Find a Conversation
|Sun, 09-26-2010 - 9:20am|
Not really true although fabricated from true story...if that makes sense.
Man and woman have no children. They decide to marry and raise children together. The desire to raise children together, a particular way, is a large part of their reason to get married. They both agree that raising a child in an intact home is of primary importance to them. They agree to not only support the children but to support each other as they raise the children. Share driving to school. Split the time-off work when one a child is sick. Etc. They are now P1 and P2.
In a short time, P1 decides to end partnership w/P2 and start one another person (SP1). P1 moves long distance and, therefore, can no longer be a support to P2. P1/SP1 have a child and raise that child as if she's an only child (from another post) most of the time. Certainly, that child does not have to split xmas or summers. P1/SP1 are providing an intact home for their child.
P1 has EO Xmas, EO Thanksgiving, 6 weeks of summer custody visits w/first child.
P2 meets SP2. (Let's say that SP2 is perfect. Loves kid in every way.) SP2 wants to adopt P2's child. P2 wants to raise this child the way P1 promised P2 that child would be raised. In other words, P2 wants provide an intact family for child, the way P1 is providing an "intact" home for child w/SP1. P2 doesn't want child having to split xmas, thanksgiving between 2 homes.
THE DEBATE ISSUE:
P2 asks P1 to give up his rights so that SP2 can adopt. Child is 3.
Is P2 wrong for asking P1 to give up rights?
Would P1 be selfish for giving up his rights? Selfish for not giving up rights?