Just dropping in to see how this thread's going.
Being a single parent has to be incredibly difficult under normal circumstances, but at least a 'regular person' has the ability to plan ahead for those times when he won't be available to care for his child. This is not true for CK.
I don't deny that it is far tougher for a single parent to raise a child than it is for two parents. I've mentioned quite often that I don't understand how single parents do it, but it is done every day all over the world. But this should not be enough to sway a decision one way or another. In the case of deciding between two sets of parents who want to adopt a child, I agree that I would bias my decision in favor of a two-parent family, but not in the case where the natural parent is involved.
First time parents often are left without specific plans, or if parents do make a plan, they'll find reality is far different and must change accordingly. That does not mean that CK cannot find a way to care for his child. You cannot make a decision like that on a mere supposition. You must be able to prove after the fact that the father cannot provide a safe and healthy environment for his child. To take a child away without that kind of proof leaves us in a far too Orwellian society where the bonds of parent and child are far too tenuous. You mentioned alternatives yourself, such as live in nannies. But just because it is more difficult does not mean a father should lose his child. If something were to happen to my wife, for instance, I wouldn't want a court to take my children away from me to give to a family with two adults.
You bring up the whole Tempus, Utopia, and the curse scenario. I get the impression the you think that the curse is the reason why altLois died in childbirth. Even if Yvonne accepts the show's canon on the whole Tempus thing and the baggage it brings, there's been no indication that Tempus has interfered or been any sort of factor in the alt-universe.
You may be right here. As I mentioned at the top of my initial post, I haven't read the story and therefore may not have made the correct assumptions about the alt-universe. What I know about it was gained from discussions with persons who have read the story and from Wendy's post above where she says the alt-universe seems to be an attempt to mirror the "Tempus, Anyone" universe. Since it is Yvonne's story, she is the ultimate authority on whether a Tempus existed or whether a Utopia was ever in the making. Actually, the existence of Tempus is irrelevant. It's whether Jon or his descendents were destined to form Utopia. If Utopia was never meant to be, then my point here does not apply.
Now, I realise that this isn't the same as taking a child from one set of parents and raising him with another set, but I think it demonstrates that infants are not as reprogrammable as we might think.
It seems to me this is a comparison of apples and oranges. I don't think many dispute that our genes pre-program us to be male or female and that overriding that programming may be next to impossible. But the fact that bonding can occur between more than one set of parents should be indisputable or else adoptions would never succeed. Psychological damage can occur in many forms, many of them harmless. I hate to use a fictional example, but I should re-iterate the example of this universe's Clark. He had no lasting ill effects from the severing of his bonding with his natural parents in favor of his new adopted parents. I know of no adopted children personally so I cannot use a real world example here, but since we are discussing a fictional story, a fictional analogy should work just as well as a real world one.
In nearly every case, the battle for the child has carried on for years and most often has scarred the child.
This is the fault of the court system and the two sets of parents who drag this out over a long period of time. This cannot apply in the case of Yvonne's story because no court could have jurisdiction so a long drawn-out legal battle isn't in the cards. At least, I'm assuming not. I have no idea how this can resolve itself in Yvonne's story because one side or another has to voluntarily give up his/their rights to Jon.
At lest than a week, this little guy knew what was going on and he didn't like it!
I agree that children bond early and are the most ultra-conservative people. Kids are creatures of habit who hate having their routines disrupted. My own 3-year old is like that. I don't know yet with our newborn what her routines are since we/she are still in the process of establishing them. That does not mean that a child cannot bond with a new parent or that psychological damage is certain. But a parent's rights cannot simply be ignored since the parent never signed away his rights to the child.
But what if I had been ripped away from the only parents I knew and given a 'new' mom and dad or just a dad? Studies have shown that even as early as a year, children in these situations grow up with insecure tendancies and abandonment issues.
Have you seen studies on natural parents who FAIL to get custody of their children from foster parents after a legal battle? Do those kids suffer from abandonment issues as well by thinking their original parents didn't love them enough to keep them? How did those kids get separated from their parents in the first place? If the natural parents had given them up for adoption and changed their minds, the courts should do the right thing and just throw the case out of court without a hearing. Same thing if they were abandoned. But if the parent didn't know of the child's existence, that changes the equation.
Just in standard adoption cases where a parent or parents very early on give up their child to adopted parents without any fights, children suffer from similar symptoms. Because of that, I have to assume (not being an expert in this matter) that just the fact that another set of parents did not raise them initiates a bunch of insecurities and other problems because the child feels they weren't wanted by someone. Just the fact that the child knows another set of parents were involved can initiate all the insecurities you talk about. So I think regardless of the outcome (who wins custody), these same types of problems could occur. But they don't have to affect a child's happiness. Again I hate to use a fictional example, but Clark was adopted but suffered no ill effects despite a bond with his natural parents.
In the case of Jon here, assuming he knows he's adopted by L&C, would he wonder whether his dad loved him? Or would he think that he was abandoned by his real dad? We know Clark wondered exactly the same thing and was affected to some degree as shown by his interest in adoption issues in "Strange Visitor." He spent years wondering why he was abandoned yet it did not prevent him from bonding very well with his adopted parents.
