on my radar

[the_siobhan]

I just finished reading a news article about a woman who is facing an extradition trial in Canada. She kidnapped the children (twins) she had previously given up for adoption and ran across the border. The US and Canada have pretty specific agreements in place around these kind of circumstances because non-custodial parents have made a bit of a habit of grabbing children and running across government lines. So chances are pretty good she's going to be shipped home to face prosecution.

The thing that got me about this story is that the woman in question changed her mind about putting her kids up for adoption just 12 hours after signing the paperwork.

When I put Jenn up for adoption I had something like 90 days to change my mind before the file was closed and lost all my legal rights. During that time she was placed in a foster home. It wasn't until the 90 days was over she went to her permanent adoptive family, when there was no chance of them having to go through the emotional impact of having their new daughter taken from them.

So basically she would not be a kidnapper if she had been living in Canada when she made the choice to adopt out her kids, and then subsequently had a change of heart.

I'm not sure why I'm talking about this. Possibly because it's a subject close to my heart for obvious reasons. And in general I think the extradition treaties we have with the US are largely a good thing.

But in this case I think their process is broken and I'm currently debating with myself as to whether or not we have the right to decide to distance ourselves from that.

Comments

[elusis.livejournal.com]

Research which describes a trend does not, of course, encompass every single individual outcome possible. And of course, the converse is also true - IOW, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

Very sorry I don't fit the polite confines of your "data".

[elusis.livejournal.com]

Why should that bother you? It's research that describes something that occurs in a percentage of infants/children. If it doesn't describe you, congratulations, well done, be glad that you're happy and well-adjusted. So why does the fact that some people have a different outcome which suggests that a practice you did well in spite of might not be the best one apparently upset you so? It's like being pissed off about data showing that seatbelts increase the survivability of car accidents because you survived an accident without wearing one.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

It's not really like the car crash analogy at all. You're talking about a person's psyche.

What you're saying is "kids that this happens to are screwed up because of it." To me, it's important to say "Woah that's not right, at least not 100% of the time!"

I take it personally because it's a personal thing, which is why I'll come back with anecdotal evidence.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

Presumably you and any others reading this know that when research describes a psychological or sociological trend, it NEVER attempts to say that something is true 100% of the time.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

So because we all know that there's no such thing as "100%" I should just shut up?

Why not listen to what I have to say? Eeesh.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

You're going way out of your way to read a lot of things into my comments that I haven't even said.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

Then break it down for me.
Really.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

What would you like broken down?

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

To be fair, her original comment was, "This isn't good for kids" not "They will be screwed up by it."

Not everybody get sick or killed or screwed up by things that are bad for us. That doesn't neutralize that unhealthiness.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

The part I was really on about was the bit about how the first three months "seem" to be crucial for attachment.
To which I said "bullshit."
To which I got a bunch of interesting responses from one, and a bunch of "You're being illogical Captain" from another.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

"Seem" is about as accurate as you ever going to get when you are talking about psychology. Humans are never identical and rarely predictable.

I read both angilong and elusis as saying the same thing - that it may not be the healthiest choice for babies in general. That doesn't mean that any given individual isn't going to be absolutely fine.