We met in person two months after having met online. We were married less than eight hours after that, and the only reason it took that long was because we were waiting for the witnesses to arrive. We could have married five minutes after we'd met and I would have been fine with that, as would Fahim.
Wow, I wish I could find true love like that! Actually, there was a girl I met early in my freshman year of college who completely surprised me with the interest she showed in me, and I think I'd have been ready to marry her right then if she asked me.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...what, now the discussion's just devolved into whether or not Tatiana's nutso?
I'm sure I don't know.
It has been reported that Tatiana was annoyed with the father for resisting her adoption of his son. I don't know if that's the case or not; I do know that the idea that some online creature knows better for a child than a normal, mentally healthy, present parent does is downright...stupid.
The idea that anyone knows a child better than a normal, mentally healthy, present parent is equally as stupid. (In case anyone remembers a conversation on this very same topic from a couple years ago, with many of the same participants)
Who exactly is normal and mentally healthy cannot be determined by virtual people in a shielded, filtered environment.
Some people have complained that we should give Tatiana the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand why we should (EDIT:) to the detriment of this kid's parents.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, her argument from the start was that the kid's parents were inadequate and possibly abusive. But that was according to Sasha's evaluation. She spoke of rescuing him, and people warned her then that it could constitute kidnapping on her part.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: "Rescuing" should be done by people in the child's locality who have the training and the legal authority to rescue children.
Does anyone disagree?
I don't!
I think that legal authority and responsibility are key issues in this discussion. I also think that it would be wonderful if Tatiana's strong calling to nurture young people and her obvious compassion could be channelled into some legal structure like being a foster parent. She would have legal authority, responsibility, and protections for her nurturing instincts and kids that really need her love and care. Kids that don't already have functioning parents.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think foster parents can do really wonderful work.
It can be heartbreaking though-- the tentative purpose of the foster care system is to get both the children and the biological parents in a safe place, mentally and emotionally speaking, so that they can all be reunited.
Foster care is not meant to be a permanent solution to a child's problems.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So...what, now the discussion's just devolved into whether or not Tatiana's nutso?
Yeah, this is definitely a big problem, and I hope it stops.
For the record, while I think that what she was suggesting was wrong, I was questioning neither her sanity nor her intentions. Her heart is definitely in the right place. I just disagree with her methods.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, oh, I know. I think that anything would be fraught with some difficulties. I think that it would make more sense, though, than trying to usurp parental authority. Especially since she has an affinity for teenagers. It is often very difficult to place teenagers.
I'm just trying to find some way of giving her really caring impulses (that now seem out of control) some structure and legitimacy. It would be sad if they were wasted or just got her into trouble.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't know. If her heart is saying, "I know better for a child than that child's parent," and it is evident to a wide section of the population that the parent in question is normal and mentally healthy, then her heart is in the wrong place.
But like I said-- I wouldn't know the specifics about any of this.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we can now move from the definition of the word "mother," to the definition of the word "heart" as used to express motive. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the goal is usually to reunite kids with their parents, some kids in the foster care system either have no parents or parents who have given them up or had their parental rights terminated. Those kids are eligible for foster placement leading to adoption.
I know several families who have adopted this way. And one family who took foster placement of three siblings thinking it would be short term while the mother got her act together, extended to a year, and now the mother reliquished her rights to the kids and the family will likely adopt them. Which is not what they'd planned when they signed up to foster three troubled kids, but they're good people and don't want the kids to be abandoned again.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't know. If her heart is saying, "I know better for a child than that child's parent," and it is evident to a wide section of the population that the parent in question is normal and mentally healthy, then her heart is in the wrong place.
But like I said-- I wouldn't know the specifics about any of this.
No, what her heart is saying is "I want this child to be well, and whole, and happy, cared for and aware that he is cared for". That's unquestionably the right place. Whether or not the course of action that she's chosen is the best route to get there is certainly open to question, but what's driving it is, at its base, a positive thing.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So...what, now the discussion's just devolved into whether or not Tatiana's nutso?
Yeah, this is definitely a big problem, and I hope it stops.
For the record, while I think that what she was suggesting was wrong, I was questioning neither her sanity nor her intentions. Her heart is definitely in the right place. I just disagree with her methods.
I agree with what rivka and Noemon are saying.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for a thought experiment, flip this around for a moment.
How would you react if you found out from your children that some adult they met online was trying to convince them that you are an unfit parent, and that your children should move in with them?
Or alternately, how would we respond if someone here with children told us a story about how their child is sick, and some adult they only know from the internet is trying to get them to become legally adopted for the purposes of insurance fraud?
Would we really look at that and say, "Obviously this internet stranger has your child's best interests at heart. That's probably normal behavior."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow, I think you are oversimplifying the situation.
quote: how would we respond if someone here with children told us a story about how their 18 year old is sick and the parent had no insurance and couldn't afford the treatment , and some adult they only know from the internet is trying to get them to become legally adopted for the purposes of insurance fraud in order to get proper medical treatment that you as the parent can't afford ?
I think the insurance fraud part is slightly fuzzy, as my boyfriend and I routinely discuss that if he ends up retiring from a state job, we will get married, so that I can have his health insurance for life. Marriage and adoption reset a lot of insurance issues, including pre-existing conditions.
I'm also unclear as to whether the father actually acknowledges that Sasha has lyme disease, or if he still thinks it is all in Sasha's head.
I might about things in a different way from Tatiana, but understating the complexity of the present situation doesn't help matters.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Phanto. Banna's additions don't change that. And if Tatiana really thinks the parents are being negligent, then she should call Child and Family Services.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the part that people are referring to as fraud is not the potential adoption but that Tatiana wants to enroll him in college in order to get him insurance, but has no intention of him actually going to school. If an insurance company found out the college issue, it would likely be considered fraud, and the company could consider prosecuting.
Edit: I don't know why I put quotation marks around the word adoption. I have removed them, since they had no business being there.
posted
Can you legally adopt (for insurance purposes etc) a young adult? Based on my experience with family court and divorce-related custody issues, I'd think that wouldn't even be possible. But obviously IANAL, so who knows?
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My reference to potential fraud certainly was in re the enrolling in college with no intention of attending in order to get insurance.
Had there been an adoption, and that adoption legal, then of course the adopted child would be eligible for benefits from the parent. That's not an issue. Lying to the insurance company about a child attending college when he does not in fact, attend - that sounds like fraud to me.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The legal requirement is that he be registered for classes. Intent is hard to prove, so there are specific legal standards to determine who qualifies and who doesn't.
If he enrolled and then applied for medical continuances through the proper channels it wouldn't necessarily be fraud. Hell...as long as the classes are paid for, even allowing him to fail them would cover the legal requirements, even if he rarely (if ever) attended.
Not that I and defending that, but I just wanted to be clear.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not as extreme as trying to adopt a kid yet, but a lot of caring Jatraqueros tried with sincere good intentions to warn her about what, by general concensus, could easily become a big problem. She thanked us by deleting the thread.
&
The fact that Tatania's relationship has mainly played itself out online may get in the way of her becoming as close to this child as his real, biological parents are. But that itself isn't the dealbreaker. He's a grown man and he's just now met her. She can become a lot of things in his life. There's a chance that she will someday become far more meaningful to him than his parents ever were. But she will never literally be his mother.
I do wish you'd take more care not to put biological parenthood on one end of things, and all other forms as non-biological and thus inferior on the other, Baron.
Unless that's what you actually believe, anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone here gone to college solely to defer student loan payments? Just wondering. I personally have not, but my husband did.
I guess in the end it's good because he now works in his degree field, but at the time I was rather frustrated by it because he was trying to run his own business and going to school part time for financial reasons.
Having someone register for school and not attend would probably result in a poor GPA, which I would find not very beneficial. So I'm pretty troubled by that scenario, if she was serious about that. Though I suspect she was just deflecting objections that starting school full time (and many states require full time enrollment to qualify for insurance) while undergoing treatment might be difficult. I just really hope that if she's going through with this, she doesn't accomodate the kid's preferences to the point of scrapping his academic future. Part of being a mother is loving the kid enough to say no sometimes.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He could attend online courses. That might be easier. He could study from anywhere and attendance wouldn't be an issue. I took one in college and it wasn't bad.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most online classes require you to do "class activity"-- logging on to the site and visiting the class bb, turning in an assignment, whatever-- to qualify as "attending", or you get dropped.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do wish you'd take more care not to put biological parenthood on one end of things, and all other forms as non-biological and thus inferior on the other, Baron.
Unless that's what you actually believe, anyway.
That *is* what Baron Samedi believes, to an extent. Do a search in this thread for the word "asterisk."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's some mighty fine out-of-contexting you've done there, Rakeesh. Almost made it work.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do wish you'd take more care not to put biological parenthood on one end of things, and all other forms as non-biological and thus inferior on the other, Baron.
Unless that's what you actually believe, anyway.
That *is* what Baron Samedi believes, to an extent. Do a search in this thread for the word "asterisk."
When you're done with that, do a search for the word "inferior" and see if it comes up in any of my posts.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Of course, in human society we have found certain uses for the words "Mother" and "Father" outside the literal donation of a gamete. But even in those cases, parental titles are used very conservatively, and with an asterisk. For example, no one is going to mistake Angelina Jolie for her childrens' "real mother." But since she found these children at a very young age in a situation where they didn't have anyone to care for them, and she made a long-term legal commitment to act in a parental capacity full-time and in person until they are entirely grown and independent, no one is going to deny her the right to use the word "Mother." However, even in such an extremely legitimate case, when someone raises a child that is not their direct genetic offspring, the word "Mother" is still going to be used with an unspoken caveat.
The emphasis, of course, is mine.
You are mistaken about common usage today. My children's "real father" is me.
EDIT: Stupid QB tags making my emphasis invisible . . .
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Right. Because "asterisk' connotes "legitimate."
You'll notice that in the section of my post that you just quoted, I called adoption "extremely legitimate." Is that not enough connotation of legitimacy for you?
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baron, You very clearly state that no one would mistake a particular mother with adopted children as their "real mother". If that doesn't imply that adopted parents are some how less real and therefore inferior to biological parents then I can not understand what it does mean.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angelina Jolie IS her children's real mother. I certainly hope there isn't a caveat - there doesn't deserve to be one. I hate to speculate about a celebrity, but I've never seen or read anything to suggest that Angelina Jolie considers her adopted children to be less important or less her children than her biological child.
I think it's tremendously insulting to say otherwise.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different != inferior. The President of the United States is different than a school-board member in Tooele, Utah. Does that make the President's office inferior?
I don't know where that idea comes from, other than a desire to feel persecuted.
posted
Icarus, I've been looking for a post I thought was by you. Perhaps it was in the deleted thread and maybe I'm misremembering and it was someone else who posted.
Was it you who posted something about there being people out there who had more money than you and might be able to better care for your child than you but it was insulting to suggest you should therefore sign over your children to them?
Maybe it was in fact someone else.
I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
I also think that in many cases, that decision is a good decision, a responsible decision, a loving decision and a very unselfish decision.
I would hope that most parents who adopted children felt that way about their children's biological parents and did not feel like those parents who signed away their parental rights were necessarily dead beats who had abandoned their child.
[ January 24, 2008, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The President of the United States is different than a school-board member in Tooele, Utah. Does that make his office inferior?
I think most people would agree that the office of school board member is inferior to the office of President. Certainly in the quantifiable terms of power, resources, respect, fame, etc, this would be the case.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The President of the United States is different than a school-board member in Tooele, Utah. Does that make his office inferior?
I think most people would agree that the office of school board member is inferior to the office of President. Certainly in the quantifiable terms of power, resources, respect, fame, etc, this would be the case.
His = The President's. Should have made my pronouns more clear.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
