Working Parents Are Bad Parents, Apparently

Print This Post

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Jag says:

    I HATE Michigan Judges.

  2. matt says:

    as a michigander i do feel compeled to throw up right now

  3. Molly says:

    First off, I am not adopted. I am the child of a mother who stayed home. It was great and I benefitted a great deal. I am a supporter of being a stay-at-home parent….BUT, my husband and I have adopted a son because our biology failed us, and we both work. Obviously, this idiot judge hasn't run his numbers. Adoptions in this country are either **almost** free through the counties or they can run $10,000, $30,000 or even $50,000. Adoptive parents are being asked for "pass through fees" to support the birthparents expenses, for facilitator fees to just find a baby, and possibly legal fees if the birthfather or grandparents have a contention AFTER the baby is placed in an adoptive home. AND LOTS of these same couples are also paying bills of $10k – $50k or more for fertility treatments! (Not to mention school loans, and mortgages on top of it.)

    Adoptive parents just want to be PARENTS. We want what everyone else wants! To start with healthy, wonderful babies and teach them everything we know. To love them to pieces, and know that whatever issues they have came directly because of our parenting skills or lack thereof. If they turn out to be sick, okay we'll face it together. But no parent, adoptive or biological, wishes for sick children. So don't hate me because I'm honest enough to know I'm not a saint, and I request a healthy child.

    When we got married we wanted 3 kids, then we decided 4, then 6 kids. We now have nearly 8 possible names picked out. We both work, and we know a tribe of kids would be sheer craziness. ;) But after the road we have travelled just trying to get a second child, one may be it!

    As one person put it, a mom who works less is a "more happy story". Well, after thinking about it, poverty and starvation aren't a happy story either — and that's where we'd be on one income.

    We're Christian, we pay our taxes, we vote, we don't drink or smoke, we are faithful to each other and our families even when its undeserved. We have insurance. We have a safe, comfortable home with a beautiful nursery. We serve in our Church, and often we have donated ourselves nearly into the poorhouse. We drive a car that is 10 years old with over 250k miles. Our biggest expenditure is eating out too often — which we are working on. We love our son, and each other. We both work, AND WE'RE HAPPY. We are not perfect. I am not a perfect mom, but I love my son and each day I strive to do better.


  4. I go back and forth with this. I think that many studies have shown that having a primary caretaker is important and has many benefits for a child. I think this is even more important for children that have been internationally adopted and have often had many caretakers. If you have ever read Allan Schore's research about infant trauma then you will get a glimpse into the importance of stability and what the results of instability for children can be. That said, I think the judge has a duty/obligation to put the child's interests first BUT it needs to be ALL children not just domestic adoptions.

    On the other hand, I find the whole concept of wealth and how it inserts itself into the adoption process to be very distasteful. There are wonderful, wonderful parents who don't live in mansions and instead live on the ball field with their kids providing direction and tons of memories. Who is to say that a couple must have X amount of dollars to adopt and that having X income somehow ensures that they will be good parents.

    So I struggle with this one.

  5. Benjamin says:

    Although it is a good idea to stay at home with a new baby, isn't requiring this the role of the legislature and not the judicial branch of Michigan? I must have skipped the day they taught about judges being able to make laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think judges should be allowed to make laws.

  6. Patrick says:

    Judge Willis isn't making law, Benjamin. He's making policy.

  7. Josh says:

    The easy solution is to advise people via cheap newspaper ads, blogs, etc that the judge's "requirement" that you agree to his conditions is complete bulski and that you can sign and then not follow through. Then have all of the adoptive parents send him mail telling him they are not following through with his wishes because they don't have to and further telling him that he's an idiot. I bet you he'd end the "requirement" very shortly thereafter.

    The 2nd best option is for someone who is denied to sue him. Again, I bet he would quickly discontinue the practice.

  8. Richard says:

    Judge Willis is part of the failure of Michigan's court system, especially the Family Division. Van Buren County is notorious for this kind of hooliganism because they are insulated in their rural fiefdom from outside scrutiny. Further, they have financial conflicts of interest from DHS for many of their actions in the "best interests" (so-called) of children. The "Moral Requirement" is beyond the law, a mere invention from the twisted head of Judge Willis.