Why do people adopt internationally?

[Rivka]

Even so, there just are not the plethora of children waiting to be adopted. THEY DO NOT EXIST. IT IS A MYTH. While there are millions of children who need homes in this country, they are mostly not adoptable. These children are in need of foster homes because their parents have not terminated their parental rights. A large portion of those have special needs which are tremendous to take on purposefully. It takes some very special people to knowingly and willingly parent a nonbiological child who has mental and physical problems.

 

:iagree:

[Mom in High Heels]

Unless you're talking about gestational surrogacy, then no. She wasn't giving birth to "his and his wife's new baby," she was giving birth to her new baby. And she wasn't the "bio mom," she was the mom.

 

The degree to which some people feel entitled to other people's children astounds and appalls me. And I say this as the wife, sister, and aunt of adoptees.

 

 

Why? If the birth mother agrees to the adoption, the adopting family pays all the bills, gets excited about the new baby, prepares for the new baby, shouldn't they expect to get the baby? Believe me, we sure did. She was OUR baby from the day we found out about her. We had her u/s photo on our refrigerator. We had clothes, a nursery, car seat, stroller, everything. We talked about what she would be like. How we would bring her up. We dreamed of her future. We paid a lot of money in hospital bills (and pre-birth for things the birth mom needed) on the understanding that we would be bringing her home from the hospital. We didn't feel "entitled" to her, because she was in our eyes (and hearts) our daughter. We were devastated not to bring her home. We had to take down the crib, get rid of all the baby things (I couldn't bear to have them around) and deal with the loss of our child.

It makes me crazy that in the blink of an eye all that can be gone. I also think that if there is a written agreement for adoption and the adopting parents pay for everything and the birth mom changes her mind, she should have to pay them back.

[Whereneverever]

Why? If the birth mother agrees to the adoption, the adopting family pays all the bills, gets excited about the new baby, prepares for the new baby, shouldn't they expect to get the baby? Believe me, we sure did. She was OUR baby from the day we found out about her. We had her u/s photo on our refrigerator. We had clothes, a nursery, car seat, stroller, everything. We talked about what she would be like. How we would bring her up. We dreamed of her future. We paid a lot of money in hospital bills (and pre-birth for things the birth mom needed) on the understanding that we would be bringing her home from the hospital. We didn't feel "entitled" to her, because she was in our eyes (and hearts) our daughter. We were devastated not to bring her home. We had to take down the crib, get rid of all the baby things (I couldn't bear to have them around) and deal with the loss of our child.

It makes me crazy that in the blink of an eye all that can be gone. I also think that if there is a written agreement for adoption and the adopting parents pay for everything and the birth mom changes her mind, she should have to pay them back.

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[SKL]

Unless you're talking about gestational surrogacy, then no. She wasn't giving birth to "his and his wife's new baby," she was giving birth to her new baby. And she wasn't the "bio mom," she was the mom.

 

The degree to which some people feel entitled to other people's children astounds and appalls me. And I say this as the wife, sister, and aunt of adoptees.

 

While you are technically correct, the adoptive parents feel like the parents before they legally are, and that's not something to diss them about. The pregnant woman told this couple that the baby would be theirs. How are they rotten for adopting in their hearts before the adoption was legal? The way you say "entitled" makes it sound like they just thought they could go up and snatch a baby without the parents having any say-so.

 

I agree that the commenter's word choice was not perfect, but "entitled" is also neither accurate nor kind.

 

I never felt "entitled" to my children until they were legally mine, but they were my daughters in my heart before that. Of course I would have given the birth mom my blessings had she changed her mind, but I would have felt bereaved. The poster was just saying this is why domestic adoption is not as attractive as some people seem to think.

[Reeciecup]

Why? If the birth mother agrees to the adoption, the adopting family pays all the bills, gets excited about the new baby, prepares for the new baby, shouldn't they expect to get the baby? Believe me, we sure did. She was OUR baby from the day we found out about her. We had her u/s photo on our refrigerator. We had clothes, a nursery, car seat, stroller, everything. We talked about what she would be like. How we would bring her up. We dreamed of her future. We paid a lot of money in hospital bills (and pre-birth for things the birth mom needed) on the understanding that we would be bringing her home from the hospital. We didn't feel "entitled" to her, because she was in our eyes (and hearts) our daughter. We were devastated not to bring her home. We had to take down the crib, get rid of all the baby things (I couldn't bear to have them around) and deal with the loss of our child.

It makes me crazy that in the blink of an eye all that can be gone. I also think that if there is a written agreement for adoption and the adopting parents pay for everything and the birth mom changes her mind, she should have to pay them back.

 

But a mother can't agree to an adoption until a baby is actually born. That's not legal in any state that I am aware of.

 

This is why prospective adoptive parents should not be paying for anything for the birthmom. Medicaid is available to any pregnant woman that is unable to pay for her maternity care. Why are adoptive parents paying?

 

When I gave my child up 20 years ago, the adoptive parents did not pay for anything I needed, any of my medical care, or any of the baby's care until they had actually taken custody of the baby. I qualified for medicaid, because pregnancy wasn't covered under my parents' medical insurance.

 

The adoptive parents did buy things they needed for the baby, in the hope that I would follow through with the adoption. But that baby was not theirs until I signed legal documents giving them the right to parent her.

 

I am sorry for your loss. What you have been through is terrible. But I don't understand how things work now with all this money changing hands. That was illegal in my state 20 years ago.

[LidiyaDawn]

But I don't understand how things work now with all this money changing hands. That was illegal in my state 20 years ago.

 

I always thought it was illegal too… now I'm curious what the law is here. (Canada)

[LidiyaDawn]

I always thought it was illegal too… now I'm curious what the law is here. (Canada)

 

Hmmm.

 

According to this site:

 

It’s against the law to give or receive money for placing a child for adoption. But certain fees and expenses are allowed, namely costs relating to the birth and adoption are allowed for various people involved in the adoption process, such as the birth mother, licensed adoption agencies and lawyers providing legal services. For example, the Adoption Regulation allows a prospective parent to pay the birth mother’s expenses for such things as medical services, the cost of reasonable accommodation, counselling services and the like.

 

I guess it's legal here…although expenses wouldn't be near as much since our regular health care is free.

[Haiku]

This is why prospective adoptive parents should not be paying for anything for the birthmom.

 

:iagree:

 

What a way to set up a situation where a mother feels obligated to give up her baby even if she changes her mind ... and a situation where the potential adoptive family feels cheated if she does.

 

Bad, bad idea, imo.

 

Tara

[sandellie4]

We're a foster care family in the U.S. Most of the kids are older, and they have been through a lot. It's heartbreaking. But every time we start to get somewhere with one of them, the system or the parent gets involved, pulls them out of their security and routine, and then later they are returned to us like some article of ill-fitting clothing, much worse for wear. We tried early on to adopt two of them, twin boys with cerebral palsy, and it was an absolute nightmare. We didn't go international to adopt, and decided to stay in foster care, but I can definitely see why someone would might look elsewhere. Not that international adoptions aren't fraught with risk and heartbreak, but it's a lot more difficult in the states than many people realize.

 

Sandy

[lea1]

We adopted our two sons at the same time from Russia. We chose Russia for several reasons, the number one reason being that we are older parents and could not have adopted a younger child from the U.S. and from some other countries either (China, for one). My husband is older than I am and, when we adopted, Russia went by the age of the mother (I was 43 and he was 52).

 

We wanted younger children because, having done the research, we knew the odds of having less emotional/attachment issues were greatly reduced with a younger child.

 

Being older parents and wanting younger children pretty much excluded us from adopting from the U.S. Again, based on our research, we also would not have wanted to have an open adoption, for all the reasons already stated and described in painful detail in this thread.

 

My husband's family comes from that area of the world and are Slavic (he is first generation born in the U.S. in his family). We prayed about it and felt that was where God was leading us.

 

We made two trips to Russia. It was expensive but we knew at the end of the process we would definitely have two sons, which is what we requested - two boys between the ages of 8 months and 2 years - I think that was the age range (boys are more available because more people request girls).

 

Our process took almost exactly 1 year, from the time we started filling out our paper work until the time our sons were home, which was pretty quick considering Russia put a hold on all adoptions due to changing laws during this time frame. Our sons were 14 months and 15.5 months old when they came home. They were really under weight but other than that they were healthy, even though the baby home records indicated some medical issues. They are now almost six and are both doing beautifully.

 

We considered doing a search and contacting their birth parents but decided we would let them make that decision when they are older enough. You just never know what you are going to find and they might end up wishing we had not done that or they might not want to know...we don't know that. If they want to find their birth parents someday, we will help them as much as we can.

[Impish]

the birth mom changes her mind, she should have to pay them back.

:iagree:

But a mother can't agree to an adoption until a baby is actually born. That's not legal in any state that I am aware of.

 

This is why prospective adoptive parents should not be paying for anything for the birthmom. Medicaid is available to any pregnant woman that is unable to pay for her maternity care. Why are adoptive parents paying?

 

When I gave my child up 20 years ago, the adoptive parents did not pay for anything I needed, any of my medical care, or any of the baby's care until they had actually taken custody of the baby. I qualified for medicaid, because pregnancy wasn't covered under my parents' medical insurance.

 

The adoptive parents did buy things they needed for the baby, in the hope that I would follow through with the adoption. But that baby was not theirs until I signed legal documents giving them the right to parent her.

 

I am sorry for your loss. What you have been through is terrible. But I don't understand how things work now with all this money changing hands. That was illegal in my state 20 years ago.

:iagree:

I don't understand how the adoptive parents can be out thousands of dollars and basically get a shrug. There are enough stories out there of women who never intend to place their child but use the prospective parents for every last cent that can be wrung out of them.

 

And of course, if the potential parents *don't* pay, then someone else will.

[aggieamy]

I don't know exactly how the law reads but here it is not unusual that the adopting parents will pay the hospital bills and potentially the living expenses of the biological mother while she is pregnant. I've been told by agencies that the more of a biological mother's expenses you can pay the faster they can match you with a mother.

[Reeciecup]

I don't know exactly how the law reads but here it is not unusual that the adopting parents will pay the hospital bills and potentially the living expenses of the biological mother while she is pregnant. I've been told by agencies that the more of a biological mother's expenses you can pay the faster they can match you with a mother.

 

 

That should be illegal! That amounts to baby buying imo....highest bidder wins!

[Impish]

That should be illegal! That amounts to baby buying imo....highest bidder wins!

:iagree:10000000000000%!!!

[Rivka]

Why? If the birth mother agrees to the adoption, the adopting family pays all the bills, gets excited about the new baby, prepares for the new baby, shouldn't they expect to get the baby? Believe me, we sure did. She was OUR baby from the day we found out about her. We had her u/s photo on our refrigerator. We had clothes, a nursery, car seat, stroller, everything. We talked about what she would be like. How we would bring her up. We dreamed of her future. We paid a lot of money in hospital bills (and pre-birth for things the birth mom needed) on the understanding that we would be bringing her home from the hospital. We didn't feel "entitled" to her, because she was in our eyes (and hearts) our daughter. We were devastated not to bring her home. We had to take down the crib, get rid of all the baby things (I couldn't bear to have them around) and deal with the loss of our child.

It makes me crazy that in the blink of an eye all that can be gone. I also think that if there is a written agreement for adoption and the adopting parents pay for everything and the birth mom changes her mind, she should have to pay them back.

 

I have so much sympathy for your situation, and for what happened. I really do. I remember what my sister and parents each went through when each of them were trying to adopt, and I remember how wrenching the ups and downs of the process were, and my heart goes out to you. I wish that everyone could easily become parents if they wanted to.

 

But it's just inherently messy when one person is hoping to parent a baby that another woman is carrying. Human biology is so powerfully directed towards the bonding of mother and child that no pregnant woman can really know for sure that she's going to be able to relinquish the child she's carrying, after birth. Even if she plans with the best of intentions to adopt, she may legitimately be unable to do it.

 

My husband's birth mother had lifelong grief and trauma about giving up her child. That's common. She was heavily pressured into adoption and certainly never given a chance to change her mind - she wasn't even allowed to touch her baby. My husband's adoptive parents thought the adoption was the answer to their prayers. They desperately wanted to be parents, and they were good parents, and they loved my husband with all their hearts. They adopted within a system in which the birth mother's grief and emotions and needs were rendered invisible. It truly wasn't better than the current system. It just looked that way to adoptive parents of the time.

 

I don't know what kind of counseling you had about the adoption process. Did anyone caution you against forming so strong a bond to the child you hoped to adopt, prior to relinquishment? Because I think it is troubling that you thought of the child as "your baby" while she was still in another woman's uterus. She just wasn't. She was always her mother's baby, and would have been up until the moment of relinquishment.

 

I do think that it muddies the issue unacceptably when prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to transfer money to pregnant women. Even if the money is supposed to be support for pregnancy expenses, and not a payment for the child, it's clear that it induces a sense of... contractual expectations... in prospective adoptive parents that is not legally or morally right. I would like to see substantial reforms of the private adoption industry to prevent the kind of payment relationships that lead to an unjustified sense of entitlement in the prospective adoptive parents, and an undue amount of pressure on the part of pregnant women.

[Impish]

...And also those that deliberately prey on the potential adoptive parents and who never, ever had any intention of placing their child.

 

Heck, there have been women exposed who were getting money from more than one set of parents, and, if memory serves, more than one wasn't even pregnant!

[Melissa in Australia]

But it's just inherently messy when one person is hoping to parent a baby that another woman is carrying. Human biology is so powerfully directed towards the bonding of mother and child that no pregnant woman can really know for sure that she's going to be able to relinquish the child she's carrying, after birth. Even if she plans with the best of intentions to adopt, she may legitimately be unable to do it.

 

My husband's birth mother had lifelong grief and trauma about giving up her child. That's common. She was heavily pressured into adoption and certainly never given a chance to change her mind - she wasn't even allowed to touch her baby. My husband's adoptive parents thought the adoption was the answer to their prayers. They desperately wanted to be parents, and they were good parents, and they loved my husband with all their hearts. They adopted within a system in which the birth mother's grief and emotions and needs were rendered invisible. It truly wasn't better than the current system. It just looked that way to adoptive parents of the time.

 

I don't know what kind of counseling you had about the adoption process. Did anyone caution you against forming so strong a bond to the child you hoped to adopt, prior to relinquishment? Because I think it is troubling that you thought of the child as "your baby" while she was still in another woman's uterus. She just wasn't. She was always her mother's baby, and would have been up until the moment of relinquishment.

 

I do think that it muddies the issue unacceptably when prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to transfer money to pregnant women. Even if the money is supposed to be support for pregnancy expenses, and not a payment for the child, it's clear that it induces a sense of... contractual expectations... in prospective adoptive parents that is not legally or morally right. I would like to see substantial reforms of the private adoption industry to prevent the kind of payment relationships that lead to an unjustified sense of entitlement in the prospective adoptive parents, and an undue amount of pressure on the part of pregnant women.

:iagree: on all aspects and well worded :001_smile:

[Murmer]

The problem with not getting attached is that many birthmothers get worried if the adoptive family isn't getting excited. It's a fine line to walk of getting excited for the potential baby but respecting the fact that the birthmother does not relinquish her rights until the papers are signed. With our contested adoption we were there after birth in the hospital and the nurses expected us to room with the baby but we said every thing was up to birthmother until she signed but we had to be committed to the placement or it wouldn't have happened because the case worker messed up in so many ways. So it is a very very fine line.

[HS Mom in NC]

Another issue not detailed here is age cut offs.

 

Many countries and I guess (someone correct me if I'm wrong) both types of domestic adoption have age cut offs. This is yet another reason people will choose not to adopt in the US. Since they can not be assured they will adopt the foster child placed in their home, they could lose literally years before an adoption is finalized-if at all. It's very common for those adopting privately to wait years. I hear far more stories of "We waited years for a private adoption and finally gave up" than "We had our private adoption happen right away."

 

Since most people are choosing to wait longer to try to have children and since there is yet another myth here in the US spouted by well intentioned people who know nothing, "Oh, don't worry. If you can't have a baby yourself, you can just adopt!" (implying it's easy) going international to certain countries is preferable.

 

There are also cases of people wanting bigger families but facing age related infertility issues and those (like me) dealing with fertility issues related to complicated pregnancies. Not everyone can afford the potential time suck of domestic adoption.

 

For our S. Korean adoption it was 1 year, almost to the day, from inquiring about adopting from Korea to our daughter being placed in our home. (S. Korea waits 9-11 months to finalize an adoption post-placement so they can follow up with social workers and a paediatrician as a precaution.)

[HS Mom in NC]

Sticky Issues

 

Yes, private adoption usually means adoptive parents pay for the living expenses, medical care, and legal fees related to an adoption. Let's face it, if you adopt you should expect to pay for everything your adopted child would need to come into the world and your home just like you should expect to pay for everything your biological child would need to come into the world. It makes perfect sense.

 

How should that money get where it has to go to meet those practical needs? Rent has to be paid. Groceries bought. Doctors, midwives, pediatricians, hospitals, birth centers, lawyers, social workers, and the like have to be paid so they can pay their staffs and buy their supplies. Who should pay? How should the payment arrive?

 

The problem is, what if that child doesn't come into the world or your home? Should the money be returned? If not, why should someone have to pay all the expenses related to a child that is not in the end theirs? Adoptions can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Most prospective adoptive parents are not independently wealthy. They can't afford to pay thousands of dollars for adoption related expenses that didn't result in adopting child. What are they supposed to do?

[SKL]

It's easy to say "don't bond with the baby until the papers are final." But you have to get ready for the baby to come home. You're going to need the nursery to be set up, and when you're setting it up, you're not going to make it all gray, you're going to put part of yourself into it. It's not humanly possible to prepare for a baby without getting emotionally invested. You're going to tell everyone at work that you're about to quit your job (or make other schedule changes) to become a mother. You're going to shop for a car seat, read up on breastfeeding, and every time you walk down your street, you're going to imagine that the next spring, you'll be showing your baby all the wonders of nature. You can be told all day long "don't get too attached to the idea," but it won't matter. The maternal instinct exists for adoptive as well as biological moms.

 

I'm not saying birth moms should not be allowed to change their minds. But if they do, the would-be adoptive parents are going to grieve. There's no way around it.

[HS Mom in NC]

It's easy to say "don't bond with the baby until the papers are final." But you have to get ready for the baby to come home. You're going to need the nursery to be set up, and when you're setting it up, you're not going to make it all gray, you're going to put part of yourself into it. It's not humanly possible to prepare for a baby without getting emotionally invested. You're going to tell everyone at work that you're about to quit your job (or make other schedule changes) to become a mother. You're going to shop for a car seat, read up on breastfeeding, and every time you walk down your street, you're going to imagine that the next spring, you'll be showing your baby all the wonders of nature. You can be told all day long "don't get too attached to the idea," but it won't matter. The maternal instinct exists for adoptive as well as biological moms.

 

I'm not saying birth moms should not be allowed to change their minds. But if they do, the would-be adoptive parents are going to grieve. There's no way around it.

 

Well said.

 

I relactated for my adopted child. I know a couple of others who had never been pregnant who lactated for their adopted children too. People do that (and all the other things all adoptive parents do) because they are preparing to be parents for the rest of their lives. That's the really hard thing about adoptive parenting-it's the same love for your adopted kids before they arrive as it was(or would have been) for your bio kids before they arrived but you are not in control of things they way biological parents are. No one sits coldly detached as an adoptive parent just because it might not come to pass any more than a biological mother would sit coldly detached because the unthinkable (gestational or newborn death) might happen.

 

I remember telling my husband that I wanted to adopt because I had another child out in the world somewhere and we had to figure out where. That's not every prospective adoptive parent's experience, but I'm not the only one. Even before she arrived it was just as real a sense of her being mine as it was when I'm away from my biological children and knowing they are mine and out there in the world.

 

The scariest thing I ever did was look at her picture when we were matched 5 months before she arrived. It is really tough to look at your sweet baby's face and have no control at all over what is happening to her. There was sabre rattling going on in N. Korea and we knew a military situation between north and south could possibly interfere with her coming home. Russia also threatened to end all of its international adoption while China slowed their process to a trickle. That meant S. Korea might end or curtail international adoptions because they will not be the country that sends the most adoptees abroad. So, we had to endure these possibilities-things that never even enter the minds of biological parents. All that in addition to our child being taken care of by total strangers. Wonderful strangers, but strangers none the less. That and missing the beginning stages of her life. International adoption is a hard, cold experience.

[SKL]

I don't know what the answer is as far as giving money to birth moms. Money works into the adoption discussion in the strangest ways. It's been insistently argued that adopting from a poor country equals exploitation of poor women. That their poverty prevents them from making a free decision on whether to parent or not, and therefore the choice should not be available to them at all. Of course this completely ignores the fact that if well-off women freely make the choice not to parent, there must be reasons for this choice other than poverty. And it also ignores the fact that even in poor countries, most single moms choose to raise their children despite the hardships. But somehow people feel more comfortable with the idea of poor women in conservative cultures being forced to provide for a child they did not want to parent, rather than to see that child adopted by a family who wants her and the mom relieved of a tremendous burden.

 

So, money is a touchy subject. In the US context, I could see how it could affect decisions, whether that was the payer's intention or not. Maybe the reason they allow certain expenses to be covered is to reduce the likelihood that the birth mom would terminate or fail to take care of her health. Wouldn't it be nice if we had some kind of system that just took care of birth moms' costs within the adoption context, without the adoptive family being directly involved? Like, maybe all prospective adoptive families could pay in a one-time fee and leave it up to an objective middleman to dole out the money for birth moms' expenses. (Just thinking out loud.)

[Impish]

Sticky Issues

 

Yes, private adoption usually means adoptive parents pay for the living expenses, medical care, and legal fees related to an adoption. Let's face it, if you adopt you should expect to pay for everything your adopted child would need to come into the world and your home just like you should expect to pay for everything your biological child would need to come into the world. It makes perfect sense.

Problem is, as has been pointed out on this thread, its NOT the aparents child until after the papers are signed and waiting period is up, and child is in their arms...and technically, until its finalized. So no, its not covering the costs for their child, b/c until the legal stuff is done, first mom can change her mind.

How should that money get where it has to go to meet those practical needs? Rent has to be paid. Groceries bought. Doctors, midwives, pediatricians, hospitals, birth centers, lawyers, social workers, and the like have to be paid so they can pay their staffs and buy their supplies. Who should pay? How should the payment arrive?

I don't see why rent should be the aparent responsibility. Wouldn't the pregnant woman need to be living somewhere even if she hadn't become pregnant? I really don't understand why aparents should be expected to pay all living expenses. Really don't get that at all.

The problem is, what if that child doesn't come into the world or your home? Should the money be returned? If not, why should someone have to pay all the expenses related to a child that is not in the end theirs? Adoptions can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Most prospective adoptive parents are not independently wealthy. They can't afford to pay thousands of dollars for adoption related expenses that didn't result in adopting child. What are they supposed to do?

:iagree:

[HS Mom in NC]

You have to remember that birthmothers often are facing terrible financial and/or personal problems that motivate them to place a child for adoption in the first place. If they could afford the basics, some of them would not choose to place a child for adoption. Some are teens kicked out of their parents home or on the streets. Some have addiction problems. There are a lot of different scenarios.

 

The legal stuff has to happen after the child is born, so it's, for lack of a better term, retroactively payments for their child's needs. There is no practical way to withhold paying for the necessities until the adoption is finalized. Those needs have to be met before finalization. This is not a neat and tidy transaction that allows for payment to made after services are rendered. We're not talking about hiring someone to clean your house for you.

 

When my daughter's adoption was finalized she became a US citizen. Her citizenship papers had to be filed after the adoption papers were signed but once they were, she was retroactively recognized as a citizen the day she was adopted which was months earlier. Support payments to the birthmother work the same way. It's payment for your child before (s)he was legally recognized as such, but once it's done, it's viewed as being your child from conception.

 

Adoptive parents don't say things like, "Before you were our child..." They talk to and about their kids as having been part of the family from the time Mom and Dad first knew they existed. Smart ones also recognize and affirm that most (non-abusive and non-neglectful) birthparents will always view that child as theirs even though the law does not recognize them as the child's parents any more.

[Haiku]

Sticky Issues

 

Yes, private adoption usually means adoptive parents pay for the living expenses, medical care, and legal fees related to an adoption. Let's face it, if you adopt you should expect to pay for everything your adopted child would need to come into the world and your home just like you should expect to pay for everything your biological child would need to come into the world. It makes perfect sense.

 

 

I disagree. I think this sets up a situation that smells suspiciously like baby buying. Not that the potential adoptive parents are doing something wrong or nefarious. If the system is set up that way, they are just following the system. But a system that allows or encourages this is wrong and should be changed.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

 

Adoptive parents don't say things like, "Before you were our child..." They talk to and about their kids as having been part of the family from the time Mom and Dad first knew they existed.

 

Unless, of course, their kids don't want them to talk that way. My kids were in orphanages before they came to us. They know/remember what it was like to live without us. I would never dream of insulting them by acting like they were part of our family before they got to us. That would completely discount their lives and (in some instances) their suffering before we got them. My dd17 is adamant about the fact that she had a life before us (and rightly she should be). She remembers her parents, who died. If I ever tried to act like she was part of our family before she joined us, she would have a conniption fit.

 

Tara

[Rivka]

It's easy to say "don't bond with the baby until the papers are final." But you have to get ready for the baby to come home. You're going to need the nursery to be set up, and when you're setting it up, you're not going to make it all gray, you're going to put part of yourself into it. It's not humanly possible to prepare for a baby without getting emotionally invested. You're going to tell everyone at work that you're about to quit your job (or make other schedule changes) to become a mother. You're going to shop for a car seat, read up on breastfeeding, and every time you walk down your street, you're going to imagine that the next spring, you'll be showing your baby all the wonders of nature. You can be told all day long "don't get too attached to the idea," but it won't matter. The maternal instinct exists for adoptive as well as biological moms.

 

I'm not saying birth moms should not be allowed to change their minds. But if they do, the would-be adoptive parents are going to grieve. There's no way around it.

 

And I'm not at all saying that it's wrong for adoptive parents to yearn, and hope, and grieve if the adoption falls through. Of course it's an emotionally involved process, and a wrenching, terrifying one.

 

But I'm disturbed by the attitude that the hoping and yearning makes a baby already yours, and that a mother who decides to keep her baby has done something wrong (barring cases of genuine fraud - not just the suspicion of fraud based on disappointment) and deprived prospective adoptive parents of their rightful baby.

[Reeciecup]

You know, I can't imagine how I would feel if I gave my child to the adoptive parent who bought the most, and then had that child meet me 18 years later knowing that. Wouldn't that child feel like he/she had been sold?

 

You never know what an adoptive parent is going to tell the kid about you. I have learned that the hard way.

[littleWMN]

It's easy to say "don't bond with the baby until the papers are final." But you have to get ready for the baby to come home. You're going to need the nursery to be set up, and when you're setting it up, you're not going to make it all gray, you're going to put part of yourself into it. It's not humanly possible to prepare for a baby without getting emotionally invested. You're going to tell everyone at work that you're about to quit your job (or make other schedule changes) to become a mother. You're going to shop for a car seat, read up on breastfeeding, and every time you walk down your street, you're going to imagine that the next spring, you'll be showing your baby all the wonders of nature. You can be told all day long "don't get too attached to the idea," but it won't matter. The maternal instinct exists for adoptive as well as biological moms.

 

I'm not saying birth moms should not be allowed to change their minds. But if they do, the would-be adoptive parents are going to grieve. There's no way around it.

 

Amen!!! I've been there twice. Both mothers had the right to change their minds. I did not begrudge either of them. We met (several times) with one of them. She wanted to see pictures of the nursery and she drilled us about names we liked. She put my 3 year old's hand on her belly and told her that was her sister. Unless you've been there... don't judge. It's an invisible grief because society acts this way (it wasn't your baby, there is nothing to grieve).

[littleWMN]

And I'm not at all saying that it's wrong for adoptive parents to yearn, and hope, and grieve if the adoption falls through. Of course it's an emotionally involved process, and a wrenching, terrifying one.

 

But I'm disturbed by the attitude that the hoping and yearning makes a baby already yours, and that a mother who decides to keep her baby has done something wrong (barring cases of genuine fraud - not just the suspicion of fraud based on disappointment) and deprived prospective adoptive parents of their rightful baby.

 

:confused: I didn't read that anywhere...

[HS Mom in NC]

Unless, of course, their kids don't want them to talk that way. My kids were in orphanages before they came to us. They know/remember what it was like to live without us. I would never dream of insulting them by acting like they were part of our family before they got to us. That would completely discount their lives and (in some instances) their suffering before we got them. My dd17 is adamant about the fact that she had a life before us (and rightly she should be). She remembers her parents, who died. If I ever tried to act like she was part of our family before she joined us, she would have a conniption fit.

 

Tara

 

The context of my comment is adoptive parents getting a child at birth and covering the costs of meeting the birthmother's practical needs during pregnancy. The situation you mention is obviously a completely different situation.

[HS Mom in NC]

I disagree. I think this sets up a situation that smells suspiciously like baby buying. Not that the potential adoptive parents are doing something wrong or nefarious. If the system is set up that way, they are just following the system. But a system that allows or encourages this is wrong and should be changed.

 

Tara

 

Really? Paying the doctor bills and rent isn't the same as buying a product from someone. When you buy a product the person selling it to you gains financially. Birthmothers aren't making any financial gains when they place their babies for adoption.

[Impish]

Really? Paying the doctor bills and rent isn't the same as buying a product from someone. When you buy a product the person selling it to you gains financially. Birthmothers aren't making any financial gains when they place their babies for adoption.

Then they should have to pay back any expenses if they change their minds about placing their child for adoption.

 

Its completely wrong that they get expenses, etc, and if they choose not to place (totally their right to do) the adoptive parents get a shrug and a financial loss.

 

Either don't accept the financial aspect, or sign a contract understanding it will be pd back. Its just wrong that aparents get taken.

[Geo]

We have friends who adopt overseas for the last couple of years. In their case, it's because they are considered too "old" for adoption here in the U.S. They are almost 60 (and vibrant). They have already raised 9 children, 4 bio/5 U.S. adopted. All are/will be homeschooled and are/will be college graduates. They feel that giving children a loving home is what they want to do with their whole life, not just some of it. This time, they are adopting older children than average (12yo). They have 5 kids currently, and will be adding 2 more this spring. China is where they're making current connections, and the youth are given a choice in the adoption process. All of their children are given the choice of a paid college education as well.

[HS Mom in NC]

Then they should have to pay back any expenses if they change their minds about placing their child for adoption.

 

Its completely wrong that they get expenses, etc, and if they choose not to place (totally their right to do) the adoptive parents get a shrug and a financial loss.

 

Either don't accept the financial aspect, or sign a contract understanding it will be pd back. Its just wrong that aparents get taken.

 

I agree.

[Haiku]

Birthmothers aren't making any financial gains when they place their babies for adoption.

 

If someone is paying their rent, they are. Again ... I am not faulting potential adoptive parents for working within the system as it is set up. I do, however, think it should be changed.

 

Tara

[Murmer]

If you are very careful you might find an agency that "rolls" funds...but they are usually more expensive...because they offer all the support/payments/counseling for any expectant mother considering adoption but the adoptive parent only pays money to the agency, possibly at match so yes before placement, but if the match fails then the agency "rolls" the money over to another match until there is a successful placement at which point the remainder of funds are paid in full. This takes care of the paying women to have a baby but only if they place thing. But to have an agency do this they cost more because the adoptive couples are paying for all the women who get help but don't place along with the support of their adopted child's birthfamily.

[SKL]

If you are very careful you might find an agency that "rolls" funds...but they are usually more expensive...because they offer all the support/payments/counseling for any expectant mother considering adoption but the adoptive parent only pays money to the agency, possibly at match so yes before placement, but if the match fails then the agency "rolls" the money over to another match until there is a successful placement at which point the remainder of funds are paid in full. This takes care of the paying women to have a baby but only if they place thing. But to have an agency do this they cost more because the adoptive couples are paying for all the women who get help but don't place along with the support of their adopted child's birthfamily.

 

But to me, that sounds better than taking a risk on being the unfortunate couple who gets stiffed by multiple birth mothers in a row. Kind of spreads out the risk.

 

From an ethical perspective, I think I would prefer this system as it does not have a direct connection between the birth mom's (a) accepting the money and (b) pleasing the a-parents over following her heart upon the birth.

 

As an adoptive mom, I still believe that if a bio mom can parent and wants to parent, the child will be more blessed by staying with his bio-mom. I say that with my heart in my throat.

 

I think if birth moms are treated ethically and kindly, they are likely to support adoption down the line; if they choose to parent after receiving financial help and counseling from an adoption agency, they may "pay it forward" by being a donor or volunteer to an agency/adoption charity once they get their lives in order. I'd much rather have a happy mom who has a good impression of adoption agencies / a-parents than a resentful birth mom who will speak out against the industry.

[michelle l]

To those of you who get it, thank you

 

To the rest, please try to remember that neither women considering relinquishing, nor the children they bear, nor even children in legitimate need, exist to make the hopes and dreams of hopeful adoptive parents come true. (even as understandable as those dreams may be)

 

Adoption at its best should be centered on the child, and even then it is complex and wrapped in loss.

 

Unless you're talking about gestational surrogacy, then no. She wasn't giving birth to "his and his wife's new baby," she was giving birth to her new baby. And she wasn't the "bio mom," she was the mom.

 

The degree to which some people feel entitled to other people's children astounds and appalls me. And I say this as the wife, sister, and aunt of adoptees.

 

Thank you for that Rivka. This is particularly hard conversation to read today. Adoption issues seem to have no end...

Edited September 1, 2011 by michelle l

[deacongirl]

To those of you who get it, thank you

 

To the rest, please try to remember that neither women considering relinquishing, nor the children they bear, nor even children in legitimate need, exist to make the hopes and dreams of hopeful adoptive parents come true. (even as understandable as those dreams may be)

 

Adoption at its best should be centered on the child, and even then it is complex and wrapped in loss.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely.

[Rivka]

To those of you who get it, thank you

 

To the rest, please try to remember that neither women considering relinquishing, nor the children they bear, nor even children in legitimate need, exist to make the hopes and dreams of hopeful adoptive parents come true. (even as understandable as those dreams may be)

 

Adoption at its best should be centered on the child, and even then it is complex and wrapped in loss.

 

 

 

Thank you for that Rivka. This is particularly hard conversation to read today. Adoption issues seem to have no end...

 

:grouphug: Take care of yourself.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Okay, now that I have faithfully read all the posts ;), I'll answer. We adopted our youngest daughter, Katya, from Ukraine nearly two years ago. While I believe there are MANY valid reasons for adopting internationally, ours was simply that God brought Katya to us. After a ministry trip to Ukraine, an email arrived in my inbox telling us about Katya and asking for someone to step forward to host her for three weeks that summer. Although it wasn't required, the hope was that this family would be open to adopting. We were open. We hosted Katya and that November began the process of adoption. November 2009, we welcomed Katya home. And many on this board stood with us in the process. :)

 

If you want to read about our journey, you can on my blog. Actually, one of my earlier posts deals with this very question. We were having a yard sale to raise money for the hosting program and a lady asked my children, "Why would you host a child from another country when there are so many needy children right here?" While I was initially offended, her question was the catalyst for a great family discussion.

 

:crying: I just followed the link from your blog to Stella's Voice and I am in tears for those girls. I can't believe this is real. I am glad someone is giving a voice to Stella because I.have.no.words. :crying: