A 21-year-old woman recently posted on Reddit to ask for advice about her predicament. Her husband's 26-year-old sister, a drug addict, died, leaving behind two young daughters, ages six and nine.
The nieces' grandmother can't take the girls as she's busy caring for their grandfather, who has cancer. The grandmother wants this woman and her husband to become the girls' guardians.
But that's the predicament: this woman doesn't want to. Yes, her husband is the girls' biological uncle. Still, she claims neither of them has any experience with children. "We don't have the time, and we're simply just not parent material."
She even cites how she lacks the "sensitivity" to be a mother. She claims the girls would have a better life in foster care.
She says this even though she and her husband have the extra space and the financial resources available to become the girls' caregivers.
She posted on Reddit to ask whether she was in the wrong for not wanting to assume care of the girls.
To figure out the answer to this question, we should first ask whether it's true that these two young girls will have a better life in foster care.
Research suggests that children placed in foster care experience a higher level of instability and disruption than those placed with relatives. Children in foster care often frequently change homes and caregivers.
As a result, they often end up developing issues with trust and have difficulty maintaining healthy relationships in their future lives.
Transitioning to independence as they age out of the system can also be challenging. These problems continue to affect them in adulthood.
Therefore, it isn't correct to say that these girls will be better off in foster care. Conversely, research shows that placing children who've lost a parent with a relative can be much better for them.
Going to live with a family member provides a sense of familiarity and stability for the kids. It offers the opportunity to maintain relationships with biological family members.
In many cases, relatives may be better equipped to meet the children's needs and provide more personalized care due to their existing relationship and knowledge of the children's history.
Redditors who answered this post agreed with the assessment that these girls would be better off going to live with their aunt and uncle. The consensus was that they probably would not do well in foster care.
One user said:
We finally adopted a child who had been run through the foster care ringer. It's very, very difficult to help children who have been rejected over and over and passed through numerous homes. Imagine their pain at knowing [their] family doesn't care.
Another wrote:
[The girls] won't be better off in the system. They'd be worse off, especially as girls who aren't younger than four. ...The system ain't nice and many bounce from an abusive home to an abusive home until they're kicked out at 18.
If this woman and her husband could just open their hearts a little and take in these poor girls, they'd be performing an incredibly good deed. They could ensure that these girls grow up in a healthy, happy home and go on to become functioning, well-adjusted adults.
But then again, if this woman and her husband don't want to take his nieces in after they lost their mom, then maybe it's for the best. The home wouldn't be loving.
But I still pity these two little girls who have lost their mother and have such hateful family members.
What do you think? Is this woman and her husband being selfish for not wanting to take in their young nieces after their mom died? Or should they not be blamed for not wanting to take on the responsibility? Let me know in the comments.
Please also consider buying me a coffee. I'm a single mom supporting two kids on my own and the proceeds of your generosity go toward helping them.