Not sure is this is a question, an issue, or a relationship situation, but to me, it's a real "Sophie's Choice," or apparently it was one at the time. In my opinion, the problem could still be remedied, but let's see what you all think. It's really long, so quit now if you want, or plow on if you dare.
My spouse, BJ, has a best friend with whom she goes way back, into the 60s. I'm changing all the names here. "Sandra" and "Peter" had one child, a daughter, "Adele." Adele would probably be diagnosed as developmentally disabled today, but that diagnosis was pretty much unheard of back then. Sandra feels it's her fault because she smoked and drank while pregnant, although they didn't know better then. Now it seems obvious, but it wasn't at the time. So Adele was "slow" and not very well socialized. We might call her a mouth-breather. Anyway, Sandra and Peter spent themselves into debt on tutors, special classes, extra-curricular stuff, cultural enrichment out the wazoo to get this kid socialized and educated enough to be a decent citizen.
Too bad it didn't work out! After $80,000 on a private two-year college and a very expensive culinary arts school, Adele graduated to currently hold two jobs: nursing home chef and a cook in a casino. And of course after she finished her schooling and went to work, she started having idiot relationships with scumbags and wound up pregnant. She married the guy in her 7th month or so. Come to learn he's a drug user/pusher. Cleverly, 11 months later she has another child. Child two, in a less than healthy womb, has developmental disabilities. Anyway, cops arrest dad, Adele basically abandons kids while she goes off searching for sex. The kids are babies. The neighbors report her.
Along comes the state. They tell her they will take the children from her, unless her own parents, Sandra and Peter, intervene. The state judges Adele an unfit mother with anger management and employment problems, and she smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish. She can't be left with the boys or the state will remove them to foster care.
Sandra and Peter do intervene. They become guardians (at 62 and 71 years of age). They renovate their house to accommodate all five people. They can't retire. They are now the de facto parents of these kids, now about 5 and 6. All the childcare falls on them because Adele is unfit. They never get a break any more. If they want one, they have to have Adele's permission to bring in an approved caretaker they hire at their own expense.
Turning the clock back, I'd say "Let the state deal with these kids" and wash my hands of it. Adele didn't care, her idiot husband didn't care. But S and P cared and now look.
What would you have done? Take the kids in, effectively ruining your later years, or let them go? What would you do now? I assume they can still be awarded to the state. If Sandra or David lose their health, that's what will happen anyway. If they live until the youngest turns 18, they will then be 75 and 84 years old. I think this will kill them long before they get that far.
Well I think all of us here would be like HELL NO. I mean we can't even begin to fathom being parents so to think about what we'd do with grandchildren, at least for me, is just too far out. I'd let them go and try to have a life. I know my parents would take the kids if I were Adele, but dad is obsessed with having grandkids and wants kids again yadda yadda so he'd love it.
It's hard to say, I have no idea what it's like to be a parent let alone a grandparent.
I think if they were a little younger and Adele was not in the picture at all, the childcare issues would be a little easier. Who cares if a caregiver meets her requirements or not when she is an unfit parent? Why are they taking care of ADELE- the adult daughter? Shouldn't she be getting the real help she needs?
It sounds like the kids would be better off in just about any situation where their unfit mother isn't. Whether that is with a foster family, an adoptive one or grandparents doesn't seem to matter. The issue is that the parents are now taking care of 3 children - their grandchildren and Adele.
Clearly they need assistance with the situation but it seems to be dumping the kids isn't necessarily the answer. They shouldn't feel ashamed to ask for help either, clearly they've done a lot of work and just are not up to the task of raising 2 young children and one "adult" who acts like one.
I think if I'd have given birth to and raised a developmentally disabled person, I would be so far on a different planet than the one I'm on now, I wouldn't even know which way was up. If that child proceeded to make bad choices and reproduce, I think I would have no other choice than to take the grandkids in... People who don't abort or abandon their developmentally delayed kids usually have a heart and a patience that I don't, and they usually value family pretty high.
For some people, their grandchildren are very precious to them, no matter what kind of a fuckup their kid wound up being.
My husband and I are not legally bound at this point, but we face the real possibility of having to deal with T's mentally disabled brother procreating (we can't force a vasectomy on him). We've already decided that should his brother manage to have a kid, we'll never take over parenting responsibilities and will absolutely let the matter go to the state (assuming the woman's family doesn't take up the cause) without so much as blinking.
Having said that, I'd like to think I could let the state take over in a case like what you described, but I imagine it's a lot different when you're talking about the progeny of your own child--especially if one feels guilty about the way her child turned out, as it appears Sandra does.
If I wanted make a human being from scratch, it would be a serious commitment for my entire life. If that kid turned out to be mentally disabled in some way and irresponsibly made some kids and was fucking up their lives, I would have to step in and take care of my grandchildren no matter how much it would suck for me. It's not their fault they were born, it would be mine. That's the chance you take when you reproduce. There's no way I'd let the grandchildren suffer under a shitty parent (my own kid) or be turned over to the state, which is a horrible thing for a child.
The thing is, I don't want to have to make that sort of commitment, so I don't have any kids. That's only one reason I'm CF.
What an awful situation for all concerned! I don't know what I would have done had it been me. Actually, I probably would have had an abortion in the first place when I conceived Adele. Failing that, I would have pressured Adele into having abortions because she is clearly an unfit mother and has no business reproducing and passing on her disability. That movie "Idiocracy" is dangerously close to coming true.
All that said, sounds like the parents are doing the "right thing" as they see it. The kids are already born and someone does have to take care of them. Turning those children over to foster care would not guarantee them a good life, as there are many problems in that system.
"It's not their fault they were born, it would be mine. That's the chance you take when you reproduce."
Brilliant, Anastasia. I couldn't agree more.
I'd have to agree with the majority - I'd likely take them in. For me it would come down to the fact that they are family. Direct family - not just marginally related. People feel pretty strongly about their grandkids. They aren't likely to let them go into the foster care system.
Having Adele was the first and most dreadful error. One thing, though, as soon as they realized Adele was never going to be normal, they stopped, or I should say, they had no more, deliberately. Sandra's drinking and smoking (and we're not talking an abnormal amount of either, here, just the standard social drinking and pack a day habit of the times) may indeed have made Adele what she is today, which is, to answer a poster's question, unable to live on her own as an adult at all, let alone be a parent. She is over 40 now and no one can "make" her get help, as far as I can tell. But I will ask BJ why they don't just demand custody and get rid of Adele from the picture. She is still causing problems and costing money. If they could just get her out, they could make something of a life with the boys. I think Sandra is trying to "atone" for what she may have done to Adele while pregnant, by taking on the kids. But again, they didn't understand what damage could be done in utero at that point.
Anyway, I'll let you know what I find out. That's a really good idea about booting Adele.
Jo Wrote:"It's not their fault they were born, it would be mine. That's the chance you take when you reproduce."
Brilliant, Anastasia. I couldn't agree more.
ITA which is one in a long list of reasons why I don't have kids. I know the chances of giving birth to a child with developmental issues is slim, it's still a chance and it's a chance I'm not willing to take.
Having said that, I'm not a parent and therefore will never be a grandparent so I can't pretend to understand what either party is dealing with.
I wish them all luck though.
What Anastasia said, and everyone is quoting. My fear of having a child with a problem is one of the top reasons why I never had any. I know I would barely have the patience for a normal child, but one with issues? -- I'm deathly afraid I'd turn into one of those violent horrible people, or turn to alcohol to escape from the hell of my own making.
But yeah, if I had one, and if they had one or more, and it was within my power ot help them, I'd feel very much obligated to do so. Yet another reason not to!
So I asked a few more questions. They COULD boot Adele, but then they would feel guilty, because they feel they are responsible for how she is. If she is put out on her own, she will probably make bad decisions until it kills her. Luckily, she was convinced to get her tubes tied after the second child.
They have had her to counselling and therapy and so on, and she has been put on medication, but she won't always take it.
If they become the sole providers, they will lose the money the state gives to Adele because she is a low income earner. I don't see how this is a problem, because without Adele, they don't have to PAY for Adele. There is also some other legal complication that occurs if Adele is no longer in the picture. However, at the same time, there is general agreement among all agencies that Adele is no good for the boys, and is probably actively bad for them. So this is a paradox to me.
BJ is supposed to speak to Sandra over the weekend, so maybe I can find out more. BJ hates to call (or be called) because they are always exhausted and miserable, but she maintains the friendship to be supportive. And there's always the huge relief that we never allowed ourselves to get into such a god-awful mess.
Well of course they would feel guilty, but any way you look at it they are going to feel guilty, in fact, it seems that guilt got them in the mess of choosing to care for the grandkids and Adele in the first place- right?
They need to stop pressuring themselves to be perfect parents and grandparents and admit the situation is more than they, or almost anyone, can handle. There's no shame in that and there shouldn't be any guilt either. It sounds like they were loving parents who tried their best and that's a lot more than most people get.
If Adele isn't good for the boys then either Adele or the boys need to go. Adele needs to know this is what is going to happen, otherwise she has no motivation to get better as long as her parents keep paying for everything for her and the kids. It's time to set some serious ground rules and consequences and *stick to them.*
I have a minor update to this. Sandra likes to be a martyr, center of attention, and super-woman. So in addition to atoning for her in utero issues with Adele, she now gets martyr credits for raising her grandsons. The only thing I still don't get is, why they keep Adele in the picture. She is way more trouble than she's worth. I'm still working on the answer to that. The obvious solution is to keep the boys, lose Adele, pay less overall and still get Brownie points for being such long-suffering, good grandparents. Not sure how Adele fits in the picture.
Wow, what a crazy situation. A friend of mine is going through something similar, though she is a lot younger (43 yo). I can't imagine dealing with something like that when I'm near retirement age!
If it were me, I'd have to admit that it's more than I can handle. If the kids go to a foster home, chances are the grandparents will be allowed to visit with them. Personally I'd boot the lot of them out--probably best that I never had kids. LOL
I think we finally got the definitive answer to all this. Sandra and Peter had Adele tested recently and discovered she is barely normal, as well as bi-polar. She can't be let out on her own, because you see what happened. If they keep her in their house, she will take her meds and go to work. If they try to get her into a half-way house, it probably would end in a worse disaster. I think I already said her tubes are tied, so I guess they're thinking, drugs, alcohol, accidents and so on. They don't want to have to live with it if she goes off into some trauma or oblivion or whatever. Their current plan: stay healthy and live long. Good luck with that, is all I can say.
This is a really tough decision. A lot of grandparents are now raising their grandchildren, sadly, it's becoming quite common. I have Asperger's Syndrome... part of my reason I'm unsure about having children.