MovieChat Forums > Mom at Sixteen (2005) Discussion > Did she really have to give up her baby?

Did she really have to give up her baby?

posted 17 years ago by narugirl
22 replies | jump to latest

I know its incredibly hard to have a child at that age of course, but she already made a decision to have her child despite probably numerous people telling her that she should just get an abortion. She got through that. And on top of that, she's not really even the one who takes care of the child, its her mom! There are plenty of young, single mothers out there with NOBODY helping them, raising their children.. It's not like she's from a poor household either, they seemed well off. Damn I lived in much worse places than this. Actually i always lived in bad neighborhoods.

I don't know, this family just seems like her mom just had another child, that's all. Plenty of families have 3 children even with a single mother so I don't understand why she had to really give up her baby.
I don't know, i guess i was too disappointed with the cliche ending and I was just hoping she would be strong enough to protect and keep her child (although there's absolutely nothing wrong with adoptions or giving your kid up if you cannot absolutely take care of them.)

[–] asia_06-1 17 years ago

i wondered that too,but i think the mom cared more about what ppl thought about them.i mean they moved towns.but i oculd be wrong.

[–] crikit 17 years ago

There's also nothing wrong with giving your child up for adoption even if you CAN take care of them. The character in this movie clearly did not think she could deal with taking care of a child, and her mother already had two grown children and a day job. She knew that her teachers would make great parents, and knew that they were looking for a child to adopt.

Clearly her mom didn't want to raise the child as her own, and had likely forgotten how hard it is to take care of a baby while you have other stuff going on (that's not to say it's easy when you don't).

The point is, it's a movie.

And also, unless you've had a child while you're still in high school, I doubt you know what it's like. Just sayin'.

[–] flicka_feedz_u 16 years ago

im sorry but i just didn't get that part of the movie either its like she was saying if you don't have a dad in your life or if you don't grow up in a traditional family then you're missing out! I know loads of people who have grown in single parent households and have learnt usefull life skills alltogether!

[–] blaque108 16 years ago

I'm watching this movie now on Lifetime and I know it's just a movie, but I hated that in the end she had to give Charlie up for adoption. Like the one person said she already had her mom there to help when needed and then Macy if she helps, but I think Jacey could have raised the baby she just would have to focus on school and maybe when she gets half way done with high school get a job. Then on the other hand, it was nice of her to give the baby to her teacher and husband and then they ended up having one of their own! At least they let her see Charlie when she gets ready and he knows who his birth mother is.

[–] Garf94 16 years ago

She didnt have to give up her baby, she chose to give him up. Adoption was just the right choice for her. She knew that if she kept charley that he woulndt grow up with a dad and have a nice little happy family. Let me tell you, im 17 and just had a baby 9 weeks ago and its hard. And i did think about giving my son up for adoption, but its hard after holding him for the first time and realizing how much you love your child. but i kept him because my boyfriend and i can give him a happy life.
and i dont think jacey's bf was really ready to support a child anyway. he had his whole life ahead of him.
Plus her mom was kind of a meany. I wouldnt want my mom pretending my son was hers!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lidiasabidoang 16 years ago

its true dat wen dey r adopted dey cud actually end up abused, etc but she knew who she was giving the baby too n dey r gud ppol. plus she is a part of her baby's life unlike most teen mothers so i wudnt say she gave him up completely. n her baby knows who his real mother is

[–] Yorick_Brown 15 years ago

How is being a teen not a valid enough reason?

Going through a pregnancy and rand raising a kid is such a tough ordeal for a teen and it's very brave and very selfless to give your kid up for adoption for people who have the time, patience, warmth and maturity to raise a child.

She didn't have to give it up but it's most certainly not cowardly to give it up just because you decided to toughen through it all.

Now we grieve 'cause now it's gone
Things were good when we were young

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yorick_Brown 15 years ago

That's you but not everyone. Everyone is different and plenty of adopted kis turn out just fine.

Save some face, you know you've only got one
Change your ways while you're young

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yorick_Brown 15 years ago

And sometimes turn out fine just as much as children of teenage parents raised in broken homes turn out wrong

Save some face, you know you've only got one
Change your ways while you're young

[–] alialmoore 15 years ago

That isn't true, and you're silly if you think it is. You need to differentiate between those children that are removed from their homes by the state, or parents that choose to call the state department of health and human services to surrender their children. <i>Those</i> are the children that have the least likely chance that they will end up in happy homes, in those cases, it has a lot to do with the types of families from which they were taken or the types of parents surrendering them.

However, private adoption services are different and those children are almost always desperately wanted. A personal example is that of my niece. She was adopted privately and she is the best thing that ever happened to this family. I think that you are more than a little closed minded. I applaud you for having a child at 16 and doing what you need to to take care of her and make her happy, but for other teens out there, I wish that they would have the courage or simply the foresight to decide to place their child up for adoption if they don't believe in abortion. To have a child and not be able to care for that child's needs is completely selfish.

[–] simba122504 16 years ago

She wanted to give her baby a better life.

I'm Lana's number 1 enemy

[–] justlyndsay19 15 years ago

I agree, I had a baby when I was 16 and I stayed in school, AND had a part-time job. I got good grades, and the state paid for me to have my daughter in daycare during the day so I could finish high school. When I was pregnant and still trying to figure out what to do, my sister and her husband offered to adopt my baby, but I just knew I couldn't do that. I know that there are many women who, for different reasons, cannot take care of a child, but I did think that Jacey's situation wasn't so bad. She lived in a loving financially stable home with a mother who was willing to help out tons. Most teenage moms don't have that. I lived in a financially stable and loving home, but my mom didn't volunteer to raise my child for me, that was MY full responsibility and I did well.

During the whole movie I found myself cheering Jacey on, saying "You can do it!! You don't have to go to a different school! You can STILL pursue all your dreams and goals!!"

Yes, its harder, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE! I finished high school and am now about to graduate from college in a few months. I am also the parent of a beautiful 6 year old little girl who I raised all on my own. She's my best friend and I couldn't be happier. Its hard, and there are many sacrifices, but I had such faith that Jacey could have done it, too.

Anyway, I really did like the movie, I was just a little disappointed in the end. But its a Lifetime movie, so I suspected that was going to happen.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jenni_doll_1 15 years ago

I have to say, I was a little disappointed that she gave Charlie up at the end. I'm not by any means downing giving a baby up for adoption if that's really what seems to best for everybody, especially the child, and I don't doubt in real life, it is very often the best choice for a teen mother to make, but it seemed that the point of this movie was to show the difficulties of teen motherhood by portraying a teen mom who worked as hard as she could to make the best of her situation and go on to raise her child as best she could. Life doesn't let you cherry pick the consequences of your actions. You make your decsions and you have to learn to make the best of them. I'd see it a little differently if she had gone through with the open adoption right after the baby was born, but she did it 5 or 6 months after the fact. Sure it was hard, but with the help of her mom (who was the primary caretaker anyway) and sister, it would seem logical she could have gotten a handle on things by that point. I can understand giving birth to a baby and giving it up because you feel you won't be able to give him what he needs, but she had already made her choice to keep him. I understand she wanted to do the best thing for her son, but I think it would have done the movie more justice to show Jacey sticking it out inspite of all her trials and tribulations and going on to parent her son.

[–] rubber4532 14 years ago

the father got cold feet, that's why she changed her mind and gave the baby up.

I've never cleaned a toilet but I have unblocked a couple- which is worse!

[–] jenni_doll_1 14 years ago

That happens quite often in real life, but as sad as it is, the father checking out didn't necessitate giving the baby up six months after his birth. Jacey knew from the beginning Charlie's father may not stay in the picture, but she still wanted to keep her child and she could have continued to manage taking care of Charlie with the help of her family. As I'd said it would all make complete sense if she had given him up immediately after he was born for any reason previously mentioned, but the bottom line is she had already chosen to keep and raise her baby. When is it reasonable to say that it's too late for a young mom to decide she can't handle the responsibility she's taken on by having a baby so young? As sweet as the ending was, I have to wonder how much a six month old baby would be affected by being removed from the family he had already bonded with and the environment he was used to and handed over to strangers. Even a baby that young does have awareness, and though he may forget, I would still think it would have the potential to be somewhat traumatic, or at least confusing. It's one thing for a later adoption to take place because a child's safety and welfare are at stake, i.e., the parents are neglectful, addicted to drugs, etc, but for a child to be put up for adoption on the grounds that another couple can give him a "better life" is a decision that should be made from day one, not several months after the fact.

[–] scissorhands__emily 14 years ago

I'm surprised to see so many people against Jacey giving Charlie up for adoption. In fact, it's not even like she randomly went to a clinic and was like "I don't want my baby anymore, please help me get him a family." She decided to give Charlie to her teachers when she realized the struggle they were going through trying to conceive while she had a child accidentally that she didn't truly want (yes she did love him, but I think it was clear Jacey couldn't really handle Charlie and forced all the responsibilities onto her mom). I mean, everyone here acts like Charlie had a wonderful life living with Jacey. This just isn't true. Jacey pretty much neglected him and left all the responsibilities to her mom. I'm sure her mom did not want to be taking care of another child, since it was not her baby. Plus she was already struggling raising Jacey and her sister well (since both seemed to be going through tough patches - Jacey depressed and taking speed, her sister going out at night being wild). Also, of course the mom was mean and stressed out. Her daughters are on a downward path and she has a newborn baby to raise (since Jacey was not taking responsibility for Charlie). Now everyone acts like it was a cliche ending for Jacey to give Charlie to her teachers but I don't think so at all. In most movies Jacey would have kept the baby and suddenly become a perfect, loving mother. In reality, he would have probably continued to be raised the same way. By giving Charlie to her teachers, Jacey was giving him a better life. They were ready to be parents, while Jacey wasn't and they were prepared to give him a loving home. Jacey's home was chaotic and a mess. I think the end of this movie worked.

Plus, people saying you don't know how people may change. Okay this is true but you have to take a leap and use your best judgement. Clearly Jacey felt they were fit to be parents and had no reservations or she would not have given them Charlie. Seriously, my neighbors are just like them. They've never had children because they could not conceive but they are some of the most loving people ever and would have made wonderful parents. Unfortunately it is often the people that would make the best parents who do not get this chance, while the worst often churn out several. Also, one of my friends is the youngest of 6 children. The oldest child was given up for adoption though so it is her and her 4 older siblings. They do not have a good home life at all, and while their eldest sister may feel unwanted since she was given up for adoption, honestly, she is probably better off with her adopted family. My friend's brothers are both screwed up on drugs and they just do not have the best home life. Oh, and their mom was about 16 when she gave the first girl up. Anyway I'm just trying to say everyone here acts like adoption was a terrible choice, but I honestly didn't think so. No Jacey wasn't in a horrible home life situation but that still didn't mean she was taking care of Charlie the way she should be. Besides I think she just really wanted to give her teachers the opportunity to be parents. She honestly just wanted Charlie for selfish reasons because when she begged to keep him, she failed to then take care of him. I understand that maternal instinct and how she automatically loved him, but at the same time, if she wasn't going to step up and raise him she should give him to her teachers. Besides, I don't think she would have given him away but it was just the perfect situation with her teachers.

[–] Tracey73 9 years ago

Scissorhands Emily, great post. My parents adopted my niece when she was one (I was 17 and my sister was 21). They raised her. It was not easy for them to raise two kids, then start all over again to raise another.

It's not right to pawn your child off onto your parents, just assuming they want to raise their grandchild. Of course, grandparents love their grandchildren, but they don't want to raise them. They only do so out of necessity.

The beauty is I'm learning how to face my beast ~ Blue October

[–] sunchick116-872-583383 8 years ago

Am I the only person who didn't think her boyfriend was the bad guy? He reacted totally predictably but I think his reaction later was like Jaycee's mom-scaring and manipulating him out of taking responsibility probably by his parents. So to answer the question, no I don't think Jaycee HAD to give him up. Had there been parental support on both sides everything would have been fine jaycee's mom in particular was an awful person who bullied everyone.