a parent's cost-benefit analysis
--------------------
--------------------
i received this forward a few days ago and thought about posting it then... it seems all the more poignant after the Ontario government's decision to remove the tuition freeze for post-secondary education... also, i just watched Losing Isaiah, an interesting movie about parental and custody "rights" (i bracket that because i think it is ultimately unhelpful and misguided to conceptualize the issue as a matter of "rights" -- this puts the focus on the battling custodians, instead of the child, who is transformed by such terminology into a "thing" to be "possessed")...
my own take, given the facts of this particular story and the larger socio-political questions raised, is that litigation shouldn't have been the first step -- as in many things in life, it would have been better to discuss the issue and attempt to resolve the dispute outside of the legal environment... however, seeing as it did end up in court, i would say that the case for the birth mother's "rights" wasn't particularly strong -- i just can't see how it's in the child's "best interest" to be uprooted from a stable environment to recreate a theretofore non-existent relationship... there's a case to be made for visitation privileges and perhaps some form of joint custody arrangements for a parent who has given up (in this story, literally abandoned) a child out of necessity or duress, but that shouldn't mean an onus is placed on the adoptive parents to have to establish their legitimate custodial interest... again, if we conceptualize this from the perspective of the child's "best interests", the only reason to exclude a previously absent parent from his/her life is if there is a reasonable and foreseeable risk of harm (conceived broadly) from the "new" relationship... (then again, i haven't taken a course in family law... moreover, this movie just made me realize more that i could never practice in that area)... however, the debate is all the more complicated by the reality that parties to such disputes don't really think "reasonably" -- given the emotional weight of the issue, it's probably naive and too idealistic of me to think that we can resolve these disputes by "just talking" (much of "family law" probably wouldn't exist otherwise if people were "reasonable" about their personal disputes)...
although it's understandable that the complexity of the issues can hardly be fully canvassed in a 90-minute Hollywood production (and, let's be honest, this is far from a simple debate), Roger Ebert's critique is quite apt: "The movie has been carefully written so as not to offend the opinions of anyone in the audience. No matter what side you are on, you will find your viewpoint expressed. The filmmakers apparently have no firm ideas of their own about the rightness and wrongness of the alternatives (why did they make the movie?), and the conclusion is worthy of Solomon in the way it dispenses understanding and love on all sides while finding a solution which, although it does allow the movie to end, really solves nothing."
my own take, given the facts of this particular story and the larger socio-political questions raised, is that litigation shouldn't have been the first step -- as in many things in life, it would have been better to discuss the issue and attempt to resolve the dispute outside of the legal environment... however, seeing as it did end up in court, i would say that the case for the birth mother's "rights" wasn't particularly strong -- i just can't see how it's in the child's "best interest" to be uprooted from a stable environment to recreate a theretofore non-existent relationship... there's a case to be made for visitation privileges and perhaps some form of joint custody arrangements for a parent who has given up (in this story, literally abandoned) a child out of necessity or duress, but that shouldn't mean an onus is placed on the adoptive parents to have to establish their legitimate custodial interest... again, if we conceptualize this from the perspective of the child's "best interests", the only reason to exclude a previously absent parent from his/her life is if there is a reasonable and foreseeable risk of harm (conceived broadly) from the "new" relationship... (then again, i haven't taken a course in family law... moreover, this movie just made me realize more that i could never practice in that area)... however, the debate is all the more complicated by the reality that parties to such disputes don't really think "reasonably" -- given the emotional weight of the issue, it's probably naive and too idealistic of me to think that we can resolve these disputes by "just talking" (much of "family law" probably wouldn't exist otherwise if people were "reasonable" about their personal disputes)...
although it's understandable that the complexity of the issues can hardly be fully canvassed in a 90-minute Hollywood production (and, let's be honest, this is far from a simple debate), Roger Ebert's critique is quite apt: "The movie has been carefully written so as not to offend the opinions of anyone in the audience. No matter what side you are on, you will find your viewpoint expressed. The filmmakers apparently have no firm ideas of their own about the rightness and wrongness of the alternatives (why did they make the movie?), and the conclusion is worthy of Solomon in the way it dispenses understanding and love on all sides while finding a solution which, although it does allow the movie to end, really solves nothing."
--------------------
The government recently calculated the cost of raising a child from birth to 18 as $160,140 (USD) for a middle income family --- and that doesn't even touch college tuition!
But $160,140 isn't so bad if you break it down.
Still, you might think the best financial advice is don't have children if you want to be "rich." Actually, it is just the opposite. What do you get for your $160,140?
For $160,140, you never have to grow up. You get to:
That is quite a deal for the price...
--------------------
But $160,140 isn't so bad if you break it down.
- $8,896.66 a year
- $741.38 a month
- $171.08 a week
- a mere $24.24 a day
- just over a dollar an hour
Still, you might think the best financial advice is don't have children if you want to be "rich." Actually, it is just the opposite. What do you get for your $160,140?
- naming rights --- first, middle, and last!
- glimpses of G-d every day
- giggles under the covers every night
- butterfly kisses and Velcro hugs
- endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm cookies
- a hand to hold, usually covered with jelly or chocolate
- a partner for blowing bubbles, flying kites
- someone to laugh yourself silly with, no matter what the boss said or how your stocks are doing
- more love than your heart can hold
For $160,140, you never have to grow up. You get to:
- finger-paint
- carve pumpkins
- play hide-and-seek
- catch lightning bugs
- frame rainbows, hearts, and flowers under refrigerator magnets
- collect spray painted noodle wreaths for Christmas
- make hand prints set in clay for Mother's Day, and cards with backward letters for Father's Day
- never stop believing in Santa Claus
- keep reading Charlotte's Web
- watch Saturday morning cartoons
- go to Disney movies
- wish on stars
You get to be immortal. You get another branch added to your family tree, and if you're lucky, a long list of limbs called grandchildren and great-grandchildren. You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal justice, communications, and human sexuality that no college can match. You have all the power to heal a boo-boo, scare away the monsters under the bed (and POLAR BEARS!), patch a broken heart, police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love them without limits.
That is quite a deal for the price...
--------------------
posted by þΛųL jØŋαŦhΛŋ @ 17:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home