2-3-4 Challenge Book Discussions #1 discussion

We learned in earlier stories that single women could not adopt a child. Do you find it unusual that in many jurisdictions that’s still a barrier in present day? Why do you think that might have been a rule at the turn of the century? Did it make sense then?

It really made no sense then or now. More important would be whether the woman concerned had the means to support the child. I seem to remember that in England anyway until quite recently single people of either gender could not adopt because it was generally felt that children need a two parent family.

I’m with you, Phrynne. With so many children in need of a home and love, why deny women of financial means the opportunity? Is it better to leave them with no parents in search of two? We need some reality visionaries in the system.

I would imagine during this era that because it was so hard for women to make it on their own that no consideration was given that some could.

For so long it was deemed that a child must have two parents. Makes no sense to me. If one parent dies, they don't rush in and take the kid away.

Great point, Robin. Same with a divorce. The children may have two parents but they’re no longer in the same household.

In my country single parents still can't adopt. We must not have that many children in need of a family -.-

In Italy, Giulia?

Yes, in Italy.

I lived in Naples many years ago and remember visiting orphanages back then. Such a shame that such an old fashioned rule still exists.

In general the whole system'd need a good overhaul, but you know how politicians are...

*sigh* Sadly, I do.

It's discrimination plain and simple and has no bearing on the well being of the child.

In Israel, married couples are preferred but there are exceptions made in certain circumstances.

We do have a recent law passed in 2018 that same-sex couples can adopt now as well.

Well, that’s progressive, Lauren!

Strange how we haven’t progressed much in over 100 years with respect to adoption. Given that women tend to be the primary caregivers for children in a marriage, why would the perception be lesser just because she’s single? The alternative is to leave a child in foster care.

Nuts.

Jonetta wrote: "Well, that’s progressive, Lauren! .."

Yeah, we are progressive in some ways and not in others. Women's rights still suck!

We have really strong animal rights laws to the extent that there is a not so funny joke about being able to get away with killing your wife but not your dog :(

In the early 20th century women had very limited opportunities to support a child. It was difficult for a judge to award a child to a women who had to work, often much longer hours than a man, to make enough money to scrap by. If a woman couldn't afford to put a roof over her head, and food on the table, how could she afford day care. Although people left children alone more than they ever could today.

If a woman had children and her husband died, courts couldn't take her children, but they couldn't put another child in a potentially unsafe situation.

There was the belief that woman should stay home and care for their children. It would require a person to be very wealthy or married for that to be a possibility.

It is a shame that many states still feel the same way, but it is getting better.

I could see if that was more a practice based on circumstances but to make it a law is just sexist. There were many widowed women during this era that could sustain themselves.

Jonetta wrote: "I could see if that was more a practice based on circumstances but to make it a law is just sexist. There were many widowed women during this era that could sustain themselves."

So many laws are sexist, every time I think we are moving one step forward, we end up going back.