Babies switched at birth (RAR/poll)

[Broomstick]

The well being of the children is more important than the parents.

All children of poor families are to be removed and placed into state care and adopted to rich families.

The well being of the children is more important than the parents.

The major flaw with that line of reasoning is that more wealth does not automatically translate into better welfare for the children. One can be poor yet still be a good parent and provide for all the needs of one's children. One can be filthy rich and horrific, sadistic, neglectful parent.

[Alyeska]

The well being of the children is more important than the parents.

If the "well being" of the children is more important than the parents, those that are responsible for the child existing. Would it not be logical that the well being of these children is more important than my own well being? Since we are taking your argument to the extreme and considering no other well being before that of children, clearly I should be placed into indentured servitude to fully benefit the children so that my excess wealth funds the children.

[aieeegrunt]

The biological attachment thing is bullshit, especially for a child you've basically never seen. Any fool can ejaculate, it takes a man to be a father.

[Korto]

The biological attachment thing is bullshit, especially for a child you've basically never seen. Any fool can ejaculate, it takes a man to be a father.

You are aware there are two genders, right? Not just men?
Nine fucking months of physical and hormonal uproar, and for some it is very bloody difficult. Then during the last few months, you can feel the baby moving. You can feel when it's awake, when it's asleep. You can feel it react when you drink a glass of ice water. You have all these hopes, expectations, fears.
Finally, labour, which can take days. And a lot of pain.

No, no possibility of attachment there.

[Solauren]

I'd order joint custody, and then nail the hospital nursing staff to the fucking wall.

If it was possible, I'd have the children 'Rotate' between parents sets (keep them in the same school together), until the biological children are comfortable staying with the biological parents.

This could be a trick to pull off.

[Keevan_Colton]

Leave them with the parents they're with. Biology can go fuck itself in this case. I say this as someone who was adopted as a child, genes dont really mean jack shit when it comes to family. Seven years of living with someone caring for you however, does.

[aieeegrunt]

The biological attachment thing is bullshit, especially for a child you've basically never seen. Any fool can ejaculate, it takes a man to be a father.

You are aware there are two genders, right? Not just men?
Nine fucking months of physical and hormonal uproar, and for some it is very bloody difficult. Then during the last few months, you can feel the baby moving. You can feel when it's awake, when it's asleep. You can feel it react when you drink a glass of ice water. You have all these hopes, expectations, fears.
Finally, labour, which can take days. And a lot of pain.

No, no possibility of attachment there.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to men there.

[Mayabird]

The wrinkle in the given situation is that one family doesn't want the child that they have. He/she isn't 'theirs' and that's risking a lot of abuse on the child. Stepchildren are 40 times more likely to be abused than biological children because the adoptive parent doesn't feel any attachment, and that's with one biological parent to try to protect them. People can make themselves feel attachment, but that one family doesn't want to. It might almost be better for that one family to not have either kid and the other to have both, since the other is willing to keep the child they have, even if not biologically 'theirs' for the sake of the child.

[Keevan_Colton]

I'd have to agree with Maya on that front. When they actively do not want the child they have because it's not "theirs" then frankly they ought not to have a child to care for. Consider what it would be like to be seven and have your parents tell you that they're getting rid of you and giving you to strangers because you're not really their child...

[Alyeska]

I can understand why they never wanted the kid. They knew it wasn't theirs from the very moment this mistake got forced onto them. And no one would resolve the situation.

And then I hear people saying fuck biological attachment. So how about we mandate that hospitals just randomly hand out babies? Its no big deal, right?

[Junghalli]

And then I hear people saying fuck biological attachment. So how about we mandate that hospitals just randomly hand out babies? Its no big deal, right?

It's not that biological parentage counts for nothing, it's that to that child his adoptive parents are the only ones he knows, and you're proposing to take him from them and hand him over to people who are probably strangers to him. There's quite a big leap from that to "let's make it policy to randomly switch children around at birth for no reason".

[AniThyng]

For the purpose of curiosity, how *did* the children feel about it, at the time and after they reached adulthood and gathered the full story? I've read that people do manage to feel some attachment to biological relatives even if they've never previously met, but then again that might just be conditioning to expect it...

[Spoonist]

For the purpose of curiosity, how *did* the children feel about it, at the time and after they reached adulthood and gathered the full story? I've read that people do manage to feel some attachment to biological relatives even if they've never previously met, but then again that might just be conditioning to expect it...

In the documentary only one of the kids remained alive to tell his feelings of the happenings. While they had the other kids wife telling his story.

Now first a little background, that part of Sweden is one of the 'silent' parts where two hours worth of conversation could be all of ten sentences where half relate to coffee. So feelings aren't really wetted through and through.
Add to that that the kid who stayed never knew anything about the trials while the kid who got moved was told from the start up to being scared whenever he heard a car coming because they could be taking him away, which they eventually did.

For example there was a scene where the biological son (who got moved) visited his mom. Mom in her 90s and the son in his 60s. Turns out mom had saved letters and correspondance from back then which she had told him he would see when he grew up. "Maybe it was time now". So because of the journalist doing the documentary that is the first time they actually talk about what happened. That is also the first time she asks him whether he thinks she did the right thing.

But back to your question.
According to both the remaining 'boy' and the wife of the other 'boy' they both agreed with the decision. Neither 'brother' had discussed the events with each other.
But both kids showed signs of restlessness. One going to sea the other moving to a city very young. Also both got married early. It was also not until they had families that the wifes told them to take up contact with the family who lost their kid, which they did.

So I'd say that even the kid who got moved clearly loved his mom. With a lot of repressed feelings because of local culture.

[Keevan_Colton]

I can understand why they never wanted the kid. They knew it wasn't theirs from the very moment this mistake got forced onto them. And no one would resolve the situation.

And then I hear people saying fuck biological attachment. So how about we mandate that hospitals just randomly hand out babies? Its no big deal, right?

So long as they ended up with parents that actually cared for them, that wouldn't be such a terrible thing as you seem to want to imply it would be. The really important thing is that they don't end up with emotionally abusive assholes that apparently spent their time making the child they did have to look after understand clearly that they didnt want him. Perhaps you fail to grasp what a piece of human scum that makes the people in question, but to make a child suffer for the fuckups of others is frankly evil.

[Terralthra]

I can understand why they never wanted the kid. They knew it wasn't theirs from the very moment this mistake got forced onto them. And no one would resolve the situation.

And then I hear people saying fuck biological attachment. So how about we mandate that hospitals just randomly hand out babies? Its no big deal, right?

So long as they ended up with parents that actually cared for them, that wouldn't be such a terrible thing as you seem to want to imply it would be. The really important thing is that they don't end up with emotionally abusive assholes that apparently spent their time making the child they did have to look after understand clearly that they didnt want him. Perhaps you fail to grasp what a piece of human scum that makes the people in question, but to make a child suffer for the fuckups of others is frankly evil.

Have any evidence of this?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Have any evidence of this?

Of what? That children end up with abusive parents and it's important that they aren't put into a situation with such a couple?

Or maybe you just didn't read correctly and misinterpreted that as saying one of the couples was abusive?

[Terralthra]

Given that in his previous post in this thread, he said exactly that of the couple which wanted to switch the children to their biological parents, perhaps you should re-think which of us can't read correctly.

[Alyeska]

So long as they ended up with parents that actually cared for them, that wouldn't be such a terrible thing as you seem to want to imply it would be. The really important thing is that they don't end up with emotionally abusive assholes that apparently spent their time making the child they did have to look after understand clearly that they didnt want him. Perhaps you fail to grasp what a piece of human scum that makes the people in question, but to make a child suffer for the fuckups of others is frankly evil.

These parents knew from the very second they were given the wrong child. Take a wild guess what that did to their emotional attachment. They were given the wrong child and immediately complained. They were told "tough shit".

And your going to blame them for not forming an emotional attachment on a child they know isn't theirs when they tried to fix the situation immediately and repeatedly only to be rebuffed at every single avenue, for SEVEN YEARS.

Perhaps you fail to grasp what those parents went through.

[Purple]

Perhaps, but this can not be fixed. And it certainly can not be fixed by giving them both children and ruining their lives as well.
The most logical conclusion here would have been to take away their child for adoption and leave the other one with the caring family it already has.

[Spoonist]

@Keevan_Colton
If you are refering to the case in question and not generally then no the parents wanting to switch didn't mistreat their changeling son. Neighbours, kin of both family and the future wife of that kid all agreed that he was brought up lovingly and because of that was not told or hinted of the trials or any switch. Especially after the other family didn't agree to take him in.
As noted before they where raised as brothers after the trial was over. However the court could not know that would be the case, hence I left it out of the RAR.

With that said, I'd say that they seemed like a family where feelings aren't displayed or discussed. While the family who had to give up 'their' son seemed more the touchy feely kind of family with lots of hugs etc. So there could be all kinds of things under the surface.

As another note of interest which I skipped because it was not necessary for the RAR scenario. After the boys had married they resumed contact with the other family. After which they all spent holidays and christmasses together, as in both sets of parents plus the other siblings, and the two boys and their families. Something which the mother who pushed for trials said she would have done a lot sooner but all the governement officials and psychologists told them that it was better to have zero contact not to reopen any wounds.
As she was the only one left alive we don't know what her husband or the other parents felt.

[AniThyng]

I'm getting kinda confused here - you're saying in the real case, it ended up that the set of parents who wanted the switch ended up with both kids instead? huh?

[Spoonist]

I'm getting kinda confused here - you're saying in the real case, it ended up that the set of parents who wanted the switch ended up with both kids instead? huh?

Yes.

The final judgement came when the boys where seven. The boys would be forcibly switched back. However the parents who didn't want to switch refused to move 'their' kid so in effect just one boy was collected by police and put in a new home. So the two boys where raised as brothers.

[Zed]

From that sentence, I gather that the parents who didn't want the switch ended up with both children: they received one, and refused to give theirs up.

[Spoonist]

From that sentence, I gather that the parents who didn't want the switch ended up with both children: they received one, and refused to give theirs up.

Sorry for any such confusion. I can see how the sentence can be read either way.

The parents who wanted the boys to stay switched didn't want their biological child to be upset by a move and hence refused to take their biological child back even after the verdict. Since the parents pushing for trial wanted their biological son he was gathered by police. So the parents pushing for trial got both kids and raised them as brothers.

[Zed]

Thanks for that clarification!