Adoption Questions

[clarkacademy]

This is strictly questions about stuff I have read. I just really don't understand how the whole adoption thing works. I am in no way trying to upset anyone. I read this family had nearly paid half of an adoption and the mother backed out. They can use this money to put into another adoption or just walk away but then they lose the money. I don't get it. Why can't they have their money back? Why does the agency keep it or whatever?

[Pamela H in Texas]

It was used for the mother's needs (rent, food, dr care, counseling, etc)....

Some may also have been used for the agency's services for the adoptive parents (counseling, paperwork, etc).

[Annie G]

Dd went through this- had a mother back out. Much of what they had paid was for the home study, background checks, etc. After the mom backed out (dd showed up at the hospital to take the baby home and the mom had checked out and taken the baby- after not even seeing or holding the baby since he was born!), they continued and the money they had already paid was credited to the adoption on a baby boy this past August. In their case, the upfront money was administrative costs and not money actually paid out to the mom.

[clarkacademy]

It was used for the mother's needs (rent, food, dr care, counseling, etc)....

Some may also have been used for the agency's services for the adoptive parents (counseling, paperwork, etc).

 

 

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through. If the money was paid to the agentcy then they failed to do their job, they should give it back. It just seems really wrong.

[NotSoObvious]

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through. If the money was paid to the agentcy then they failed to do their job, they should give it back. It just seems really wrong.

 

As adoptive mom, I agree with you. It's very unfortunate, but we have few rights and many agencies are out to make money. Some of the brochures we received for private adoptions were disgusting- telling us how money shouldn't matter if we got "the baby we'd always wanted." It's one reason we decided to go through foster care.

There are some great agencies out there though. You just have to know where to look.

[clarkacademy]

 

As adoptive mom, I agree with you. It's very unfortunate, but we have few rights and many agencies are out to make money. Some of the brochures we received for private adoptions were disgusting- telling us how money shouldn't matter if we got "the baby we'd always wanted." It's one reason we decided to go through foster care.

There are some great agencies out there though. You just have to know where to look.

 

In all reality it is not just about the money but....Money is very important sadly and most people cannot just throw it away. I just think the whole adoption thing is really almost scammy ya know? I just feel for people who have to go through this.

[Spryte]

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through. If the money was paid to the agentcy then they failed to do their job, they should give it back. It just seems really wrong.

 

It does, doesn't it? It feels off. And like there is the opportunity for fraud. There are always horror stories.

 

I think it comes down to individual agencies and their policies. Of course, there are other ways to adopt... but they all carry risk. Private adoptions have the same risk, fostering carries another kind. (We've done both.)

 

Most importantly though, I think it's important that there are laws in place (and there are, in most states) to prevent the "sale" of babies... So while there are some expenses it's permissible to pay, it's not permissible to outright buy a baby. That would be human trafficking! So depending on one's state, there might be very strict regulations about what fees can be paid, and to whom - and how much.

[AimeeM]

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through. If the money was paid to the agentcy then they failed to do their job, they should give it back. It just seems really wrong.

The agency didn't fail to do their job.

[clarkacademy]

Why does the birth mom just get off though? I mean she should have to pay money back in my opinion.

[Spryte]

The agency didn't fail to do their job.

 

I just noticed that part, and need to agree with the above. I think birthparents need to be given every opportunity to parent, and there is no way for them to know how they will feel before the birth of the baby.

 

It's a balancing act, to take care of everyone's needs in adoption. It feels "off" from both perspectives, in a lot of ways.

[SKL]

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through.

 

The problem is that this would be interpreted by some as coersion of the mother to give the baby up. Presumably she used the money on living expenses and doesn't have an easy way to get more.

 

For many reasons, it's important that the decision to give a child up for adoption be voluntary (absent abuse/neglect). It gives me comfort to know that I can always tell my daughters that this was their mother's free, uncoerced choice even though she had several opportunities to change her mind. I would not want my kid to someday learn that his birth mom wanted to cancel the adoption but was not allowed to because of a fight over money.

 

But yes, this stinks and it does make fraud possible. I have no idea how often a pregnant woman actually intentionally defrauds a prospective adoptive parent in order to get money. Hopefully this is rare, as it would take a pretty rotten heart to do such a thing.

[Spryte]

Why does the birth mom just get off though? I mean she should have to pay money back in my opinion.

 

That might depend upon which state she's in, and that state's laws.

[AimeeM]

Why does the birth mom just get off though? I mean she should have to pay money back in my opinion.

If the money went to admin costs, where did the mom "use" the money?

Many times a birth mother initially chooses adoption because of lack of funds necessary to raise a child. Telling potential birth parents, at an adoption agency, that if they back out they have to pay "x amount" back to the agency would definitely be seen as coercion on some level - rightfully so. The birth mother may then decide, against her will, to give up her child because she hasn't the money to pay the agency back. Talk about "buying" children...

[SKL]

Some of the money has probably also gone for services that have already been rendered, and social workers (who don't make a ton anyway) deserve to be paid for their time. Home studies, training and counseling of prospective adoptive parents, paperwork and coordination of cases, etc.

 

Now if part of that money was an unearned deposit for future expenses (e.g., attorney expenses after the birth), then I could see expecting that part back.

[AimeeM]

Some of the money has probably also gone for services that have already been rendered, and social workers (who don't make a ton anyway) deserve to be paid for their time. Home studies, training and counseling of prospective adoptive parents, paperwork and coordination of cases, etc.

 

Now if part of that money was an unearned deposit for future expenses (e.g., attorney expenses after the birth), then I could see expecting that part back.

Agreed; that money shouldn't have been spent yet.

[SKL]

If the money went to admin costs, where did the mom "use" the money?

Many times a birth mother initially chooses adoption because of lack of funds necessary to raise a child. Telling potential birth parents, at an adoption agency, that if they back out they have to pay "x amount" back to the agency would definitely be seen as coercion on some level - rightfully so. The birth mother may then decide, against her will, to give up her child because she hasn't the money to pay the agency back. Talk about "buying" children...

 

I agree with all except the last sentence. It is understandable for the prospective adoptive parents to be upset about having spent non-refundable money on an adoption that did not occur. (This on top of the obvious emotional toll.) It does not turn their adoption intent into an attempt to "buy" a child.

[Tap]

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through. If the money was paid to the agentcy then they failed to do their job, they should give it back. It just seems really wrong.

 

 

It is unlikely that she has the money to give back. If she needed to money for living expences it is gone. Being a presumbaly single mom with a new baby, it isn't like she is going to have excess money anytime soon.

 

I also think that paying living expences for the mom is considered a 'gift'. A gift can not have strings attached or it is not a gift. There would be no legal recourse for the adoptive parents. If the payments are in exchange for the baby, that would be considered payment for the child and would be illegal.

 

Adoptive parents are told the risks before they start the process of private adoptions during pregnancy. At least, ethical agencies would be forthcoming! If a family wants to reduce the risk of this happening then they are urged to adopt a child that has already been signed over by the birth parents and is clear to adopt. Unfortunately, that usually means adopting an older child/toddler. Many families really want an infant or newborn, so for them they commonly in these types of situations, where the parents can back out at any point. (even after the child is adopted in some states)

[clarkacademy]

It is unlikely that she has the money to give back. If she needed to money for living expences it is gone. Being a presumbaly single mom with a new baby, it isn't like she is going to have excess money anytime soon.

 

I also think that paying living expences for the mom is considered a 'gift'. A gift can not have strings attached or it is not a gift. There would be no legal recourse for the adoptive parents. If the payments are in exchange for the baby, that would be considered payment for the child and would be illegal.

 

Adoptive parents are told the risks before they start the process of private adoptions during pregnancy. At least, ethical agencies would be forthcoming! If a family wants to reduce the risk of this happening then they are urged to adopt a child that has already been signed over by the birth parents and is clear to adopt. Unfortunately, that usually means adopting an older child/toddler. Many families really want an infant or newborn, so for them they commonly in these types of situations, where the parents can back out at any point. (even after the child is adopted in some states)

 

I agree on what your definition of a gift is yet, why do they have to pay it? A gift is freely given in most adoptions this is part of the fee.Like I said I am just trying to understand all of this I have no adoption planned or have ever been involved. With all the Russia stuff goig on and things I have read online I am just really curious is all. It seems when you really break it down it is paying for a baby though. I (hpothetically) paid your living expenses, paid your medical care in return I get your baby. If you back out I think you should have to pay that back. It is not exactly to make a mom feel that she sold her baby in my thought it is that OK you have made this choice now you have to be financially responsible for your choice. Like every parent should be.

[Alexigail]

I don't know exactly how this works, and it probably depends a lot on the agency, the state, etc. But if you are going to adopt through an agency and you pay a fee, the agency will use that fee for a lot of different things: advertising your family to potential birth mothers, attorneys, etc etc. They probably have a fund for birth mothers- they aren't necessarily taking your specific money and giving it to a specific birth mom. If a birth mom backs out after using free services, it's the agency that takes a loss, and you should still have all your fees paid for the next potential child. Again, this might not be the case with all agencies, but I think that a lot of people choose to go through an agency for this very reason- a middle man can protect you from financial loss among other things.

Private adoptions are different, as are any expenses that you personally give to a birth mom. In some states it's illegal for a potential adoptive family to pay for a birth mom's expenses. If you do that, it's at your own risk and you can't legally (and I'd say ethically) expect that money back. Unfortunately, adoption is a murky business, but that's because it's very hard to protect all parties involved. We've considered adoption and one of the reasons I'm hesitant is that there really is a potential to get your heart broken if someone backs out or shows back up - it's best to consider any money you put into it as a gift and that's really hard to do.

[AimeeM]

I agree on what your definition of a gift is yet, why do they have to pay it? A gift is freely given in most adoptions this is part of the fee.Like I said I am just trying to understand all of this I have no adoption planned or have ever been involved. With all the Russia stuff goig on and things I have read online I am just really curious is all. It seems when you really break it down it is paying for a baby though. I (hpothetically) paid your living expenses, paid your medical care in return I get your baby. If you back out I think you should have to pay that back. It is not exactly to make a mom feel that she sold her baby in my thought it is that OK you have made this choice now you have to be financially responsible for your choice. Like every parent should be.

But that IS "buying" a child - "in return I get your baby".

[Tap]

I agree on what your definition of a gift is yet, why do they have to pay it? A gift is freely given in most adoptions this is part of the fee.Like I said I am just trying to understand all of this I have no adoption planned or have ever been involved. With all the Russia stuff goig on and things I have read online I am just really curious is all. It seems when you really break it down it is paying for a baby though. I (hpothetically) paid your living expenses, paid your medical care in return I get your baby. If you back out I think you should have to pay that back. It is not exactly to make a mom feel that she sold her baby in my thought it is that OK you have made this choice now you have to be financially responsible for your choice. Like every parent should be.

 

They don't have to pay it. It isn't required. The money is to help make sure the mother has appropriate housing, food, medical care and lower her stress during the pregnancy. The 'gift' that pays for these expenses is a bit of an investment into the health of the baby. It isn't for the mother's sake, it is for the baby's.

[tabinfl]

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through. If the money was paid to the agentcy then they failed to do their job, they should give it back. It just seems really wrong.

 

 

It depends on state laws and on the agreements made with the adoption agency and the mother.

 

In our adoption, the agency's standard procedure was to have the mother sign an agreement stating that she would return living expenses if she did not go through with the adoption. We opted not to ask her to sign that, in part because we wanted to demonstrate our trust in her.

 

The other part was that, in reality, many women who place babies for adoption simply don't have the resources to pay pack those expenses. You could take the signed paperwork and get a court order easily enough, but actually recovering damages would be difficult to impossible in most cases.

 

Our adoption almost fell through at the last minute, but both of the birth parents came around a couple of days later (when the birth mom was discharged from the hospital and realized she had nowhere to go -- fortunately the babies were still in the NICU). It was a roller coaster, but all worthwhile in the end.

 

In most cases, as others have said, part of the money paid to an agency or lawyer may be credited to a future adoption attempt. Living or medical expenses paid on the mother's behalf are GONE. A good agency should make very clear which monies are "at-risk" and which are not. If you ty to circumvent the adoption laws, you're on your own. These are often the stories you hear about where people pay thousands of dollars trying to illegally buy a baby and it turns out they're dealing with a scam artist. We had a few of these approach us ("Bring $10,000 cash when you visit"... um, NO), and we turned them down immediately.

 

ETA: In our case, our twins' the birth mother already had 3 other children, none of whom lived with her. She wanted to be the one to choose where these babies would live, instead of CPS. She was a homeless meth addict when she got pregnant, and returned to that lifestyle soon after the babies were born, despite our best efforts to give her a fresh start in life. THIS is what adoption is about, IMO.

[Night Elf]

But that IS "buying" a child - "in return I get your baby".

 

 

I don't know anything about adoption either, but I can see where you are interpreting this idea one way and someone else may interpret it another way. It's not 'in return I get your baby'. The birth mom has the legal right to back out at any time. It's not coercive. If the birth mom is required to give up their baby, that would be a situation like buying a baby. So it really comes back to the adopting parents. They enter into the whole journey knowing the risks. I hope that makes sense.

[SKL]

In my adoption, I had to pay about 95% up front and not a penny was refundable, and I knew that going in. I also knew that the birth moms had to essentially relinquish the baby four separate times, and each time they were legally free to change their minds and decide to parent. That was a tough 8 months, praying that the best outcome would occur and not knowing whether that meant I became a parent or my kids got to be raised by their birth moms.

 

My kids' birth moms were not supposed to get any compensation other than reimbursement of some expenses. I have no proof that the lawyer didn't give them something extra, but I know for sure that I could never have requested it back.

 

Ultimately it is usually best for a child to be raised by his birth parents, if the birth parent is able to provide. I would just hope for the best for the baby and move on. Easy to say, I know. Who knows what my opinion might be today, had my adoptions fallen through.

[butterflymommy]

I understand that but shouldn't she have to giive it back? I mean she got free money for something she didn't follow through. If the money was paid to the agentcy then they failed to do their job, they should give it back. It just seems really wrong.

 

 

That would pressure on the birth mom to relinquish the child against her will. Some mothers may not realize how they will feel, until after the birth. Anyone who has given birth can probably relate to what I'm saying. You feel like a different person afterwards.

 

I can easily see a first time mom having no idea how she will feel until she's actually given birth to her baby. And being a first time mom, she doesn't realize the earth shattering changes that might take place.

[goldberry]

Wow, I'm not experienced with adoption, but I don't see how in any way that is "buying a baby". Yes, it is a gift in the interest of the child, but nobody just goes around randomly providing prenatal care to strangers without any expectation. The care is a gift, but with the expectation that will be YOUR child you are taking care of. If part of your money goes to provide prenatal care, that would be normal and expected, because if this was your child by birth, you would be paying for that care.

 

I agree that in principle the mom should have to agree to pay the money back. (Obviously that is very unlikely to really happen because of all the reasons mentioned.) If she doesn't have the money to pay back, that should not "disqualify" her from keeping the baby...in other words, it shouldn't be "fork over the money or we are taking the baby", but simply an acknowledgment that yes, that debt is hers if she is keeping the child as hers, the same as it would be for any other women bearing a child. It's more of an acknowledgement of responsibility, that is entirely appropriate in my opinion.

 

It would only be coercive if they refused to allow her to keep the baby if she didn't have the money to repay. Otherwise, if it is coercive, it is no more coercive that when she was thinking about the reasons to give the baby up in the first place, including monetary ones. That cost is a factor no matter when it is presented. It's a factor of reality, not of an adoption agency or adoptive parent "putting it on her" to coerce her.

[tabinfl]

Wow, I'm not experienced with adoption, but I don't see how in any way that is "buying a baby".

.

.

.

It would only be coercive if they refused to allow her to keep the baby if she didn't have the money to repay.

 

 

I think there's some confusion between (legal / legitimate) living and medical expenses paid on the mother's behalf and excessive gifts or even cash given as a bribe to get the mother to agree to relinquish her baby.

 

Unfortunately, the latter -- and in particular the times it involves a scam artist collecting money from multiple hopeful adoptive parents at the same time -- is what gets media attention. Sometimes that's the only knowledge people have of how the adoption process works in the U.S. Many years ago young, single mothers were practically forced to give up their babies, and there is certainly still some corruption in the system, but a lot of effort goes into making sure the process happens openly and fairly these days.

 

There have also been difficulties with international adoptions from certain other countries, some of which really did amount to buying babies from impoverished mothers. And, finally, there are people who are opposed to adoption altogether for various reasons, and who stretch the "buying a baby" argument to bolster their case.