S01.E12: The Big Day

[sasha206]

9 hours ago, Court said:

We don't know that they went home the same day. Maybe they did a background check. But even with a home visit, renovation wouldn't be a reason to say no adoption in 1980. Plus, they'd already prepared for 3 babies, had 3 bassinets, etc.

I'm simply saying 1980 is not 2017 and things weren't the same then. It's a logical jump that if PA is currently one of the least restrictive states for adoption then it likely wasn't more restrictive in 1980. It's also easier to adopt from the state than a private adoption.

Some handwaving required but not as much as some other things.

I'm not saying they *wouldn't* have been allowed to adopt, I'm saying under the best circumstances, you aren't walking out of the hospital same day with adopted child and your other babies as the episode seems to suggest they did.  Maybe they'll show later that the adoption didn't happen same day.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

That and the hordes of people who've become addicted to opioids through prescribed medication.

So true.  The one heroin addict I know, a nephew who served years in prison for it and is now clean, got hooked via that door.  How creative it would have been if this show presented heroin addiction of that sort instead of the almost stereotypical 'poor urban black junkie'.    Who knows, maybe we'll get a meaty William backstory someday and he'll be a Carnegie Mellon honors student with a bad hip and that's his slide into the heroin world.  I kind of doubt it.  

[sasha206]

9 hours ago, Court said:

An approach pioneered by New York state in 1965 and supported by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, was to subsidize adoptions. Subsidies exposed the cruelty of market forces by offering economic incentives to adopt children for whom there was little or no demand. 

In other words, any non-white newborn was (and still is to a large extent, sadly) difficult to place.

I don't disagree with any of that.  My point is simply that they aren't going to the hospital, giving giving birth, walking out with adopted baby and their children in the short timespan that is suggested by the episode in the best of circumstances.   I mean, there is a legal process to follow even if the child is difficult to place and that in of itself takes time even if the adoption goes smoothly.   But the way the episode went, she's being wheeled out of the hospital and William is watching them leave knowing that his child is leaving with them, right?  Now perhaps they are going to show us in later episodes that the adoption wasn't legal for a while and he was in their foster care in the meantime.  But i guess it's more than likely dramatic license they are taking.  It just one of those things that bug me about TV shows is that lack of realism. I mean, how many times do we see young people who seem to be working in jobs that don't pay well have a huge apartment in New York?

Edited January 22, 2017 by sasha206

[ChromaKelly]

On 1/21/2017 at 11:07 PM, Court said:

We don't know that they went home the same day. Maybe they did a background check. But even with a home visit, renovation wouldn't be a reason to say no adoption in 1980. Plus, they'd already prepared for 3 babies, had 3 bassinets, etc.

I'm simply saying 1980 is not 2017 and things weren't the same then. It's a logical jump that if PA is currently one of the least restrictive states for adoption then it likely wasn't more restrictive in 1980. It's also easier to adopt from the state than a private adoption.

Some handwaving required but not as much as some other things.

What do you mean by "least restrictive"? Can you elaborate on that please? I would for instance, categorize Utah as less restrictive, because that state has little in the way of birthfather rights and a mother can terminate her parental rights 24 hours after giving birth and it is irrevocable. In PA, a mother can sign after 72 hours and she has 30 days to revoke consent.
I thought the babies all did go home the same day? Not the same day as birth, but it appeared to be a day or two later.

And please, can we stop with newborn black babies still being difficult to place? They are not, especially with international adoption being all but shut down these days. Many of the former "sending" nations have either closed their programs or they are special needs only at this point.
I adopted my son 8 years ago and while our wait was not as long as other who only wanted a white newborn, we still had to present our profile, the mother had several families to choose from, we had to meet all homestudy requirements. It wasn't like oh you're ok with a black baby? Here, take one.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, sasha206 said:

Now perhaps they are going to show us in later episodes that the adoption wasn't legal for a while and he was in their foster care in the meantime.  

I feel like they've already showed us the adoption wasn't exactly legal.  Rebecca said they had no papers to stop William from taking him back.  

[JudyObscure]

20 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

And please, can we stop with newborn black babies still being difficult to place? They are not, especially with international adoption being all but shut down these days. Many of the former "sending" nations have either closed their programs or they are special needs only at this point.

After our first discussion here about adoption I realized I knew nothing about how it works today, so I grabbed this* biographical novel about a couple going through the  process today.  As you say, all babies are at a premium today and it is not at all easy to adopt.

*https://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Novel-Jennifer-Gilmore/dp/1451697252

[ChromaKelly]

23 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I feel like they've already showed us the adoption wasn't exactly legal.  Rebecca said they had no papers to stop William from taking him back.  

The only thing I can think of with that is because William never explicitly terminated his parental rights, they would have been terminated by default. Since they took him home from the hospital, there had to be some sort of legal follow up.

[theatremouse]

59 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

What do you mean by "least restrictive"? Can you elaborate on that please? I would for instance, categorize Utah as less restrictive, because that state has little in the way of birthfather rights and a mother can terminate her parental rights 24 hours after giving birth and it is irrevocable. In PA, a mother can sign after 72 hours and she has 30 days to revoke consent.

I'm responding to this in the Social issues thread since Randall's adoption wasn't directly addressed in this episode.

[methodwriter85]

I re-watched the pilot and at the end, when the music is swelling, you see Jack telling Rebecca about the stillborn and she does seem to be saying "It's not true, it's not true" over again. So kudos for continuity?

[sasha206]

On 1/21/2017 at 11:07 PM, Court said:

We don't know that they went home the same day. Maybe they did a background check. But even with a home visit, renovation wouldn't be a reason to say no adoption in 1980. Plus, they'd already prepared for 3 babies, had 3 bassinets, etc.

I'm simply saying 1980 is not 2017 and things weren't the same then. It's a logical jump that if PA is currently one of the least restrictive states for adoption then it likely wasn't more restrictive in 1980. It's also easier to adopt from the state than a private adoption.

Some handwaving required but not as much as some other things.

I think you're willing to suspend reality in order to explain away dramatic license.  Unless a couple is stealing a baby, there's absolutely no way in the world she goes into a hospital, births out two infants and a stillborn and goes back home with a baby left at a station.  I am not arguing that they could NEVER have adopted him, the expediency would never happen in such a fashion.  There would have been a police investigation, search for the child's birth family (grandmas, aunts, etc.) because THEY would have preference in adopting the child.  Yes, even in the ancient times of 1980.  Police investigations weren't quite as speedy back then as they are now.   

Not to mention, in the 1980s you would still have to have gone through a social worker screening.  And a HUGE RED FLAG to a social worker is that a mother would be participating in an interracial adoption to replace a still born baby.  Not to mention having two other babies and apparent financial difficulties.  Home renovations would likely not kick them out of the process, but a mother having not dealt with the emotional issues of a stillborn baby in ADDITION to having twin babies to raise.  The social worker would have gone back to the agency to see if there were better qualified parents, already having gone through homestudy, that would be available to place and back in the 1980s, they would have looked for a black family.  In addition, the impetuousness of wanting to adopt because of a traumatic experience would not be looked on favorably in terms of preference.  The social worker would question whether this couple has TRULY considered all of the social and attachment issues that goes into raising an adopted child, much less an interracial adoption.   

None of these things would've taken days to complete.  

On 1/22/2017 at 10:22 AM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I feel like they've already showed us the adoption wasn't exactly legal.  Rebecca said they had no papers to stop William from taking him back.  

Well, then that's certainly a lot of dramatic license if they walked out of the hospital with a baby and no legal papers.  Would they have then forged birth certificates and claimed to be his adoptive parents?

Or is the storyline more likely that Rebecca was worried that he never terminated his parental rights because the birth father was never located by the authorities and her concern was he would waltz back into Randall's life and take him back?  

Edited January 22, 2017 by sasha206

[ShadowFacts]

I think there's a ton of dramatic license and suspension of reality in this episode -- not just the adoption particulars, but the whole 'William leaving Randall at the firehouse was a miracle in a bunch of lives -- the grieving OB/Gyn, the estranged firefighter/wife, and Jack and Rebecca the hopeful couple who had one-third of their dreams dashed.  We can take our pick of which is most unbelievable, because we know in real life magical turnarounds are pretty rare.  For me it was all a little too much in one day. 

[Court]

In 1980,  black babies were difficult to place. I didn't make that up. It's why transracial adoptions were started at this time. It's exactly why the law I referenced was put in place. 

Yes, I'm willing to suspend disbelief as well. You're wheeled out of the hospital after giving birth even if you don't leave the same day. 

[sasha206]

7 minutes ago, Court said:

In 1980,  black babies were difficult to place. I didn't make that up. It's why transracial adoptions were started at this time. It's exactly why the law I referenced was put in place. 

Yes, I'm willing to suspend disbelief as well. You're wheeled out of the hospital after giving birth even if you don't leave the same day. 

Of course.  But even if you're wheeled out days later, you still aren't walking out of the hospital days later with a legal adoption.

Anywho, circular argument.  For me, it's details like that which bug me.  As I noted earlier, it always bugs me when single people with menial jobs have huge apartments in NYC in a show.  And how many times do we see that?

Edited January 22, 2017 by sasha206

[DrSpaceman73]

Really enjoyed the doctor's storyline for the first time.  Explains a bit of his more than usual attachment to the family beyond the doctor/patient relationship.  And very true to life and well done. 

Am I the only one who saw the oatmeal cream pies in the store and wanted to yell, "No!!  Not the twinkies!  The cream on the cream pies will be much easier to get to!"  But harder to spread. 

[sasha206]

10 minutes ago, Court said:

In 1980,  black babies were difficult to place. I didn't make that up. It's why transracial adoptions were started at this time. It's exactly why the law I referenced was put in place. 

Yes, I'm willing to suspend disbelief as well. You're wheeled out of the hospital after giving birth even if you don't leave the same day. 

Of course.  But even if you're wheeled out days later, you still aren't walking out of the hospital days later with a legal adoption.

Anywho, circular argument.  For me, it's details like that which bug me.  As I noted earlier, it always bugs me when single people with menial jobs have huge apartments in NYC in a show.  And how many times do we see that?

Edited January 22, 2017 by sasha206

[ChromaKelly]

1 hour ago, Court said:

In 1980,  black babies were difficult to place. I didn't make that up. It's why transracial adoptions were started at this time. It's exactly why the law I referenced was put in place. 

Yes, I'm willing to suspend disbelief as well. You're wheeled out of the hospital after giving birth even if you don't leave the same day. 

IDK... in the 80's was when overseas adoptions were really getting big. My cousin was adopted from Korea in 1985. I feel like we're talking about the 80's like they were the 60's. I'm in a couple FB adoption groups that include transracial adoptees and many were adopted in the 80s. I agree that the black children probably took longer to adopt, but it's not that no one wanted to adopt them so they would give a baby to a couple not even planning to adopt with a half-renovated house and newborn twins because they are that hard up to place him. Especially a newborn, there would have been at least a foster family waiting for a placement.

This is what I was referring to:

In other words, any non-white newborn was (and still is to a large extent, sadly) difficult to place.

[Court]

@ChromaKelly I think we're saying almost the same thing. I agree transracial adoptions were common in the 80's. The late 70's/early 80''s is when they became common. I'm saying a social worker would not have tried to find a black family first. 

 

I'll revise my statement because I don't really know if non white newborns are harder to place. I do know the older the child, the more difficult it becomes. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Court

[Guest]

I have a friend in DC who has been trying to foster a child for many years and being that she's black, I'm sure a black infant would be ideal.  But all they ever have offered her are teen siblings.  So I'm guessing even fostering a black baby is difficult to get chosen for, at least these days.  Which is good news.

[CofCinci]

Also keep in mind that Dr. K was most likely a well-regarded physician with many connections in the community.  He could easily place a call to a Judge golfbuddy who could grease the wheels some -- especially since this family helped him realize that he still had some life to live.

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I have a friend in DC who has been trying to foster a child for many years and being that she's black, I'm sure a black infant would be ideal.  But all they ever have offered her are teen siblings.  So I'm guessing even fostering a black baby is difficult to get chosen for, at least these days.  Which is good news.

Replying in the social issues thread...

[kili]

Quote

How creative it would have been if this show presented heroin addiction of that sort instead of the almost stereotypical 'poor urban black junkie'.

I didn't get the impression that William was poor before he became an addict. I thought he was hip college educated guy (there is a reason he was called Shakespeare and writing poetry). I suspected that he got into drugs at some Studio 54 type situation (all the cool artistic people expanding their horizons). I thought that was part of the sadness of that set of scenes - how they went from two people with such potential to a mess.  

I think he punished himself for the rest of his life for having to give up Randall and that is why he is poor when we see him later. 

I appreciate that although he abandoned his child, he at least did it somewhat responsibly. He didn't just leave the child at the fire station, he called attention to the child by ringing the bell and stayed until the child was found. While it doesn't make him a hero, he at least made sure Randall wasn't in danger.

Edited January 23, 2017 by kili

[Guest]

That's interesting.  I thought he was called Shakespeare by the bus driver because he wrote poetry around town like we saw him doing on the bus and was a starving artist type or busker type.  I thought the only dwelling we've ever seen him in was the one sad apartment.  

[ShadowFacts]

10 hours ago, kili said:

I think he punished himself for the rest of his life for having to give up Randall and that is why he is poor when we see him later. 

I think so, too, and for his part in whatever happened after his girlfriend died, which we haven't seen yet but maybe included abandoning her body.  He even said something like it to Randall, I think, that he's been paying the price for what he did. 

10 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

 I thought the only dwelling we've ever seen him in was the one sad apartment.  

Seems like it is the same apartment, which doesn't make sense if he started out in Pittsburgh but is now in Philadelphia, per the address on the ID that the investigator sent Randall.

[Guest]

Maybe it was just the same sad little table and chair in both.  I don't care enough to go back and watch but just from (my admittedly poor) memory, now that I think about it, it seemed like Rebecca's visit was to an apt. with a door in an interior hall and Randall's was to a door outside, where his car was visible?  Though I don't know that we ever saw William home in his pre-heroin days so it'd make sense that both apts. we saw were inexpensive.  All I recall is him riding the bus with the girlfriend then, which to me suggests they probably didn't have a lot of spare money.

[SlackerInc]

He could be college educated and a starving artist.

22 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I feel like they've already showed us the adoption wasn't exactly legal.  Rebecca said they had no papers to stop William from taking him back.  

I don't agree with that interpretation of what she said.

Edited January 23, 2017 by SlackerInc

[kili]

Quote

just from (my admittedly poor) memory, now that I think about it, it seemed like Rebecca's visit was to an apt. with a door in an interior hall and Randall's was to a door outside, where his car was visible?

True. Randall pointed to the car behind him while Rebecca entered from an interior hallway.

Quote

All I recall is him riding the bus with the girlfriend then, which to me suggests they probably didn't have a lot of spare money.

In Urban areas, public transportation is just a convenient way to get around. Having a car can be a pain in the butt because it is hard to find parking and one doesn't need a car very often. I know lots of professionals who take public transportation, so I don't think that being on the bus corresponds to poor. Sometimes, it is just practical. Sometimes, it is trying to save the environment. 

[Guest]

All true.  But with only a few quick, wordless scenes to convey info, I'm not sure writers would show their romance on a city bus if we were supposed to see two YUPPIES about to over-do the disco scene.  I do think he was supposed to be talented and have potential (don't we all?) and his loss that year affected his entire life from then on.  

On 1/22/2017 at 0:58 PM, sasha206 said:

it always bugs me when single people with menial jobs have huge apartments in NYC in a show.  And how many times do we see that?

All the time and it's totally ridiculous but it also doesn't bother me.   It's impossible to shoot in a tiny room and it's also unpleasant to watch a setting like that, in my opinion.  I think a big draw of TV for a lot of people is the beautiful people, clothes and places.  When the story isn't riveting we can just enjoy the visuals.

I just started watching Speechless and their super ugly house really bugs me.  I mean, I appreciate the humor and the message-- they don't give a shit what the neighbors think and they have other priorities, but as a viewer it's kind of a drudge.  On the other hand, I'm trying to appreciate The Good Place and don't love the scripts so far but the sets and people are so pretty, I can almost watch just for that.  

[Hanahope]

One thing got me wondering.  On the episode when we saw Jack and Rebecca leaving the hospital and Jack goes to get the car and Rebecca sees William standing across the street watching her, and she apparently wonders to herself if that's the father of the black baby they just adopted.  

So, my question is, how would William know Rebecca is the woman with his son?  Given that apparently the fireman first took Randall home with him, then to the hospital, obviously William couldn't have followed the fireman.  Even if you assume that the hospital was the only one around (which is not necessarily a given, I have 3 hospitals all about equi-distant from my home), its pretty sure that Rebecca had to have spent at least a day, if not two, in the hospital before she left with the babies.  Did William stand outside the hospital for 2-3 days watching every single person that came out to see if they were holding a black baby?  Could you really see from that distance the color of any baby wrapped up/being held, etc.?

[ShadowFacts]

15 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

One thing got me wondering.  On the episode when we saw Jack and Rebecca leaving the hospital and Jack goes to get the car and Rebecca sees William standing across the street watching her, and she apparently wonders to herself if that's the father of the black baby they just adopted.  

So, my question is, how would William know Rebecca is the woman with his son?  Given that apparently the fireman first took Randall home with him, then to the hospital, obviously William couldn't have followed the fireman.  Even if you assume that the hospital was the only one around (which is not necessarily a given, I have 3 hospitals all about equi-distant from my home), its pretty sure that Rebecca had to have spent at least a day, if not two, in the hospital before she left with the babies.  Did William stand outside the hospital for 2-3 days watching every single person that came out to see if they were holding a black baby?  Could you really see from that distance the color of any baby wrapped up/being held, etc.?

I think she or at least the babies would have been there more than a few days, given that they were six weeks early multiples.  So even if William was pretty sure which hospital, he couldn't know which day they would go home.  And from the fact that Rebecca found out his identity from getting on the bus route and talking to the driver, the hospital must have been the nearest one to where William lived.  The only thing that makes sense to me is that William was hanging out there every day because he was afraid the baby didn't make it and he wanted to satisfy himself that Randall was alive.  But he couldn't know that an individual black baby was his, even if he could see that far. 

[sasha206]

25 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

One thing got me wondering.  On the episode when we saw Jack and Rebecca leaving the hospital and Jack goes to get the car and Rebecca sees William standing across the street watching her, and she apparently wonders to herself if that's the father of the black baby they just adopted.  

So, my question is, how would William know Rebecca is the woman with his son?  Given that apparently the fireman first took Randall home with him, then to the hospital, obviously William couldn't have followed the fireman.  Even if you assume that the hospital was the only one around (which is not necessarily a given, I have 3 hospitals all about equi-distant from my home), its pretty sure that Rebecca had to have spent at least a day, if not two, in the hospital before she left with the babies.  Did William stand outside the hospital for 2-3 days watching every single person that came out to see if they were holding a black baby?  Could you really see from that distance the color of any baby wrapped up/being held, etc.?

I wondered the same thing.  

And how on earth would Rebecca be able to find him before they even named the baby Randall?  Is William the only black guy within city limits?  If they were in financial dire straits, how does she have the $ to hire a private detective?  And how does he find them before police officers do.  There wasn't a safe haven law back then, so presumably, the police would have been trying to find who abandoned a baby.

[ShadowFacts]

4 minutes ago, sasha206 said:

I wondered the same thing.  

And how on earth would Rebecca be able to find him before they even named the baby Randall?  Is William the only black guy within city limits?  If they were in financial dire straits, how does she have the $ to hire a private detective?  And how does he find them before police officers do.  There wasn't a safe haven law back then, so presumably, the police would have been trying to find who abandoned a baby.

They showed us how that happened, Rebecca did her own detective work, in one day while Jack took the Big 3 to their Dr. K appointment.  She got on the bus that William got on, got the bus driver to ID him, and he probably told her what stop he would get on and off at.  She then presumably knocked on doors.  Of course the police could/should have done their own investigation, and also some follow-up on the dead mother.  Maybe we'll see more of those flashbacks. 

[sasha206]

2 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

They showed us how that happened, Rebecca did her own detective work, in one day while Jack took the Big 3 to their Dr. K appointment.  She got on the bus that William got on, got the bus driver to ID him, and he probably told her what stop he would get on and off at.  She then presumably knocked on doors.  Of course the police could/should have done their own investigation, and also some follow-up on the dead mother.  Maybe we'll see more of those flashbacks. 

Ah, thanks.  I forgot about that episode.  Of course, I still think it's completely unbelievable that she would be able to track him down that quickly.  But I gotta remember, it's a show and you have to suspend reality to be entertained!  

[kili]

Quote

So, my question is, how would William know Rebecca is the woman with his son?  Given that apparently the fireman first took Randall home with him, then to the hospital, obviously William couldn't have followed the fireman.  Even if you assume that the hospital was the only one around (which is not necessarily a given, I have 3 hospitals all about equi-distant from my home), its pretty sure that Rebecca had to have spent at least a day, if not two, in the hospital before she left with the babies.  Did William stand outside the hospital for 2-3 days watching every single person that came out to see if they were holding a black baby?

The 80s were a different time in hospitals. They didn't lojack babies back then and people could just wander into the maternity ward. William probably figured out which hospital in one of the following ways:

1) Baby left at fire station made the news and they mentioned where he had been taken

2) The city had a maternity hospital where it was likely an abandoned new born would be taken (as would the pregnant woman with triplets).

3) It was the closest hospital to the area

4) William has nothing better to do all day than search hospitals.

5) The police figured out that he was the guy who abandoned his child (once they found his wife's body and figured out how she had died, they put two-and-two together) and told him where the baby ended up as they asked him to relinquish all rights to the baby.

Once he found the hospital, he listened to the chatter and found out who was adopting the baby ("Did you hear about the parents who are adopting the abandoned baby?" "No." "It is that lovely couple that lost one of their triplets. See, there are there two remaining babies."). Even if he couldn't identify Randall going home from a distance, it isn't too hard to wait for the couple leaving the hospital with three babies. That is relatively rare.

[ShadowFacts]

3 minutes ago, kili said:

The 80s were a different time in hospitals. They didn't lojack babies back then and people could just wander into the maternity ward. William probably figured out which hospital in one of the following ways:

1) Baby left at fire station made the news and they mentioned where he had been taken

2) The city had a maternity hospital where it was likely an abandoned new born would be taken (as would the pregnant woman with triplets).

3) It was the closest hospital to the area

4) William has nothing better to do all day than search hospitals.

5) The police figured out that he was the guy who abandoned his child (once they found his wife's body and figured out how she had died, they put two-and-two together) and told him where the baby ended up as they asked him to relinquish all rights to the baby.

Once he found the hospital, he listened to the chatter and found out who was adopting the baby ("Did you hear about the parents who are adopting the abandoned baby?" "No." "It is that lovely couple that lost one of their triplets. See, there are there two remaining babies."). Even if he couldn't identify Randall going home from a distance, it isn't too hard to wait for the couple leaving the hospital with three babies. That is relatively rare.

I pretty much agree, except I don't think #5 happened.  If he had been found and terminated his rights, Rebecca wouldn't have feared Jack's learning his identity, years later.  Jack would have known that already, through the adoption formalities.  Police may never have caught up with William, because it wasn't a high priority. 

William may have found out through the grapevine that somebody was adopting an abandoned black baby, but it wouldn't even have to have been inside the hospital -- somebody in his neighborhood who worked there could have been talking.  It's all a little hard to believe, though, because I sort of doubt that he was doing a lot of analytical thinking or getting keen insights in his condition in those days, plus he was traumatized. 

[Guest]

I'm willing to suspend disbelief more for shows like this than ones where the audience is trying to solve a mystery and the reveal involves hugely unlikely coincidences or events.   The unlikely events in this show are just to set up a dramatic story whereas the latter is more to deceive you into thinking there's some more clever resolution than there turns out to be.  I would put these shows in that latter, dirty pool category (for me):  Lost, The Family, Bloodline.

The only thing that rang very unlikely for me in the adoption was that the couple chose to do it.  I think that most new parents with limited resources would feel some relief at having two babies to deal with rather than three, amidst the pain of loss, of course.  

[OtterMommy]

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

One thing got me wondering.  On the episode when we saw Jack and Rebecca leaving the hospital and Jack goes to get the car and Rebecca sees William standing across the street watching her, and she apparently wonders to herself if that's the father of the black baby they just adopted.  

So, my question is, how would William know Rebecca is the woman with his son?  Given that apparently the fireman first took Randall home with him, then to the hospital, obviously William couldn't have followed the fireman.  Even if you assume that the hospital was the only one around (which is not necessarily a given, I have 3 hospitals all about equi-distant from my home), its pretty sure that Rebecca had to have spent at least a day, if not two, in the hospital before she left with the babies.  Did William stand outside the hospital for 2-3 days watching every single person that came out to see if they were holding a black baby?  Could you really see from that distance the color of any baby wrapped up/being held, etc.?

Totally guessing and writing a script in my head to explain this (and I *hate* it when I have to do that!).  In this episode, it was shown that there was "talk" in the hospital among the staff that the triplet family that lost one was now talking about adopting the firehouse baby.  It's not inconceivable that William would have gone to the hospital and checked out the nursery, if only to ensure that his baby got there.  So, if he went there AND the staff were talking about it (this was before HIPPA), it isn't out of the realm of reality that he could have heard that.  Triplets are fairly rare, so the odds that there would be another family there leaving with 3 babies around the same time that Rebecca would leave, are next to zero.  I also do think that the idea of William hanging around the hospital every day until he saw that his son was okay, is not unrealistic.  He was mourning both the loss of his partner and his son.

[ErinV]

On 1/18/2017 at 11:02 AM, Randomosity said:

AGREED re: not authentically styled.  I don't think I've seen one mullet!  Or feathered hair!

 

 

Thank you, Indy - I just came to say exactly that. We're Oregon Trail! I'm an '82, and don't fit into either X or Millennial. I teach now, and man, these 20 year olds have not had the same experiences I did. There's no way I should be grouped as the same 'generation' as them. The Oregon Trail generation is the group that grew up not just with computers, but grew up as computers were growing up. Cell phones, mp3 players, the internet, email - they all showed up en masse as we were on the brink of adulthood, in high school or college. But we plonked out our math exercises on ancient Macs in elementary school. We made mix tape cassettes and had to 'be kind, rewind' with rental video tapes. Hell, I had records when I was very young! (They even gave them out as the McDonald's happy meal toy.) We had old school Nintendo and Atari but were largely 'too old' when Pokemon cards first came out. I think what generation you feel like is also partially related to your sibling order. If you were born in 82 like me, but had had siblings from the 1970s, you might feel more like an X. If you were an 84 with younger siblings up through the 90s, you may feel more millennial. I think the Oregon Trail cutoff is 83 or 84. I have a sibling who is 85, and even that three year gap made enough of a difference for what age email/internet/etc showed up and when records/cassettes/Atari faded out that 85 is closer to millennial. But I digress :)

Actually related to the show, I didn't care much about the firefighter's wife, but wow, for some reason she stuck out as the most authentically styled 1979/1980 person on the show yet. The hair, the sweater, etc.... it looked like she stepped out of the pages of my parents' old photo albums. Everything else so far has all had the air of 2016 trying to look like 1979/1980.  Did anyone else notice that? Just me?

[ItCouldBeWorse]

3 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think that most new parents with limited resources would feel some relief at having two babies to deal with rather than three, amidst the pain of loss, of course.

In my opinion. I don't think they'd ever feel relief.  I think they would experience an intense craving for the missing child, despite having their hands full with two more.  The craving would diminish over time, but would never be 100% gone, no matter how many subsequent children they had, as there would always be that unanswered question about what the missing child would have been like at different stages, how he would have interacted with his siblings, and perfectly normal curiosity as to what he would look like.  Bringing Randall home no doubt helped them get to that stage more quickly, and would also be an additional comfort because they wouldn't have Randall if the third baby had lived, and a healthy parent would choose to embrace the living child they know over the dead child they don't know, but a slight regret at what was lost would always remain.

Edited January 23, 2017 by ItCouldBeWorse

[ShadowFacts]

I don't think any kind of big decision, let alone a really life-altering one that affects the whole family and an abandoned infant, should be made by a woman who is postpartum, if it can be avoided.  It's just really not a good time. 

[Clanstarling]

5 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I think she or at least the babies would have been there more than a few days, given that they were six weeks early multiples. 

I think you are right about that. The length of time women stay in the hospital has changed quite a bit over the years, even with uncomplicated deliveries, mostly because of insurance companies (in my opinion). When I had my first child in 1988, I stayed two days, I was kicked out before 24 hours were up after my second one in 1993. They were both four weeks early, and one was a blue baby (Thank God she pinked up quickly). But that didn't matter. On the other hand, my mother was given 7 days of bed rest in the hospital (and if she had delivered in her own country - she would have had a shot of schnapps every day too.)

But Rebecca definitely had serious complications, in addition to the loss of the baby. Surely they would have kept her in longer than the usual time allowed.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

13 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

5 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I think she or at least the babies would have been there more than a few days, given that they were six weeks early multiples. 

I think you are right about that. The length of time women stay in the hospital has changed quite a bit over the years, even with uncomplicated deliveries, mostly because of insurance companies (in my opinion). When I had my first child in 1988, I stayed two days, I was kicked out before 24 hours were up after my second one in 1993. They were both four weeks early, and one was a blue baby (Thank God she pinked up quickly). But that didn't matter. On the other hand, my mother was given 7 days of bed rest in the hospital (and if she had delivered in her own country - she would have had a shot of schnapps every day too.)

But Rebecca definitely had serious complications, in addition to the loss of the baby. Surely they would have kept her in longer than the usual time allowed.

In 1990, an uncomplicated C-section got you a four day hospital stay, as opposed to a two day stay for a vaginal delivery. If the baby was a preemie and needed to stay longer, the mother was discharged and would have to return as a (special) visitor who could hang out all day in the NICU (newborn ICU-except during rounds) but had to leave at night as you couldn't sleep there.  (The father could also be there, of course.)  In reality, Rebecca would have likely been discharged (in a wheelchair) from the hospital before Kevin and Kate, at least, since they were quite early, and then she would have turned around to come back and visit with them each day until their release. If Randall was completely healthy, he would have gone home with Kate when she was released.  This would have complicated things greatly, because once a baby is released from the NICU, he couldn't have come back into it with Rebecca.  However, the three babies were clearly in the regular newborn room, not in the NICU, so they likely were ready to leave when Rebecca was.

Edited January 23, 2017 by ItCouldBeWorse

[MaryPatShelby]

4 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I think you are right about that. The length of time women stay in the hospital has changed quite a bit over the years, even with uncomplicated deliveries, mostly because of insurance companies (in my opinion). When I had my first child in 1988, I stayed two days, I was kicked out before 24 hours were up after my second one in 1993. They were both four weeks early, and one was a blue baby (Thank God she pinked up quickly). But that didn't matter. On the other hand, my mother was given 7 days of bed rest in the hospital (and if she had delivered in her own country - she would have had a shot of schnapps every day too.)

But Rebecca definitely had serious complications, in addition to the loss of the baby. Surely they would have kept her in longer than the usual time allowed.

I had a baby in 1986; no complications, vaginal delivery, everyone healthy.  Delivered her early on a Wednesday morning, went home on Sunday.  

[SlackerInc]

I remember Bill Clinton running for president (presumably the first time, in '92) and one of his issues was opposition to "drive through deliveries", with insurance companies kicking women out so quickly after giving birth.  So I think he actually got something passed that required women to be given at least 48 hours or so, but it would not likely have taken effect in 1993.  The feeling around it as I recall was that women getting discharged so quickly was a recent and accelerating development.  This would actually match with what both @MaryPatShelby and @ItCouldBeWorse are reporting:

1986: four days

1988: two days

1993: less than one day

And it would suggest that Rebecca would indeed have been likely in 1980 to stay a few days in the hospital.

ETA: The legislation I was talking about turns out to have been signed by Clinton in 1996 and took effect in 1998.  Here's a little about it, written in 1997:

Quote

 

In 1970, the average hospital stay for a vaginal delivery was four
days. Within the last three years, stays have declined from 48 hours to
24 hours. Some were even required to leave the hospital in as little as
8 hours after delivery. Women in labor were told to "wait in the
hospital parking lot, as long as they can bear it, so that the clock doesn't
start ticking . ... "'
The initiation of "drive-through" deliveries led to a public outcry.[snip]

All of this changed on September 26, 1996, when President Clinton
signed a bill entitled "New Borns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act
of 1996." The new law, which becomes effective January 1, 1998,
requires insurance companies to cover forty-eight hours of care following
a vaginal birth and ninety-six hours following a cesarean birth.

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by SlackerInc

[BoogieBurns]

16 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

In 1990, an uncomplicated C-section got you a four day hospital stay, as opposed to a two day stay for a vaginal delivery.

Depends on the city/hospital/insurance company. I was born vaginally at 11pm in 1986 and my parents and I did not get to stay in the hospital past 6am. They make a joke out of it saying "you screamed too loud and the other babies needed to sleep," but really, sometimes hospitals just sent you on your merry way.

My mother was only in labor with me for 30 minutes (I pray every day I'lll get that same luck) and she was back at home only 8 hours after they left the house. This was in California if that means anything, and I was born on my due date. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

7 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

ETA: The legislation I was talking about turns out to have been signed by Clinton in 1996 and took effect in 1998.  Here's a little about it, written in 1997:

Quote

 

In 1970, the average hospital stay for a vaginal delivery was four
days. Within the last three years, stays have declined from 48 hours to
24 hours. Some were even required to leave the hospital in as little as
8 hours after delivery. Women in labor were told to "wait in the
hospital parking lot, as long as they can bear it, so that the clock doesn't
start ticking . ... "'
The initiation of "drive-through" deliveries led to a public outcry.[snip]

All of this changed on September 26, 1996, when President Clinton
signed a bill entitled "New Borns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act
of 1996." The new law, which becomes effective January 1, 1998,
requires insurance companies to cover forty-eight hours of care following
a vaginal birth and ninety-six hours following a cesarean birth.

 

One of the main reasons to allow a post-partum woman 48 hours in the hospital is not the mother's health, it is the health of the infant, who is released with the mother.  Many health issues do not become apparent in the first 24 hours, and sending a one-day old baby home with no expert oversight led to an increase in complications.   You could say the same thing about home births with a midwife, but I believe that the midwife would make a return trip the following day to assess the health of both mother and child.

[doodlebug]

19 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I think you are right about that. The length of time women stay in the hospital has changed quite a bit over the years, even with uncomplicated deliveries, mostly because of insurance companies (in my opinion). When I had my first child in 1988, I stayed two days, I was kicked out before 24 hours were up after my second one in 1993. They were both four weeks early, and one was a blue baby (Thank God she pinked up quickly). But that didn't matter. On the other hand, my mother was given 7 days of bed rest in the hospital (and if she had delivered in her own country - she would have had a shot of schnapps every day too.)

But Rebecca definitely had serious complications, in addition to the loss of the baby. Surely they would have kept her in longer than the usual time allowed.

I was a medical student doing an OB rotation in 1980, and then an OB/GYN resident beginning in 1982.  The typical length of hospital stay was 2 days for a vaginal birth and 4 days for a cesarean those days, however, there was much more leeway than there is now and someone like Rebecca, who had a traumatic birth as well as having premature babies, could've easily stayed days longer.  Hospitals and insurance companies just weren't all that involved in limiting the length of stay those days.  My sister had her first child in 1980, an uncomplicated vaginal birth and stayed 3 days because her doctor told her she should 'get some rest' before going home.

Edited January 24, 2017 by doodlebug

[TWP]

Apparently it wasn't sweeps week. Watching this episode reminded me of my poor dementia stricken FIL, who tells the exact same story over and over again, each time with a slightly different bend. Pilot, take two. Not my favorite episode.

It's getting to a point where I could watch every third episode and not miss a thing. I'm sad for a show that I thought would be must-see TV.

[grayson]

Quote

I love Dr. K the character and have no issue with him at all. Gerald is a great actor. 

[TomServo]

On 1/22/2017 at 9:49 AM, sasha206 said:

I'm not saying they *wouldn't* have been allowed to adopt, I'm saying under the best circumstances, you aren't walking out of the hospital same day with adopted child and your other babies as the episode seems to suggest they did.  Maybe they'll show later that the adoption didn't happen same day.

I saw this story about a firefighter who adopted a baby he delivered.  The story says they were able to take the baby home two days after it was born and got custody a few months later.  Not sure where they were in the adoption prep when the baby was born.  http://www.today.com/parents/firefighter-adopts-baby-he-delivered-emergency-call-she-s-part-t107827

[sasha206]

12 hours ago, TomServo said:

I saw this story about a firefighter who adopted a baby he delivered.  The story says they were able to take the baby home two days after it was born and got custody a few months later.  Not sure where they were in the adoption prep when the baby was born.  http://www.today.com/parents/firefighter-adopts-baby-he-delivered-emergency-call-she-s-part-t107827

Interesting.

But I'm guessing they didn't just give birth to 3 kids, one a stillborn that they were deciding to replace with the kid that was discovered by a firefighter.  I think that alone would've made a social worker hesitate before placing the child.  So I'm still unconvinced an adoption under those circumstances would've happened in that timeframe the show suggests.  :)