we all understand that "not harmful" means that the mother is not putting the child in the way of any physical or emotional damage. So, no neglect or abusive of any kind is going on here. Well, that's the standard child welfare agencies normally use to decide if a child can remain in the home. But, Gersh, you also know that we live in a society where it's not considered a big deal at all to just swap out things -- including families. I, for one, find that to be a HUGE deal, not to be taken lightly for ANY reason. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

jessica300	True. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Sarah	False. Just because something/someone "isn't harmful" that certainly doesn't make it/them good or even great. Good question. I'm pretty curious where you're going with this, too~ Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

BPD Wife	False - but hear me out, please..... I would have agreed with your question if you would have stated "parent" rather than mother. I believe fathers have as much right as mothers when it comes to children. And there are many cases where a child chooses to live with the father (i.e. in cases of divorce) and I don't think they are lesser of a parent than the mother. Just my 2 cents. Hope I didn't offend anyone. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

sunny	I'll add profound neglect and addiction to the list. TRUE! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Ed C. (SFECU)	TRUE It is her child regardless of socio-economics. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Possum	True. People - being harmful would include being in a disruptive environment, being around drugs etc, etc. There have been studies - and what is BEST for a child - emotionally and psychologically - is to grow up with their mother - if at all possible. Isn't it best that we try to help families stay together - if they aren't going to be harmful - if they'll give it their best shot?? What Gershom is trying to say - I think - is that just not being financial (for instance) - is not a good reason to give your child up for adoption. Not having more money than others - is NOT being harmful - in my honest opinion. Money doesn't buy love - money does NOT make you a good parent. Being young also does NOT mean that they'll be bad parents. Women have been having children for centuries. Young included. No women knows how good a mother they will be until they give it a go. Just being more mature - does NOT mean that you'll be a better parent - especially if you are not the child's bio parent. Yes - it's a very black and white question - but it's the basis behind parenting. If a mother loves their child and cares for the child and wants to do the best for that child - there should always be a way that the mother can keep the child. If not - society is pretty screwed up - in my opinion. A child will NOT think it's a loving decision - if they were given up for adoption - simply because the mother didn't try to get themselves together and look for ways to keep the child. The child (once grown) may not think it particularly fair if they were given away simply because no one gave their mother support - when they probably needed it most. Being young and without money - does NOT make you a harmful parent. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Theresa	True. End of answer Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Andraya	True. End of discussion. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Cam	True-unless she simply chooses not to parent. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Torrejon	true Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

moi	true you dont have to be rich to keep your baby and not placeit for adoption....... money doesnt by love....... you can be dirt poor and be very loved and you can be filthy rich and not feel loved at all....... justbecause you cant give your child as much as someone else can doesnt mean the person who can would make a better parent.... allyou need to give that baby is unconditional love and you can get help with the rest....... there's state assistance,wic,etc.... you can even go to college to create a better future for your baby and yourself....... If you want to give your baby up for adoption to someone who cant have kids and you would be making their wish come true so be it,but if you really want to keep your baby,then I say,definitely do it and dont base your decision on money issues because as i said,money doesnt buy love.... Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

HappyMomAnna	True as long as Harmful includes neglect or exposure to crime, illegal drug use and in some cases domestic violence a child witneses....but, to the average mother these things would be seen as Harmful. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Freckle Face	Straight true or false answer. TRUE She is always the best one to be with. I think adoption is rarely anyones first choice. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

spydermomma	True. To me, as a mom, harmful includes exposing the child to dangers like abuse, neglect, rapidly changing sex partners, an atmosphere of drug or alcohol abuse or criminal activity. All those things are harmful, so they fall under the definition in the question. I would also include a mother who truly does not want to parent. I think in many cases she would be harmful. But I would NOT include one who is simply scared, or who is poor, or who lives in a "bad neighborhood," or who will struggle -- but who is willling to try to be a mom. We can't just go removing children from their homes to put them in hypothetically "better" situations. Even in the best of worlds that would be wrong. In the real world we live in, that would be insane -- most would end up in foster care and most decidedly NOT better off. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No