My roommate’s gf is pregnant (not his). She also has two kids from an earlier divorce. I feel (I know, not my business, but we did talk about it) she should give the kid up for adoption since the father will not be coming back into the picture and she might not be able to afford to raise it. Abortion is not an option as she’s pretty devoutly Christian. One of her issues with the adoption idea is that she’s not sure how to explain it to her young children. Mommy’s got a kid in her belly until the day she comes home from the hospital with no kid? It’s not my life or my situation so I don’t have a stake in it except not wanting to see my roommate get in over his head, I’m more curious how you’d explain it to your kids or other options.
An interesting thing is that in traditional Japan, there was no stigma attached to adoption and kids bought up by adoptive parents had no particular issue with there being no blood link, considering them their real parents.
True that might be apocryphal, but I’d tend to go with the idea that teaching that adoption is bad or scary, or the people the child is going to isn’t really their parents is what makes it a scary prospect. Certainly, this true for animals–if you act all apologetic when you go out of the house, they’ll pine for you the whole time, while as if you make nothing of it, neither do they.
So just be straightforward and, if anything, bland about it.
Sage Rat, I think the problem is not in explaining “you were adopted by Mommy and Daddy because we wanted a baby so much that someone else carried you in her uterus and made you for us!” (or whatever) to an adopted child, but what to say to the (living, older) siblings of the infant you are putting up for adoption. That’s a little oogier.
And honestly, I’m not sure *what *I would do. That’s a minefield of terror and abandonment issues waiting to happen. If you couch it in economic terms (Mommy just can’t afford to be a good Mom to this baby and you too, so she’s going to give the baby away) or emotional ones (our family is just the right size with the three of us, so we’re going to ask another family who wants more people in their family to take this baby) or…it just all sounds BAD. And it all raises fears (or it would have in me) that if money gets tight or Mom is feeling tired out by me and my brother, that I might be the next to be given away! :eek:
I await the Wise Doper answers, 'cause I’m at a loss right now.
I think the other kids might wonder if mommy’s going to get rid of them too. She’s right to be concerned. Also, IMO, adoption is basically the rich stealing kids from poor people so I wouldn’t recommend participating in that system no matter how weird the situation. I know, none of my business. 
And your alternative would be?
Wow. That was all kinds of crazy. But on to the OP. Mommy could explain that she was just holding the other baby for someone until they could take care of it. Depending on the age of the siblings, the less information, the better. Young enough and they will understand that sometimes Mommy holds their ice cream cone until they’re done playing and ready to eat it, why couldn’t Mommy be holding someone else’ baby until they were ready to take it back? Older, and they just need to be told the truth – even if it’s a watered down version. Agreed that the kids should be assured that Mommy is not giving them away.
I would take the tack of saying that there was a man and a lady who really really wanted a baby, but they couldn’t have one themselves, so Mommy was helping them out and making a baby for them. I think that minimizes the fear issues - it was never “our” baby to begin with - and couches the whole thing in positive terms.
I’m going to second Athena- she said the same thing I was going to say.
Yeah, that’s probably the best idea; pretend it’s a surrogacy. My only fear is that bio-dad might one day make a fuss and blow Mom’s story, but I guess that chances of that harm are far less than the almost certain harm of the “giving the baby away” story.
Another vote for what Athena said. I’d replace the " man and lady" with “another daddy and mommy” though.
And I’d like to add that if the kids are young enough, (under 1,5 years) Mommy might try to get away with not mentioning the pregnancy at all. A sort of “as long as they don’t ask, I don’t tell” policy.
I was adopted. My parents were by no means wealthy. I’m rather glad I was raised in household that desperately WANTED a child but was incapable of having one rather than being stuck with my teenage birth parents who were not ready for children in any sense of the word. I was an “oops” and I’m glad that they decided to give me to family who was ready for kids. Money didn’t really play into it too much.
As to the OP: Go with the surrogate story, but be ready to be honest if they ask you point blank. This will most likely happen when they are old enough to understand.
I should clarify: the father of the pregnancy is not the father of the other two kids. It was a “surprise” (he wore protection and she was told she couldn’t get pregnant due to a medical issue). Apparently he was a bastard and will not be reappearing.
Wouldn’t the kids ask who the kid is anyway? I mean, at least one of them has to have seen Mommy getting bigger in the belly and so kinda know what’s going on.
How old are the kids? Preschoolers can be charmingly self-involved and oblivious to all else; any older and I’d expect they’d wonder what’s up.
Hal Briston’s wife just served as a surrogate for another couple, and he reported that their 2 year old was pretty disinterested, IIRC. She got a couple extra overnights with grandma and grandpa when Mom went in to deliver, but they didn’t need any longwinded explanations, last I heard.
ETA: Here’s Hal’s reply to my nosy question about what they were going to tell their daughter about the whole thing.
Nowhere is it written that 100% of her life has to be an open book to her children. Some things are private and beyond a very rudimentary explanation, she can choose to postpone with “You’re not old enough yet to understand.” Then of course she may need to reassure them that she loves them, they’re staying together, etc. Nonchalance may mitigate some of that damage, but who knows what she has already told them?
If nobody can improve on it, the surrogacy myth is the best I can think of. I don’t like lying (omission is better) but I don’t think she can have the baby and not bring it home without some sort of explanation. I rate surrogacy as a partial lie. True, there’s another couple that wants a baby very much, who will raise and love it. False, it wasn’t like this was planned all along. I think kids figure these things out but in many families, I think there’s a lie that everybody goes along with for the good of the team.
All that said, the children should also be coached that it’s a family matter and not to be discussed in public.
I agree–if they are under 4 or so they prolly won’t notice. My mom loves to tell the story of when she and I went walking one fine day, I about 4 years old, she about 8.999 months along. A friend of hers stopped us to chat and asked me if I had a new little brother or sister coming along. I replied “No, I have two kitties!” And I *know * my parents weren’t keeping it a secret–so a secret pregnancy should go by totally unnoticed.
Assuming the kids are young enough, mommy is just getting fat. And the kids don’t need to know she went to the hospital. Maybe she just worked out.
So those people on Sweatin’ to the Oldies were all just pregnant? :eek:
What’s the basis for even imagining that there is going to be and adoption anyway?
And what would be the purpose of the adoption? Look, the woman already has 2 kids. If she was childless and about to go off to college it would be one thing. But honestly, how much of a disaster would another kid be? Sure, it’s not exactly helpful, but she’s already a single parent. Financially, if she’s already got two, is one more really going to mean the difference between solvency and bankruptcy?
Not to mention the fact that although you describe the father as completely gone, that’s not a choice she can make for him, and it’s not a choice he can make for himself either. The kid deserves support from his parents.
Honestly, even if she considers the adoption angle, odds are slim that she would actually go through with it.
And I thought devout Christians saved themselves for marriage? If she’s a devout Christian, shouldn’t she be asking herself what Jesus would do? First thing, Jesus wouldn’t be sleeping with some random strange guy and getting himself pregnant. But suppose Jesus did get himself knocked up, what do you think Jesus would do in that situation? Complain that two kids were doable, but three kids are intolerable?
I think that your logic here is flawed; you seem to be saying that a kid is always better off with his/her biological mother, and that adoption is inherently a cop-out.
If this woman feels for whatever reason that she might not be able to support a third child, it’s both a noble and a wise idea to give the kid to someone who could. There are lots of couples out there who are desperate for children; I don’t see the “What would Jesus do” aspect of giving the kid away. If anything it’s a huge act of charity. I’m sure Jesus would want whatever is best for the child, if we’re really going to bring that up as a plausible argument against giving the baby away.
As for her Christianity playing a role into having the kid vs. aborting it…she might tell you that you don’t solve one sin by committing another. Lots of people do lots of stupid things; Christians may call them sins, and others may call them mistakes, but I think it’s small-minded to judge her quite so eagerly.
If I’d gotten pregnant, my first choice was giving the kid up for adoption, not due to lack of financial resources but because until a few months ago I was convinced I’d be a horrible mother (like my mother and hers) no matter how hard I tried not to; even, that the things in which I tried hardest would be the things in which I would screw up the most.
It isn’t always about a lack of money.