I have a confession to make. I am an avid reader of personal advice columns. When I read those published generations ago, I feel that they provide a great insight what life was really like in those days--and what the prevailing norms were regarding what was considered right and wrong. Contemporary advice, by the likes of Carolyn Hax and Jeanne Phillips ("Dear Abby"), provide similar sociological fodder. In addition, they allow me to play a little game. I first read the question and ask myself what I would counsel, and only then read the advice the columnist gives. I am often stymied. The advice columnists "solve" most difficult problems by sending the reader to see a shrink.
Anyhow, I was reading the Carolyn Hax column the other day. A woman wrote that she was asked by her sister to serve as the guardian for her sister's kids in the event of her and her husband's death. The woman refused on the grounds that she and her husband did not want any children of their own, but she was troubled by the rift her refusal caused in her relationship with her sister.
Carolyn Hax took my breath away when she pronounced that responsibility for children lies with the parents, and that extended family are under no obligation to accept this responsibility for themselves. (She did, however, note that this is not the case in many cultures, but asked if, even in these cultures, it would be in a child's best interest for a guardian to accept the responsibility only because of societal pressure.)
She added that the sister who refused to be the guardian had her reasons for making the choice, even if they were reasons others may deem selfish, and the sister with the children should accept that choice. She also rejects the notion that only option is that family takes responsibility or the children go to foster care, as guardians do not have to be family.
As I see it, family bonds do lay obligations on the members for the good of one another. We are not--to our siblings, parents, children--like causal acquaintances, and even friends have some obligations to their friends. Indeed, the very essence of the family is that its members do things for one another they feel they ought to do, even if they do not enjoy them. True, agreeing to take in someone's children is a very big commitment, but it typically merely entails providing a peace of mind for the parent. If death does strike, it does call for heroic measures, for the sake of the children.
In my view, even if the refusing sister is so hostile to children that she truly cannot take care of them, she still should accept the guardianship, with the understanding that she will make other arrangements for the children and ensure that these work better for the kids than her home. Family is more than chicken soup. I would love to hear what others think, would do, or have done.
**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue.
Amitai Etzioni is a professor of sociology at The George Washington University. For more discussion, see Security First (Yale 2007). For more, go here: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html. He can be reached at icps@gwu.edu
A girl I knew in college told me a story about a night when there had been a huge fire at a convention center and her parents were feared dead. Her aunts and uncles had divided up the siblings between them by the time her parents got home. They were absolutely livid that the children had been split up after having presumably just lost their parents. The aunts and uncles had torn away what little stability the kids were going to have left.
As to the question: "Do We Have Inalienable Responsibilities to One Another?" Yes, people that don't feel that (not think that mind you), are called sociopaths.
If my brother had children, I would be thrilled for him because he was happily honoring his life choices. I would expect the same respect from him in regards to my life choices and would never expect him to ask me to do this.
That being said, if there was literally NO ONE who could take his children, I would take them before EVER putting them in foster care. But...I would expect him to ask every single other appropriate person before me.
Finally, suggesting as the author does, that you should accept the children and then fined other arrangements for them is appalling. I would not lie to my brother about where his children will be after he is gone and substitute my judgement for his.
Now, if a family member feels unable, in good faith, to live up to those responsibilities (toward communication, security, guidance, companionship, etc.--that familial intimacy without violation of anyone's rights), that family member should either seek help or guidance to be able to do so, or accept that he/she is not really a member of that family anymore. As long as the two conditions, of intimacy and inalienable rights, are met, the responsibility remains inalienable from the family member.
Consequently, people take responsibility according to the depth of their love. On one end we have Buddha, Gandi, Jesus, Mahavira, and on the other... well I'm sure you have many examples of your own.
If something happened to me or my husband, we would not want my family to be primary caretakers for them. As it is, we limit the interactions we have with them. That, of course, makes me the "unhealthy" one in my families eyes.
Sometimes, when the blood that is thicker than water is actually blood that can choke you, water becomes a very good substitute. We have friends named as guardians to our children in our will, and I am confident that would provide my children the best support for a good outcome if something were to happen to their parents.
Angela
In my opinion, the point is that a more fundamental principle trumps family ties here, by all accounts: a child should never (ever) be given to someone who explicitly has made up his or her mind that children do not fit into their lives or time-schedules. And it doesn't matter at all what we think of such a mindset. It is entirely irrelevant whether we find it sad or discouraging that someone makes such decisions about their happiness.
The point is that you cannot force people into wanting to raise children. As simple as that.
And just to top it off - at the risk of alienating some of those who responded here:
of course such children would be much better off if they were raised by a gay or lesbian couple seeking children to adopt. In particular since these would be children who could be asked before a decision is made, since they already have a reasonable age.
Very obviously, an even more fundamental principle is that children should never be forced against their will into a particular foster family. But that's clear.
When will we see that we're all in this together, and what injures one, injures the rest of us?
Our families (parents, siblings, friends) give us love and support as we grow up and through adulthood. Don't their children deserve the same?
Yes it may take a huge rearrangement of our lives, schedules, and finances, but the benefits stretch down through generations.
The bottom line would be that those children would be better off in foster care.
It has of course always been the case that there are many persons who are not prepared to assume any burden not directly and obviously beneficial to them.
However, what makes this case especially chilling Ms Hax publicly backing up the woman's choice. Apparently Ms Hax thinks this is an acceptable norm... How alienated can our society get?