Moments ago I saw a news bit concerning a woman who gave up her child for adoption, a handful of years ago, in a "distressed emotional state." The quotations aren't for satire, but it was the only justification the mother offered. Now she wants the child back. She's sueing the adoption agency, who is standing their ground to represent the adoptive parents.

It's tough both ways. A lot of people would say it's the most unatural thing in the world for a parent to be kept away from their biological child. But despite us all knowing about adoption, is it not exceptionally unnatural to give up your child by sheer choice in the first place?

If I had to say yes or no to the biological mothers plead, I'd say no: Can you actually pry that child from the parents who did in fact accept it, ultimately, reversing the adoption process? How do you explain this to the child? Do they not have a say in it? The predictability of the child simply wanting to stay with the parents it knows by no means lessens the significance of the childs opinion on the matter. By any standard the adoptive parents have done nothing wrong. Can you actually reward the mother for giving up her child, especially at the expense of those who did the right thing? I must say, you can't. This seems even worse than keeping the mother from the child she wants back. To me at least.

I'd say to anyone who claims she deserves her child back: Note that the her new cause is resulting in a new effect. In the light of her obvious history, you must ask, does this woman have a problem grasping the consquences of her own actions? Is she not playing the same game yet again, this time, at the expense of even more innocent people? How far can she take this habit, if the legal system continues to support her? Is this a quality of a healthy parent?

G Bara