A 16 year-old girl in Texas has won her lawsuit. Against her parents.
They were pressuring her to have an abortion and she wanted the child to live. The discussion locally seems to be what responsibility the grandparents-to-be must incur. My question is, "Why is this a question?" The parents countersue if necessary, but they should tell the girl, "you put that baby up for adoption and never see it, or you can get a damn job and you and your 17 year-old STUD can support YOUR baby. If you neglect or can't support it, we'll call CPS and you'll lose it like you should have in the first place."
How hard was that?
Yes, I am a stone-hearted bastard. I know. Cry me a river about familial attachments. Those parents obviously failed somewhere along the line, but it is not their financial responsibility to support their grandchild. Their child, yes, for another year or two.
Children (in America these days) are not emotionally prepared to care for their own children, and the law forbids them from having enough hours at a job to support children financially. Therefore, children should not be allowed to be "parents" to a baby of their own. The grandparents have a moral responsibility to care for their own children, and to advise them as to what is the most responsible course of action in any case.
By far and away it is much, much better for a baby to live with a married couple who are financially able to spare enough money to pay all the birth-mother's medical bills as well as responsible enough to jump through all the hoops required to do a private adoption. There is exactly NO benefit to the young mother to even so much as see her baby after it is delivered. Any attachment, any 'open' relationship, is only going to cause hurt and confusion. A clean break is best. Cut the cord, mark up the Apgars, and hand the baby off to its new family. Done and done.
If the child insists on keeping the child and rearing it as her own, it is her own. She wants to be an adult, she can go out and hustle up enough money to make it happen, and demand her stud do likewise. That puts THREE young people on a path toward near-certain poverty and an early divorce, with the attendant broken family for a child who did nothing to deserve the suffering in its future. A truly responsible grandparent will, when they see their baby relative living in sub-standard conditions, keep a sharp eye out for any *legal* excuse to remove the child from the care of its so-called parents. If they can get a good solid CPS report in when the child is under two years old, the odds for a fast adoption go way, way up, and the baby would never rememeber its birth family at all.
Yes, it means deep emotional suffering for the young mother. That is to be expected. Some things can't be fixed - normal emotions included.
What, that's not cold enough? How about she should have kept 'em crossed and this whole mess wouldn't have ever happened. How about attaching studboy's wages for the next 18 years, to be paid to the State child support system (because he's probably inclined to disappear as soon as possible).