Wrong baby - would you swap back?

[tkingdoll]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7030000/newsid_7030500/7030543.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1#

The video link about has details of a story about two Polish couples who have discovered that they took each other's baby home by mistake.

The two children are now ten months old, and the parents are arranging to swap them back.

This got me thinking - what would I do in their place? And, if I would swap back, what would be the cut-off age after which I wouldn't?

I think it would be heartbreaking, but given that we don't retain any memories of our first three years, three would probably be my limit.

But then that raises another question - say you find out that you have the wrong child after five years. Are you and the children better off carrying on as if nothing happened, or would you let the children be involved in each other's lives, with regular visits and so on?

It's one of those rare hypothesis where I can't even imagine what I'd think or do. I wonder what posters with kids will think of this issue compared to those like me who don't have any?

Thoughts?

[TragicMonkey]

The only option is for both families to move in together and raise the kids as siblings. It'll be a nontraditional household, sure, but if two parents are good four must be better, right?

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm sure I'd be anxious to give the kid away long before ten months had gone by.

[HawaiiBigSis]

Hmmm... an interesting question.

First off, I'm not sure that three years old is any kind of "magic" age for memories. I have a memory that my mom claims dates back to my being 18 months old (based on the clothes I remember wearing, as well as the event). My son has no memories at all of his early childhood, before he was about nine.

I have also heard that certain types of development are completely accomplished by the age of two, others by the age of six, and some by the age of 12. Given the importance of some types of early learning in later developmental stages, it might be critical to me that my child be raised with the values that only I could impart.

I suppose it would also be important to consider whether or not blood relationship is the only relationship that binds; and I don't believe that for one instant. I believe I could love a child who isn't related to me as much as I could love one who is, or is only partly. This is a question many adopting parents face.

My practical solution would probably be to switch the children back, regardless of the age, but to adopt the other parents as aunties and uncles, and have the other parents be interwoven in their lives. Let the adults figure out when it's no longer essential to be part of the children's lives -- if ever.

And I'm grateful I've never had to face such a thing.

[Ryokan]

At ten months, I would swap. If the kid was much older than that, say maybe around 18 months or two years, I wouldn't.

Unless the other baby was much prettier, of course. And it probably would, since it would be mine :p

[Mashuna]

Can you swap back, then arrange for extensive funding for a nature/nurture experiment. Or at least a reality TV programme?

[tkingdoll]

Can you swap back, then arrange for extensive funding for a nature/nurture experiment. Or at least a reality TV programme?

ooh, if it was twins which were swapped, you could swap one of each pair back and run the experiment quite nicely!

HawaiiBigSis, the three year memory thing is just an average, although a psychologist friend of mine is adamant that any baby/toddler memories are invented. A guy I know has no memories before the age of 12. I find that quite weird, it must be disconcerting. I can remember my first day of school, I lost my green bangle and cried all morning til I found it again in my coat pocket.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Even if a kid isn't forming permanent memories wouldn't you think that at 10 months the kid recognizes it's mother? (ETA or I guess I should say the person who has been mothering).

[Complexity]

Let's be biblical...

Cut each in half, swap halves, and paste 'em together.

Sort of like having your cake and eating it too...

So much for biblical.

I like TM's proposal. Both of the traditional swapping and not-swapping answers have problems. Don't forget that parent/child bonding goes both ways and happens quickly and powerfully.

I wonder if Heinlein has been translated into Polish?

[tkingdoll]

Even if a kid isn't forming permanent memories wouldn't you think that at 10 months the kid recognizes it's mother? (ETA or I guess I should say the person who has been mothering).

Sure, but it's not going to remember that it had another mother when it's older.

[Wheezebucket]

The only option is for both families to move in together and raise the kids as siblings. It'll be a nontraditional household, sure, but if two parents are good four must be better, right?

According to the sitcom Sister, Sister, this is a workable option. It's a slightly different scenario, but it still checks out.

TGIF

[RecoveringYuppy]

Sure, but it's not going to remember that it had another mother when it's older.
I guess to be pragmatic it would be best to compare this situation to children who have to be adopted at 10 months, or whatever age, for other reasons. That would tell you what affect this might have on a child.

[tkingdoll]

I guess to be pragmatic it would be best to compare this situation to children who have to be adopted at 10 months, or whatever age, for other reasons. That would tell you what affect this might have on a child.

Yeah, that's sort of how I arrived at my 'three' figure, although I admit I haven't read any research on this. I will do a little Googling tomorrow. But it's not particularly comparable to adoption because of course in this scenario the child is being returned to its biological parents. The reverse of adoption, I suppose.

The psychologist in the video link in the OP says that the first year of a baby's life is extremely important, but doesn't say in precisely what way it would affect the later development of the child. There must be some decent lit on this out there though. How much would a baby deprived of its natural mother until ten months old really be affected once it has adjusted back?

[The Atheist]

Yeah, that's sort of how I arrived at my 'three' figure, although I admit I haven't read any research on this. I will do a little Googling tomorrow. But it's not particularly comparable to adoption because of course in this scenario the child is being returned to its biological parents. The reverse of adoption, I suppose.

The psychologist in the video link in the OP says that the first year of a baby's life is extremely important, but doesn't say in precisely what way it would affect the later development of the child. There must be some decent lit on this out there though. How much would a baby deprived of its natural mother until ten months old really be affected once it has adjusted back?

Ten months is a tricky age - childcare centres dislike taking babies from 6-20 months when they start at childcare because the bond with the mother has been strongly formed by that time and it takes a lot of adjustment.

I'd want to find out as much as possible of the effects on later development - if any - before deciding to swap. I'm pragmatic enough to choose what's best for the child rather than me. The suggestion on comparison of adoptions is good - there must have been sufficient kids orphaned at the same age to get a grip on it.

[TragicMonkey]

According to the sitcom Sister, Sister, this is a workable option. It's a slightly different scenario, but it still checks out.



I've never seen it, but is that the one that gave refuge to Jackee as she fled the Eighties? Ooooooh, Maaaaaary! She was awesome.

[RecoveringYuppy]

But it's not particularly comparable to adoption because of course in this scenario the child is being returned to its biological parents.[snip] How much would a baby deprived of its natural mother until ten months old really be affected once it has adjusted back?
Do you think there is some innate recognition of a biological mother by a child? My take on this is that returning the child is depriving it of the only mother it knows about.

[Kaylee]

Hmmm... an interesting question.

First off, I'm not sure that three years old is any kind of "magic" age for memories.

I agree. Two of my oldest memories date back to the same day when I was either 14 or 26 months old.

--

I couldn’t help but think of the toll on the couple’s marriage and the impact on the babies’ siblings also.

Per the article: http://www.knbc.com/news/14277157/detail.html (http://www.knbc.com/news/14277157/detail.html) (I couldn’t access the BBS web site for some reason.):

The father secretly (my emphasis) took a paternity test after his friends picked on him because the girl did not look like him.
It turned out they were right; the child was not his.

The mother insisted the baby had to be his, but her own DNA test proved she wasn't the mother, either.

It turned out that they were given the wrong baby at the hospital when she was born.

So as a result of the hospital’s mistake, one of the fathers thought that his partner was guilty of infidelity. That was his first thought; not that their baby had been switched with someone else’s baby. This suspicion has got to have a big impact on a long-term relationship; hope it survives.

Also, think of the brothers and/or sisters involved, what is this situation going to do for their sense of security and trust? What a nightmare.

I agree again with HawaiiBigSis that probably the best way to handle it is for the families to stay in touch. And I’m also grateful that I never had to face a situation like this.

I’ve no idea what I would do in their situation. I know that bonding with a newborn happens quickly, but the sense of love and loyalty to one’s own offspring must be very powerful also. I admire some of the poster's responses about how they would try to consider what would be best for the babies. If it happened to me, I would probably feel a fierce visceral response and want to keep them both. I think I would have a very difficult time thinking cooly and calmly about it. What a nightmare!

Hope the hospital kicks in for some counseling – I bet the families could use it.

ETA: I was able to view the BBC video later. It doesn’t look like the baby’s father had bonded with her. It’s hard to size up the situation just based on a few seconds of videotape, but my guess is that he always had his doubts and he is happy about the outcome.

The video mentioned that the families intend to switch the babies before their first birthdays and plan on getting acquainted with each other this weekend. Interesting that while they agreed to switch back their daughters, they apparently don’t plan to do so immediately.

[shalomsteph]

The baby should do fine...as long as it was loved and cared for during that ten months.

What if the baby had been abused or neglected? Could the non-abusive parents then claim both children? I would have a rough time turning over a child-even non-biological-that I had raised for ten months if I knew the parents were neglectful. I wonder how that would work?

[qayak]

I agree. Two of my oldest memories date back to the same day when I was either 14 or 26 months old.

--

I couldn’t help but think of the toll on the couple’s marriage and the impact on the babies’ siblings also.

Per the article: http://www.knbc.com/news/14277157/detail.html (http://www.knbc.com/news/14277157/detail.html) (I couldn’t access the BBS web site for some reason.):



So as a result of the hospital’s mistake, one of the fathers thought that his partner was guilty of infidelity. That was his first thought; not that their baby had been switched with someone else’s baby. This suspicion has got to have a big impact on a long-term relationship; hope it survives.

Also, think of the brothers and/or sisters involved, what is this situation going to do for their sense of security and trust? What a nightmare.

I agree again with HawaiiBigSis that probably the best way to handle it is for the families to stay in touch. And I’m also grateful that I never had to face a situation like this.

I’ve no idea what I would do in their situation. I know that bonding with a newborn happens quickly, but the sense of love and loyalty to one’s own offspring must be very powerful also. I admire some of the poster's responses about how they would try to consider what would be best for the babies. If it happened to me, I would probably feel a fierce visceral response and want to keep them both. I think I would have a very difficult time thinking cooly and calmly about it. What a nightmare!

Hope the hospital kicks in for some counseling – I bet the families could use it.

ETA: I was able to view the BBC video later. It doesn’t look like the baby’s father had bonded with her. It’s hard to size up the situation just based on a few seconds of videotape, but my guess is that he always had his doubts and he is happy about the outcome.

The video mentioned that the families intend to switch the babies before their first birthdays and plan on getting acquainted with each other this weekend. Interesting that while they agreed to switch back their daughters, they apparently don’t plan to do so immediately.


So this leads into another question: What if the father had bonded with the child and found out in five or ten years that the child was not his but was his wife's?

I have asked several friends this after such a case was in the news and they all said they would divorce the wife and abandon the kid. Now, I may divorce the wife depending on the relationship at the point that I found out but I could never abandon the kid.

[rjh01]

I suggest that the babies remain where they are. The parents have access rights to their real children. Maybe even get called Aunt.

But really whatever solution the mothers agree is best, is best.

[tkingdoll]

I agree. Two of my oldest memories date back to the same day when I was either 14 or 26 months old.



I know psychologists who have done extensive memory studies and will tell you that memories of being 14 months old is impossible, and 26 months highly unlikely. Memory is about as unreliable a thing as you can get, and the older the memory, the less likely it is to be real. I thought I had memories of being in my pram, and was very annoyed at any suggestion that I had distorted or mixed later memories to create a new one. However, reading the literature, it does seem that that is the case. Our memories are precious, though, and it's difficult to accept that they might not be real.

Do you think there is some innate recognition of a biological mother by a child?

No. I will see if I can find any literature which covers this, but I find it unlikely that a newborn can recognise one fuzzy blob as its mother over another. By what mechanism is it doing this? Telepathy?

However, a ten-month will of course recognise the woman who has mothered it for its whole life. I don't think that has anything to do with being biologically related though.

[bluess]

As an adoptive mother, I can say that 'blood' wasn't an issue. But then, I was willing to adopt, so probably never was an issue. I did get an number of snot-a$$ comments from total strangers about an adopted child not 'really being yours'.

I would think that if both families were loving, that you could swap the babies back to their biological families. I don't know if I could do it....and I bet the legal issues regarding responsibility for child rearing costs are nightmarish.

I do have a complete idiot of a cousin-in-law who decided their sixth was obviously not his, as he had had a vasectomy. Yep, had a paternity test once the baby was born. And found that he hadn't done the appropriate post-surgery follow-up care, and the baby was his. I still haven't figure out how my cousin took the moron back.

[juryjone]

So this leads into another question: What if the father had bonded with the child and found out in five or ten years that the child was not his but was his wife's?

I have asked several friends this after such a case was in the news and they all said they would divorce the wife and abandon the kid. Now, I may divorce the wife depending on the relationship at the point that I found out but I could never abandon the kid.

I suggest that the babies remain where they are. The parents have access rights to their real children. Maybe even get called Aunt.

But really whatever solution the mothers agree is best, is best.

Reading these posts, back to back as they were, really bothered me. It seems to be the impression that fathers can't or won't bond with the child. They shouldn't be considered in the decision because, heck, if their sperm wasn't involved, then the kid is a non-entity.

I'm an adoptive father, and when my ten-month-old daughter was placed in my arms, there was instant bonding. She was my child, and I would defy anyone to try to take her from me (or actually us, since my wife felt the same way).

As to the OP, I would most definitely not trade. That might be expected, since, as an adoptive parent, I'm more of a nurture over nature kind of guy. But it worries me to think that there are so many parents out there who would be so willing to blithely give up the child they had reared its entire (short) life. Granted, the child might not remember that bond, but the parents should. IMHO, if they're doing the parenting thing right, severing that bond should feel like ripping a limb off with your bare hands. (By the way, I'm not trying to imply that either of the posters I quoted feel that way.)

[bluess]

Juryjone, I think you and I are on the wrong end of the spectrum. I'm still not sure how Blue2's lack of blood connection is supposed to mean anything - family is in the intent and action.

[Kaylee]

Reading these posts, back to back as they were, really bothered me. It seems to be the impression that fathers can't or won't bond with the child. They shouldn't be considered in the decision because, heck, if their sperm wasn't involved, then the kid is a non-entity.

I'm an adoptive father, and when my ten-month-old daughter was placed in my arms, there was instant bonding. She was my child, and I would defy anyone to try to take her from me (or actually us, since my wife felt the same way).

As to the OP, I would most definitely not trade. That might be expected, since, as an adoptive parent, I'm more of a nurture over nature kind of guy. But it worries me to think that there are so many parents out there who would be so willing to blithely give up the child they had reared its entire (short) life. Granted, the child might not remember that bond, but the parents should. IMHO, if they're doing the parenting thing right, severing that bond should feel like ripping a limb off with your bare hands.



Juryjone, I hear what you are saying. However, I watched the BBC video and I got the impression that the father did not bond to his daughter -- perhaps because he had not accepted her as his daughter since, well at lest starting since he decided to go for the DNA test

If that is true I would think she would be better off if she was swapped to her biological parents.

[Kaylee]

As an adoptive mother, I can say that 'blood' wasn't an issue. But then, I was willing to adopt, so probably never was an issue. I did get an number of snot-a$$ comments from total strangers about an adopted child not 'really being yours'.

I would think that if both families were loving, that you could swap the babies back to their biological families. I don't know if I could do it....and I bet the legal issues regarding responsibility for child rearing costs are nightmarish.

Interesting, but I'm not sure I agree. Why wouldn't costs above and beyond the basic care and maintenance costs be considered something completely at the discretion of the parents who spent the money and therefore their responsibility? IANAL, and I assume that you aren't either but I'm still curious why you think it could be an issue.

I do have a complete idiot of a cousin-in-law who decided their sixth was obviously not his, as he had had a vasectomy. Yep, had a paternity test once the baby was born. And found that he hadn't done the appropriate post-surgery follow-up care, and the baby was his. I still haven't figure out how my cousin took the moron back.
Yikes!

And in regard to the OP I'm still flabbergasted that the father decided to take a paternity test on the sly. I think he should have said something like "I think our daughter got swapped with someone elses -- she doesn't look like us or our other kids. Lets take some tests."

It seems to me it always would be more logical to at least pretend that you think you can trust your partner. If it turns out that the baby was switched in the hospital -- no damage was done to your relationship with your partner. If it turns out that in fact she did cheat and have an affair -- well the truth would still come out.

So I don't understand why the mother is still staying with the father either. Anyone else feel this way?

[Kaylee]

I know psychologists who have done extensive memory studies and will tell you that memories of being 14 months old is impossible, and 26 months highly unlikely. Memory is about as unreliable a thing as you can get, and the older the memory, the less likely it is to be real. I thought I had memories of being in my pram, and was very annoyed at any suggestion that I had distorted or mixed later memories to create a new one. However, reading the literature, it does seem that that is the case. Our memories are precious, though, and it's difficult to accept that they might not be real.

My curiosity is piqued although I'm not convinced, at least not yet. ;) If you want to start a thread that includes some links to the available literature I would definitely read it with great interest!

Aside from being curious about what the reasoning is, I think it would be interesting to find out how far back the folks at JREF think they can remember. Anecdotal I know, but still interesting! :)

[qayak]

Reading these posts, back to back as they were, really bothered me. It seems to be the impression that fathers can't or won't bond with the child. They shouldn't be considered in the decision because, heck, if their sperm wasn't involved, then the kid is a non-entity.

I'm an adoptive father, and when my ten-month-old daughter was placed in my arms, there was instant bonding. She was my child, and I would defy anyone to try to take her from me (or actually us, since my wife felt the same way).

And I was responding to Kaylee's impression that the father had not bonded. I never said fathers couldn't or wouldn't. I am a father three times and a grandfather once (soon to be twice) and bonding with children is no issue for me which is why I asked the question.

What difference does bonding make to the equation? It makes no difference except to the person who didn't bond. If the wife was my daughter or sister, I would have advised her to dump the loser but I do think it is important that the mistake be identified for obvious medical reasons.

And to tell you the truth, I don't know what I would do in the same situation because I would instantly feel that both children were mine for different reasons and I would view the other couple the same way. I think I would work toward making arrangments for both families to be involved in both children's lives. As long as if didn't ever become a competition of course.

[Beth]

This got me thinking - what would I do in their place? And, if I would swap back, what would be the cut-off age after which I wouldn't?

It's one of those rare hypothesis where I can't even imagine what I'd think or do. I wonder what posters with kids will think of this issue compared to those like me who don't have any?

Thoughts?

I think this is one of those situations where even if you think you know how you would respond, you might be surprised by your actual reactions. It would be an awful situation, because I would love the child I'd cared for all those months and she would love me. To switch would be very hard emotionally for all of us.

On the other hand, one of the tremendous kicks out of parenting for me, and for many other people, is to see ourselves in our children. You don't have to be a biological parent to experience this, but biological parents experience it in unexpected and often delightful ways that adoptive parents can't. Not just the expected eye color and skin color and hair color and shape of the earlobes kinda stuff, but weird subtle things you don't expect to be heritary but some aspect of it is. I see myself in my son in his obliviousness to social cues of others. He is as clueless about social interactions as I was at his age, and in the same ways, and makes similar mistakes. I see it in the way he runs, his awkward gait bringing back some surprising memories of my own awkwardness at atheltics. I didn't experience as many of these things with my daughter, because she reminds me far more of my husband than me in those subtle mannerisms that I'm trying to describe, but there were some.

Anyway, I think there are sound reasons to attempt the switch and I think I would because basically, I want my biological child more and don't want to think of someone else raising him or her. But it would hurt. Everybody involved would feel the pain, especially the children. I think I would want to do it over a lengthy time period, with extended visits both ways. It would be very very hard.

[Kaylee]

No. I will see if I can find any literature which covers this, but I find it unlikely that a newborn can recognise one fuzzy blob as its mother over another. By what mechanism is it doing this? Telepathy?
More likely their sense of smell.

From an abstract at PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15841774&ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that mother-infant skin-to-skin contact for more than 50 min immediately after birth results in enhanced infant recognition of their own mother's milk odour and longer breastfeeding duration.

I have to take care of some errands, but I suspect that infants have a good sense of smell and could recognize their mothers even if they are not nursing.

[HawaiiBigSis]

More likely their sense of smell.

From an abstract at PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15841774&ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum



I have to take care of some errands, but I suspect that infants have a good sense of smell and could recognize their mothers even if they are not nursing.
I agree that smell might play a part in it, but it seems that sound would too. The baby's been hearing the mom's heartbeat (and other internal noises) for nine months (or at least since the hearing mechanisms formed), and the parents' voices (albeit muffled and distorted) as well, so it seems logical that those would also be familiar to a newborn.

I'd be curious about others' early memories too...

[bluess]

Interesting, but I'm not sure I agree. Why wouldn't costs above and beyond the basic care and maintenance costs be considered something completely at the discretion of the parents who spent the money and therefore their responsibility? IANAL, and I assume that you aren't either but I'm still curious why you think it could be an issue.

IANAL, either (much to my mom's dismay :D). I was just thinking that existing parental support requirements might cause a whoop-te-doo.

[hipparchia]

I would change back as early as possible. My brother is exactly 2 years 8 months younger than me. I have memories of my mother's cleaning mania at the end of the pregnancy, and I remember taking my brother home from the hospital. Those memories were corroborated- I could describe clothes and events and my parents confirmed.

[tkingdoll]

I would change back as early as possible. My brother is exactly 2 years 8 months younger than me. I have memories of my mother's cleaning mania at the end of the pregnancy, and I remember taking my brother home from the hospital. Those memories were corroborated- I could describe clothes and events and my parents confirmed.

Well, you were nearly three, that's not necessarily pre-verbal. Three is an average (actually I think it's 3.5). But is it also possible that your parents described the clothes and the events, and you remembered them? That's a common pattern. But when isolated, people come up with early memories, then when independently asked for verification from the parents, the memories prove to be false. The scientific consesus at present is that we don't have memories of before we could talk. I think it's to do with brain development but I will have to do some further reading to confirm.

[Kaylee]

I agree that smell might play a part in it, but it seems that sound would too. The baby's been hearing the mom's heartbeat (and other internal noises) for nine months (or at least since the hearing mechanisms formed), and the parents' voices (albeit muffled and distorted) as well, so it seems logical that those would also be familiar to a newborn..

I agree!

[Kaylee]

Well, you were nearly three, that's not necessarily pre-verbal. Three is an average (actually I think it's 3.5). But is it also possible that your parents described the clothes and the events, and you remembered them? That's a common pattern. But when isolated, people come up with early memories, then when independently asked for verification from the parents, the memories prove to be false. The scientific consesus at present is that we don't have memories of before we could talk. I think it's to do with brain development but I will have to do some further reading to confirm.

I have a few more early memories than most people I know and I have always suspected that it was due to my memory being organized differently than theirs. Or at least part of my memory. Its a reasonable theory to assume that most memories are organized around language. However I was born hard of hearing and I didn't have good hearing aids when I was a child so that is why I suspect that my memory got organized differently and goes back a little furthur in life than the most people's.

My family was uncomfortable with my hearing loss and as a result I didn't speak much with them; I spent most of my time with the neighbors. So it's highly unlikely that we had conversations where they would talk about things that had occurred early in my life, and as a result would cause me to build false memories.

[Beerina]

ooh, if it was twins which were swapped, you could swap one of each pair back and run the experiment quite nicely!

HawaiiBigSis, the three year memory thing is just an average, although a psychologist friend of mine is adamant that any baby/toddler memories are invented. A guy I know has no memories before the age of 12. I find that quite weird, it must be disconcerting. I can remember my first day of school, I lost my green bangle and cried all morning til I found it again in my coat pocket.

I assure you I remember when I was 6 and they set my arm in the hospital.

My earliest memories are seeing my little brother for the first time (age 2 years 9 mos), crying while standing in a crib in my brother's room (mine at the time = pre-brother) waiting for my dad to bring me water, and sitting in a stroller during a snowstorm.

[tkingdoll]

I assure you I remember when I was 6 and they set my arm in the hospital.

My earliest memories are seeing my little brother for the first time (age 2 years 9 mos), crying while standing in a crib in my brother's room (mine at the time = pre-brother) waiting for my dad to bring me water, and sitting in a stroller during a snowstorm.

Six is not unusual. As I have said, three is the average. Most people have memories of being six.

[Beerina]

I would change back as early as possible. My brother is exactly 2 years 8 months younger than me. I have memories of my mother's cleaning mania at the end of the pregnancy, and I remember taking my brother home from the hospital. Those memories were corroborated- I could describe clothes and events and my parents confirmed.

Same here. My mom was royally pissed off at Gramma, who had brought me home after I had stayed there for a few days, and she sat outside on the porch with my dad talking, while I wandered in to find my brother suckling on my mother. She had wanted to introduce me properly by inviting me in to help, however Dr. Spock had said at the time, but I had just come in and been shocked.

[Gurdur]

Wrong baby - would you swap back?

Only if I could get two for the price of one for having been so hassled.

[Kaylee]

Only if I could get two for the price of one for having been so hassled.

Now that Gurdur has unofficially added an air of levity to the thread I can confess that I occassionally have been wondering about some very trivial things. Or maybe not so trivial things, you decide:

** Will the parents change the babies' names? Should they? If you say no, are there any situations that would make you change your mind?

What if the "Smiths" really hate what the "Jones" named their biological daughter and they absolutely can't even tolerate saying the name? Or what if the "Smiths" named what they thought was their biological daughter after a much loved grandmother or aunt and still very much want to have "their" daughter -- the one that they will see every day, have the same name?

** What are they going to do about the clothes? Assuming that the girls are about the same size, does it matter what the parents decide to do? If the girls don't notice clothes that much at that age (10 -12 months), would seeing the same clothes help the parents adjust somehow on some microscopic yet important level? What if the "Jones" really, really hate the "Smiths" taste and can't stand the clothes that they bought?

I may be slightly nuts for wondering about these things. :blush:

[wolfgirl]

What a painful dilemma. I couldn't imagine, having raised a child as my own and loved that child for 10 months, being able to simply turn that off upon learning that it wasn't my child. Yet I think I would immediately also feel love for the other child that I had just learned was my own.

More important, though, is the impact on the babies. By that age, those babies have (or should have) bonded with their parents (the ones who have been caring for them). Taking them away from those parents and placing them with strangers seems to me to be potentially very traumatic. Even though they will not have "memories" of this, everything that we experience during those early years has an effect on our development. I would think (though I have nothing to back this up) that this could impact the children's ability to form relationships throughout their lives, having loved and trusted someone so intensely and then been (to their eyes) abandoned.

I think the whole thing would have to be done very slowly and very carefully, with lots of counseling and time spent with all parents, in order to do as little damage as possible. I would think that it would be best if they could all remain in each other's lives.

[Erin]

I agree that it would be a very difficult decision for most people to make but personally I would swap them back. Having brought up three children, I can’t help feeling that some of the more difficult ages would be even more difficult to cope with from a child who’s genetic background you knew nothing about.