In an open adoption agreement, you agree to a minimum number of visits - a floor, not a ceiling. It's enforceable.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Are you really sure that a floor can't also be a ceiling?
I've never been keen on open adoption. It doesn't seem to solve the main problem with adoption, which is that somebody feels she was abandoned by someone else.
Some people may get in to the building without the proper passes and things, but I think that's the price you pay for being an open place for people to come.
When I design a building, I'm making sure you and I can get to the front door, there's enough of a threshold for entry, and that the rooms are in a logical sequence.
The process of open adoption is not discussed in the way it should be. Everyone I know who has adopted domestically has at least one tragic story. It was important to me to be able to describe those situations.
I want to say that, in general, when it works, open adoption is great.
I take a very practical view of raising children. I put a sign in each of their rooms: 'Checkout Time is 18 years.'
The government only makes restrictive rules, they don't show you what to do so you know, OK, here's where we need this many apartments, with open space, playgrounds, kindergartens.
If one limits to developing only the kitchen and bathroom as standardized rooms because of their installation, and then also decides to arrange the remaining living area with movable walls, I believe that any justified living requirements can be met.
If your ceiling is falling down, don't you call someone in? I apply the same principle to myself.
No opposing quotes found.