In this particular case the child was given away willingly by the parents, last year to the Godman because he wanted o make the child his successor . They probably changed their decision due to grand parents or other family pressures.However, Chote Sarkar the Godman cannot be blamed for this since the adoption deeds were signed by the parents themselves !

There are many cases in different religions where leaders adopt children, including the Pope and the Holy Imam and even among Jews , so why point fingers at this poor God man who only wanted a successor and the parents willingly agreed to give the child away for adoption ?

usha manohar wrote:

In this particular case the child was given away willingly by the parents, last year to the Godman because he wanted o make the child his successor . They probably changed their decision due to grand parents or other family pressures.However, Chote Sarkar the Godman cannot be blamed for this since the adoption deeds were signed by the parents themselves !

There are many cases in different religions where leaders adopt children, including the Pope and the Holy Imam and even among Jews , so why point fingers at this poor God man who only wanted a successor and the parents willingly agreed to give the child away for adoption ?

I am opposed to adoption of children by any god men- Hindu, Muslim or Christian. I just commented on the news. The children are best brought up by parents. The godmen should appoint as successor only some grown up person instead of picking a child. This practice is against child's right to grow naturally and decide his career when grown up.  

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

In this particular case the child was given away willingly by the parents, last year to the Godman because he wanted o make the child his successor . They probably changed their decision due to grand parents or other family pressures.However, Chote Sarkar the Godman cannot be blamed for this since the adoption deeds were signed by the parents themselves !

There are many cases in different religions where leaders adopt children, including the Pope and the Holy Imam and even among Jews , so why point fingers at this poor God man who only wanted a successor and the parents willingly agreed to give the child away for adoption ?

I am opposed to adoption of children by any god men- Hindu, Muslim or Christian. I just commented on the news. The children are best brought up by parents. The godmen should appoint as successor only some grown up person instead of picking a child. This practice is against child's right to grow naturally and decide his career when grown up.

I am agree with you, A child can grow much better with his/her parents than any third person. 

 

Ideally a child should be brought by its parents but there are always exceptions and it happens in many cases, nt just godmen, even celebrities and Industrialists adopt other children when they have no children of their own so that they have someone to pass on their empire !!! .. Something similar happened here but the parents had second thoughts and probably wanted to bring up their child themselves !

It is only the parents who are supposed to and SHOULD raise their child, only if for some reason they are unable to or have passed on, the child should be raised by the next of kin- desirably the grandparents from either side of aunt, uncle etc. Giving a child away to supposed God men or women is a mark of stupidity and blind faith, which happened in this particular case. But thankfully, the parents later on realised their mistake and now the court too has ruled in their favor.

God man can never be a good alternative to whom a child should be given for adoption. It's basically a harsh decision but thank God the parents changed their mind for the good.

usha manohar wrote:

Ideally a child should be brought by its parents but there are always exceptions and it happens in many cases, nt just godmen, even celebrities and Industrialists adopt other children when they have no children of their own so that they have someone to pass on their empire !!! .. Something similar happened here but the parents had second thoughts and probably wanted to bring up their child themselves !

Yes it is right that person who have not child adopt children, but the adopt children of nearest relative or an orphan one.

It is not always possible to do that and one may have to adopt an unknown child. This happens with most people who want to adopt, they end up getting poorer children who need a home or orphans ..

Adoption is a great deed but a very sensitive issue because it has to be handled very carefully not only at the beginning of the adoption process but throughout the life. It actually helps both the sides, the parents and the child, and they really feel blessed. 

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Ideally a child should be brought by its parents but there are always exceptions and it happens in many cases, nt just godmen, even celebrities and Industrialists adopt other children when they have no children of their own so that they have someone to pass on their empire !!! .. Something similar happened here but the parents had second thoughts and probably wanted to bring up their child themselves !

Yes it is right that person who have not child adopt children, but the adopt children of nearest relative or an orphan one.

I agree with you. Adopting an orphan will be a deed of Social service. The parents are satisfied on two counts. One is having the satisfaction of bringing a child in to their homes. Other is the satisfaction that they did something to the society.