Dear Prudence: Two on Child Custody

[minoanmiss]

First: My Girlfriend Put Her Little Sister in Foster Care When Their Parents Died.

Dear Prudence,

I have been dating “Rowan” for almost six months. I knew Rowan had lost her parents really young, but I just now found out she has a sister. Basically, their dad died in an accident when Rowan was 13 and her sister “Rue” was a baby. Then when Rowan was 20, their mom got cancer and died a year later. Rue was 8 and Rowan allowed her to be put in foster care. Rowan wasn’t in college or anything, she’d been working and supporting herself since 18. She says child services tried to place Rue with her, and she said no. She says Rue was a nice, normal kid and she didn’t hate her or anything. She just wanted to enjoy her twenties instead of raising a kid.

Rowan seems to think this was a totally normal and okay choice to make, and doesn’t get why I’m horrified. Currently Rowan and Rue are in touch but not close. Rue aged out of the foster system a year or so ago. She’s getting by on her own, although from the sound of things she’s possibly some kind of sex worker. Rowan doesn’t seem to want to discuss Rue. I can intuit, though, that Rue blames her for how hard her life was in the system and is now, but Rowan doesn’t accept that blame.

My biggest issue is I’m about 70 percent sure I’m going to want at least one kid in the next 10-ish years. Before I found out about Rue, Rowan had said she’d be down with that. But is there really any chance she’d be an okay mom? Do I need to worry about her abandoning our kid if something happened to me? How can I begin to talk to her about this? And should I even try? Or is someone who would do what she did, and still defend it years later, a terrible person I can maybe enjoy sexytimes with, but shouldn’t plan a long-term relationship?

— Aghast in Atlanta

Dear Aghast in Atlanta,

What Rowan did in her 20s isn’t necessarily an indicator of what she’d do in her 30s, should a kid enter the picture, but I don’t think the issue is about potential problems as much as it’s about current ones. You’ve got to ask yourself if this action is a deal breaker for you because it occurred, not because of what it connotes. Rowan has been through a lot and it’s hard, if not impossible, to put yourself in her mindset when she was 20. But the choice indicates a big difference in the ways that you two see the world. You owe it to yourself to ask if this difference is insurmountable. Now, you’ve only been dating six months and your potential kid is perhaps a decade away, so there’s a lot of ground to cover between then and now. But this incident is popping up as a red flag for you and you should work through it. This is tricky, because Rowan may feel that you’re using her personal tragedy against her. For this reason, it might be helpful to have this conversation with a couple’s therapist, who can help keep you both in the present, rather than the past or the future.

Second: I Think I’m About to Enter a Nasty Custody Battle … With My Mother.

Q. Older Sister: My mother “Stella” had me at 15. My grandparents raised me, and Stella was gone for most of my childhood. She got married when I was 15 and had my half-sister “Jane.” I went to school out of state and didn’t see much of Jane until her dad died when she was 10. Stella reacted poorly—she dumped Jane at my grandparents for four months without any contact. I moved back in to help with Jane. We got very close.

Stella showed up again and promised to seek grief counseling. What she actually did was join a support group and immediately remarry a widower with three younger kids. She adopted the younger two. Jane didn’t react well. She fought with everyone and even ran away once, and her grades tanked. And last month, I got a hysterical phone call from Jane…

Her stepfather hit her. I couldn’t reach Stella at all. So I drove five hours to get Jane. The right side of her face was completely swollen. I told Jane to pack a bag and come with me. Stella tried to stop me and “explain.” I told her Jane could come with me now or we could get the authorities involved. Jane has been staying with me ever since, and she wants to stay permanently. Her other grandparents live out of state and want Jane to live with them. Stella keeps making excuses about what happened and blaming Jane for acting out.

Our last conversation she told me I couldn’t possibly be ready to be a mother; I told her I couldn’t be a worse one than she was to me. I am not sure if I am ready for this. I live alone and work requires me to travel a lot. Jane needs security and supervision. We found a therapist, but summer is almost over. What should I do?

Your situation may not be an ideal one for Jane, but as you point out, it sounds like the best one available. For your part, you should make sure you have a strong enough support system to help you and to help Jane, if you two keep this arrangement going. For Jane’s part, you’ll want to reach out to the state to find out what your options are for obtaining custody. This would, of course, involve authorities, but you’re likely to find that that’s going to be your best option for accessing services, acting as Jane’s medical representative, getting her into school, etc. There are structures set up for situations like this—for instance, familial fostering—so see if you can take advantage of them.

Additionally, we had a question about guardianship come up last week and a few readers wrote in with information about guardianship assistance, which varies by state but which might also be able to help you and Jane. Here’s one website with information, with a big thank you to the reader who sent it in.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/adoption/adopt-assistance/?CWIGFunctionsaction=adoptionByState:main.getAnswersByQuestion&questionID=14

Comments

[conuly]

I hope that second LW took a picture of Jane's face.

[castiron]

LW #1: Rowan had no legal obligation to take custody of her sister. You seem to think she had a moral obligation to do so, but it's also reasonable for a 21-year-old to look at her life and say "nope, I'm not ready to take responsibility for a child." Rowan may have been self-supporting, but that doesn't mean she was financially able to support a child, even an older one that needs less childcare. Besides, if someone says they'd rather enjoy their 20s than have responsibility for a kid they didn't produce, do we really *want* to make them take that responsibility?

That said, there's a lot of space between "I am the legal guardian of this child with all the responsibilities pertaining" and "I have nothing whatsoever to do with this child". Did Rowan blow off her sister as soon as sister went into foster care, or did she make an effort to stay in contact? Did she reassess her situation every couple of years and actively decide that she still couldn't provide Rue a home, or was Rue never a factor in her plans?

And that said -- LW1, unless Rowan is utterly fabulous in every other way that matters to you, I'd skip the couples counselling and break up. If you'd been together for a couple years, counselling would make sense, but you haven't even been dating for six months yet. (But if you do want to keep up the sexytimes and you're a penis-haver, condoms condoms condoms. Don't risk creating a child with someone you don't trust to be a co-parent.)

[oursin]

I feel Rowan's mother dying of cancer, presumably throwing a huge weight of worry and responsibility on Rowan, when Rowan was 20 - was she 'working and supporting herself' or mother and sister as well, since she was 18? - might have factored in to the situation in ways he's not allowing for.

Though it's pretty weird (or maybe that's just me) to be thinking about 'offspring within the next 10 years' in the context of 'person I have been dating for under six months and whose family background I am only just learning about'.

[castiron]

This is also a good point about how Rowan's mother's death might have affected things; we don't know whether Rowan was financially and logicially supporting them and burned out, or whether she was largely uninvolved.

I don't think LW is specifically thinking "I want kids with Rowan within the next ten years", but more the general "I want kids within the next ten years" and weighing this relationship against that.

[cereta]

The first issue, or variations on it, used to come up in communities I frequented on LF for a while, including the one I more or less created this comm in response to,* cfabby_tribute (or some spelling like that). The scenario was usually thus: two resolutely childfree people marry, agreeing completely that there will be no children. A tragedy befalls a relative of one of them, leaving one or more minor children with no one to take care of them, or no one suitable, anyway. LW (usually the person with the minor relatives, but sometimes their spouse) is left in a dilemma in which, if they do not take the children in, they will either be put in the foster system or be left with someone who might neglect or even abuse them. The other member of the couple remains resolute in not wanting to raise or live with children. The person related to the children is horrified that their partner would let children go into foster care.

The advice, and the response of the communities to it, was often...interesting. There were situations like a wife resenting her husband choosing to raise his teenage granddaughter where even most of the more vehemently childfree (not to be confused with VHEMT childfree) were basically, "Suck it up, buttercup" (or was that one posted here? Why is time?) There were other situations where people were clearly conflicted between compassion for the children and compassion for an adult getting put in a position that they absolutely never wanted to be in and had taken all the right steps to avoid. But I don't remember there being many comments that just casually dismissed the children; there seems to be a strong enough (and accurate) cultural understanding of how deeply, deeply fucked up pretty much every system set up for caring for children with no suitable or willing parent or guardian that almost everyone is a little squirmy about consigning children to those systems. (See the reaction to the LW from what, a week ago, who just left his daughter to be raised in foster care.)

That, to me, would be the real red flag with Rowan: not what she did then, but how she understands it, and what she's doing about it, now. I mean, it's easy enough for me to feel righteous about having agreed at 20 to be the potential guardian of my (much younger) siblings. It would have drastically changed my life, but not in a way that was incompatible with who I wanted to be, if that makes sense. Plus, I never had to do it. I could get over someone making what I at least perceive as a selfish decision (YMMV) in their early 20's. But to not seem to even see the repercussions of that decision, let alone regret it, now, is just...not something I think I could reconcile myself to.

TL;DR: I think LW needs to have at least a few sessions of individual therapy to figure out where they stand and why they stand there before they try to engage with Rowan about it.


*When I say, "in response to," I basically just mean, "so I could have a place to discuss advice columns in general that didn't center on/specifically privilege childfreedom," obvious reasons being obvious.

[cimorene]

That, to me, would be the real red flag with Rowan: not what she did then, but how she understands it, and what she's doing about it, now.

Same! Of course, your romantic relationships are up to you so LW doesn't have to be able to explain to themselves why, they just have to know if they want to stay together or not. BUT if they are concerned about ethics and empathy, I think Rowan's current understanding of the situation and whether they acknowledge the hardship and regret what happened to their sister is the big issue. Like an above commenter said, although it's understandable for people to react with horror in situations like this bc we all know about the foster system, nobody can have a moral obligation to raise a child, and even if they could, people who didn't want to do it would still likely make terrible parents, meaning it would often be bad for children and we don't really want them to? If Rowan definitely did not want to raise (a) her sister or (b) any child at all, the likelihood that she'd have been a good parent is low. We can't know if Rue would have been better off or not, and it's completely possible that Rowan hasn't told LW the whole story - nor do they have an obligation to.

[cereta]

I always kind of cringe when the word "obligation" is used in these situations. What creates an obligation? Do we have any? I mean, you could turn it around in the other direction: does a partner who entered into a marriage with the explicit understanding that it would be a childfree relationship have an "obligation" to refuse custody of children? Does taking marriage vows create an obligation? Does having a child create an obligation? Is it the deliberate act on the part of an individual that creates an obligation? Why am I suddenly imitating Tucker Carlson?

For me, "obligation" is kind of beside the point. There are plenty of things that many if not most people would agree I have no specific "obligation" to do that I think, if I want to consider myself, am invested in considering myself, a good person, I really should do, from holding a door open for an elderly person to, in this case, taking in my siblings if the only other option had been foster care. They weren't my kids; I didn't make a choice to bring them into this world. I still helped take care of them after my dad died, and I still would have taken responsibility for them if my mom had died or otherwise not been able to take care of them while they were minors. And I would still have considered myself kind of a shit person if I hadn't, or at the very least, if I had let them go into a bad situation rather than do so.

(I mean, speaking personally: do my siblings have an "obligation" not to constantly give me low-grade crap at family gatherings? Probably not, but I think doing it makes them lousy people, and I've decided I don't have an "obligation" to be around them anymore.)

Again, YMMV, but as you say, your relationships are up to you. If LW is horrified by Rowan's actions, and more importantly, horrified by her current feelings about and actions related to those past actions, then LW should at the very least sort it out before committing any further, and should probably just end things before they get any more committed at this point.

[cimorene]

Yeah, I guess I meant like... obligation in the sense of a reasonable expectation within an ideally healthy reciprocal relationship? IDK. I think it isn't a useless concept for those, but I'll admit the fuzzy definition (legal, moral, ethical, enforceable...) makes it tough. LW is reacting more likely to their own emotional sense of what the right thing to do would be, and 'obligation' is the wrong word for that for sure, you're right. But it's also probably not a good idea to continue as partners, let alone co-parents, with someone whose actions and perspectives are even somewhat horrifying to you.

[minoanmiss]

Personally I think your siblings have an obligation to not treat you like crap 1) as fellow human beings and 2) because you're awesome, but I have Opinions. *hugs you*

[lilysea]

I REALLY disagree that Rowan had any ethical obligation or moral obligation to take in her siblings, or that she should feel bad now about not doing so.

We *all* have an certain level of obligation to *all* children in our society, which we should respond to by

- paying taxes

- voting for candidates with policies that provide a social safety net to children

- notifying the relevant authorities if we know that someone is harming children

- having laws that prevent environmental hazards to children

- fighting for children in Flint, Michigan to have lead-free water

- fighting for gun control to help prevent school shootings

and so on,

but Rowan didn't have any special obligation to her siblings just because they were her siblings

She didn't CHOOSE to get pregnant, she didn't CHOOSE to deliberately sign up to foster/adopt

I see it as part of a continuum with women having the right to have an abortion - no one should be able to demand that you rear children *who aren't even your children*

[cereta]

As I said, I don't like the word "obligation," precisely because there's no consensus on what creates it. There are many, many, many people who disagree with your assertion that we have any obligation to any children except our own; see a very large chunk of the people who are running the U.S. right now. As far as they're concerned, my decision to have a child shouldn't obligate them to pay any taxes toward her education, her health care, her mental health, reliable and regular food, or a roof over her head. There are plenty of people, people I know, people who consider themselves moral and ethical people, who, despite having gotten their own education at the expense of their area's homeowners and other taxpayers, think that not having children of their own means they shouldn't have to pay the taxes that fund education. And that's a pretty moderate position these days.

You obviously disagree with those ideas. I disagree with the idea that Rowan should not at the very least have been a regular, reliable, dependable presence in her sister's life, and that it says nothing about her as a person that she never, at any point over the course of ten years, chose to give Rue a home. This wasn't a decision she made once when she was 20. It was a decision she made every single day over the course of a decade. She made it when she was 20 and 25 and 28. She made it when Rue was a young child that maybe Rowan wasn't ready to care for and would have been an unsuitable caregiver for, but she also made it when Rue was 12 and perfectly capable of making her own school lunches and staying home alone on a Friday night so Rowan could go out with friends. Please don't mistake me: I am really not trivializing what it takes to care for another person at any age. But unless Rowan, or the LW, is withholding information, Rowan didn't make that choice at 25 because the then-13-year-old Rue had some kind of special needs that she felt inadequate to support her through. She made it because she just didn't want to. You don't have a problem with that. I do. It's not the kind of person I would have wanted to be, and I don't think it's the kind of person I could spend the rest of my life with.

And hey, I'll even own some hypocrisy, here: I have people in my life, people I care about very much, who don't share the values and ethics you and I apparently do, that we have any obligation at all to the children in our society. And maybe if I had actually been called on to raise my siblings, it would have been more than I could have done. God knows they drove me up a goddamn wall when I was in charge of them. But I like to think I wouldn't have left them in a situation I knew was less than I could have given. It's not about "obligation." It's about the kind of person I want to be.

And again: you disagree. That is fine and fair, and I would certainly rather my child grow up in a society run by people like you than by those who think it would be cool to leave her homeless or hungry or uneducated if her father and I couldn't provide a home and food and education. But the idea that if something happened to us (and between having lost a parent at a young age and being in piss-poor health, I am keenly aware of that possibility), the other adults in her life wouldn't be willing to make some sacrifices to make sure she had a good, safe home until she was able to provide that for herself gives me cold sweats. I know that's never going to happen, but I know it because, in addition to people who would want to take her in, there are people in her life who would even if they don't particularly want to be parents, and would provide her with a good home, because that's the kind of people that they are.

[tielan]

Well said.

[castiron]

LW #2: What I'm missing here, and what the columnist seems to be missing: Why aren't the other grandparents an option? Is it because they're out of state? Does LW know something about them that makes them say "nope"? Does Jane hate them?

With LW's current work situation involving frequent travel, maybe living with her grandparents and getting regular visits from LW would be a more stable setup for Jane, at least until LW can build enough of a local support network to have someone trustworthy to care for Jane when LW's away.

But other than the travel, LW sounds like they could be a good guardian for Jane. LW obviously cares about Jane, and Jane wants to stay with them; LW has a healthy dose of "OMG I'm not ready for this" but sounds like they're willing to try their best for Jane.

[melannen]

My guess is actually that first set of grandparents is physically or otherwise not capable of taking care of Jane, which is why LW moved back in to help when she was dropped there. (But also I can understand Jane not wanting to go back there, if they happily put her in the hands of an abusive stepfather and weren't a safe port of call for help with him.)

[castiron]

Yep, from this letter I can gather why Jane's maternal grandparents aren't an option. It sounds like it's Jane's paternal grandparents are the ones who want to take her in, though. (And LW might not know anything about them -- they're not LW's grandparents).

[cimorene]

Yeah I thought that was a bit missing. I guess from the context of the letter that Jane has told LW she prefers to stay with LW, but it's possible they would still be a good (or a better, practically speaking) option.

[melannen]

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant the *other* other grandparents. :D

I think the paternal grandparents *are* an option, just not Jane's preferred option, the letter says they've offered. LW is trying to decide if following Jane's preference here is the better idea, but I don't think there's any implication that if LW says no the paternal grandparents aren't the next choice.

[pauraque]

So, my mother died of cancer when I was 21, and I actually did take custody of my younger brother. At the time, I did feel morally obligated, because he didn't have anywhere else to go. (Our dad was alive, but we had minimal contact with him and he specifically told me that he did not want to take my brother in.) The situation isn't exactly the same--my brother was a teenager, not a little kid--but I don't think I would have felt able to choose differently even if he'd been as young as Rue was. If my brother had gone into foster care I wouldn't have been able to live with the guilt.

I guess I've never considered whether people think what I did was obligatory or if they would have perceived me negatively if I'd made another choice. I've only ever thought about it from the inside. Would I distrust someone who'd allowed their sibling to go into foster care? Not necessarily. It's a shitty situation that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I can understand facing that and feeling scared and overwhelmed, or seeing yourself as so unprepared and incapable that you conclude your sibling might be better off in foster care. Sometimes in life you have to make hard choices you never anticipated, and you might not handle them perfectly but maybe it was the best you could do at the time.

But LW is making it sound as though Rowan didn't find the choice hard and doesn't even think about whether what she did was right even in retrospect, which would make me raise an eyebrow if it's true because it makes it sound like she just doesn't care how her choices impacted Rue at all. It's possible to make a tough call and still have empathy for people who were affected by the consequences.

[minoanmiss]

Thank you a lot for chiming in here. I had been wondering what someone who faced a decision like Rowan's would have thought, and I really value having your perspective on this.