Sometimes, the past can come back in unexpected and complicated ways. For this woman, her decision to give up her son for adoption at 16 has led to a confrontation with her ex, Mike, who is now demanding a chance to be a father.
Despite his abandonment of her during the pregnancy, Mike is now lamenting his lost opportunity, and some of his family members are placing the blame on her.
This woman, who has since moved on and built a family with her husband and step-children, has made it clear that Mike is no longer a part of her life. But is she being unfair for denying him a chance to be involved, or is she simply protecting her son’s well-being after years of absence? Read on to see how she handles this emotionally charged situation.
The poster gave up her son for adoption at 16, and now her ex wants to be involved, but it’s too late
The legal and social reality of adoption and biological parent rights is often very different from how it feels emotionally and both sides of that disparity matter when thinking about whether the OP was in the wrong.
Legally, once an adoption is finalized by a court, the biological parents’ rights are normally terminated, meaning they no longer have legal authority over the child, including rights to custody, visitation, or decision‑making, unless a specific agreement is made at the time of the adoption or the adoption is overturned for legal reasons such as fraud or duress.
Once that surrender and finalization happen, adoptive parents assume full parental responsibility, just like biological parents would. The role of the biological parent in the child’s life becomes a matter of pre‑existing agreements (if any) and what the adoptive family and child are comfortable with, not a legal entitlement.
In many jurisdictions, even when open adoption plans, where birth parents and adopted children maintain contact, are put in place, they are not legally enforceable unless specifically written into the court order at the time of adoption.
Open adoption arrangements (like exchanging letters, photos, visits) depend on the agreeing parties, usually including the adoptive parents, birth parents, and sometimes the adoptee’s preferences as they age.
Psychological research on post‑adoption relationships shows that continued contact with birth family members can be beneficial for some adoptees, helping with identity, heritage, and emotional wellbeing.
However, it also notes that such contact needs to be safe, supportive, and in the child’s best interests; contact that is driven by biological parent demands rather than the adoptee’s wellbeing can be destabilizing.
In long‑term follow‑ups, many adoptees have contact with birth parents, but it often decreases with age and is most beneficial when managed carefully and with adoptive parent support.
On the emotional side, adoption decisions are incredibly significant and birth parents often experience complex feelings of loss, grief, and reflection long after the fact.
Some literature even explores how birth mothers may carry unresolved emotional pain, sometimes referred to in adoption discourse as the “primal wound,” though this concept is debated, because the child they relinquished is still alive and their biological connection remains.
But feeling loss doesn’t equate to having a legal or moral right to dictate the adoptive family’s decisions, especially when the adoptive family is stable and nurturing.
In this scenario, the OP’s choice to not share contact information or facilitate a relationship between Mike and the adopted son isn’t legally wrong.
After finalization of the adoption, birth parents typically lose both the legal rights and the automatic authority to be involved in the child’s life unless specific contact agreements were part of the adoption order.
Psychologically and socially, many adoptees do maintain contact with birth family if all parties agree, but it is by choice and negotiation, not something that can be imposed years later just because a biological parent suddenly reappears.
So the OP’s decision, to protect the adopted child’s stability and uphold her boundaries as the child’s legal, day‑to‑day parent, is aligned with both legal framework and widely accepted practice in adoption arrangements.
The pain and judgments from others are understandable on a human level, but that doesn’t mean her decision was legally or ethically wrong in the context of her family’s life and her son’s wellbeing.
Here’s the comments of Reddit users:
These commenters emphasize that the OP made the right decision and that Mike is at fault for abandoning the family
This group suggests taking legal action, such as reporting Mike’s harassment to the appropriate authorities and warning the adoptive family about his behavior
These users praise the OP for their strength and generosity in giving the child up for adoption
These commenters suggest going public with Mike’s past actions
Was the mother right to deny Mike’s involvement, or is there room for reconciliation in the future? Share your thoughts below!
