Strollerderby

I guess one difference is that, when adopting a newborn, the adoptive parents often pay the medical expenses of the birth mother. Does anyone know if the adoptive parents' insurance covers this? If not, I can see how the expenses can get so high.

Other than that, I agree that buying a TV or paying traffic tickets is basically taking advantage people. I have heard of people paying for things like this, and then the birth mother changes her mind after the baby is born and keeps the baby.

I'd love to see the practice of paying "birth parent expenses" ended completely. Not only is does it put prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) in a vulnerable place economically, but it smacks of coercion. Women must be free to decide about adoption after their child's birth without having to consider the prospective adoptive parents' desire for a child, and I don't see how that can happen if the mother is worried about having to repay pregnancy expenses or otherwise feeling even remotely obligated to the PAPs because they provided financial support during her pregnancy.

Amy, why would they need to pay the birth mother's rent? I can understand maternity clothes, because that is an expense that the birth mother wouldn't normally have, but I would imagine that she would need to pay rent whether or not she was pregnant.

Lula, that is a very good point. It seems like paying these expenses is bad for both sides.

I agree with you, Amy. One of the reasons we decided to work with our agency was because they *don't* allow PAPs to pay any kind of expenses during pregnancy, even if the PAPs want to. My understanding is that the agency refers pregnant clients (I don't use "birth mother" or "birth father" until after parents sign the adoption papers -- until then, they're mothers and fathers like anyone else who is pregnant or has just had a child) to appropriate government and social services for assistance with basic living needs, and uses PAP adoption fees primarily to cover the service costs that are utilized by ALL clients, including lifelong family mediation and services to adult adoptees. I like that, because then there's less opportunity for expectant parents to feel obligated to the agency or lawyer because of financial assistance provided during the pregnancy. Apparently that can happen too, just like feeling obligated to PAPs who provided financial support.

I'm not ragging on any parents here who *did* pay pregnancy-related expenses during the course of their child's adoption -- I know it's become common practice and often is what an agency or lawyer presents to PAPs as the norm. But I just don't think the expectations the practice engenders are good for PAPs or expectant parents. I think it contributes to PAPs feeling entitled to "get the baby" (not entitlement to parent a child who's placed with them; that's a different use of "entitlement" in adoption language), which in turn contributes to feeling ripped off if a mother/family decides to parent the child instead of go through with an adoption. And then of course there's the rare bad-apple case like the one Jeanne presents here, where someone's truly getting scammed. My opinion is that it's too easy for stuff to turn ugly somewhere along the line if PAPs are making pregnancy-expense payments, so I want the practice to stop.

Jeanne, there's going to be a few messed-up people in any demographic, and parents who are considering adoption are no exception. The vast majority of pregnant women who are considering adoption will never consider cheating PAPs, and I personally figure that the few who do are stuck in serious survival-level lizard brain mode or are otherwise not thinking too clearly about their child's welfare vs. their own vs. ethical behavior toward people who want to adopt. I have also heard of situations in which other people around the pregnant woman are manipulating her to manipulate the PAPs for money, which is unfortunate and ugly but sometimes the way someone's life is at that moment. Remove the practice of PAP financial support, and you remove the potentital for PAP financial abuse.

As for money mattering or not mattering: A segment of pregnant women considering adoption are living in dire economic circumstances, in a country not particularly known for providing stable economic safety nets (including healthcare). Especially if she's are already raising other children, who need all the things children need, the offer of PAP financial assistance in presumed exchange for the coming baby may become a very sticky ethical wicket indeed. Everyone needs money, and some of us need it more than others. That's why I don't want to see PAP financial support being part of adoption at all -- too much pragmatic potential for feelings or experiences of coercion, entitlement, or obligation to enter into the picture.

Or am I not understanding what you're saying? I might not be.

As Lulu states, many women who consider/choose to place a child for adoption are doing so because they cannot afford to parent the child they are pregnant with. There is no way to remove 'money' from the situation. When one looks at the costs of pregnancy and childbirth from a middle-class, benefit-rich point of view, perhaps they forget that a huge segment of the US population does not have medical care, vacation pay, flexible work arrangements. A woman in a job with hourly pay and no maternity benefits cannot just take the last two weeks of her pregnancy off from work without severe financial strain.

Adoptive parents are fully educated about this if they work with a reputable agency. And most adoptive families in open adoption have a clear opportunity to see and understand where the money they contribute to the birth mother's expenses are going. In fact, when finalizing an adoption, all of this information is presented to the court to assure the legality of the adoption and all associate costs.

By choosing to report on an extreme example and present it as the norm, you contribute to the misconceptions and ignorant attitudes that surround adoption. Yes it is expensive, and yes we went into debt. It would be wonderful if the process was less expensive, if we had a government that valued and supported women's health. Until then, adoptive parents will do what they can to support the women who give birth to their children. It is our responsibility; that is what family does.

Camamma, would you feel comfortable explaining how your agency presented expense payment to you as PAPs, and how it manages the situation when parents decide not to go ahead with placement after the baby's born? Do PAPs pay expenses only for their first match, or are PAPs expected to pay expenses again if the first match doesn't result in placement for adoption? There doesn't appear to be any over-riding policy guiding the practice from agency to agency ( though maybe there is, on the state level. I don't know), which also makes me uncomfortable.

I agree that the practice of paying birth mothers expenses should be stopped.  Paying her medical bills, rent, grocery costs is so creepy.  Like renting a body to grow you a baby. I despise the belief held by so many that a newborn is considered most desirable.  It almost seems that people think a newborn will have less attachment issues (not true) or that is it closer to the experiece of having their own child biologically.  As the parent of children adopted in late infanthood I can say it does not matter how old my children were when I became their mother.  Do I wish I had gotten them younger so they could have avoided great poverty and poor care? Yes.  But would I have gone the domestic route to get a newborn, no.  I wanted a child who needed a family.  Too often there are women out there producing newborns to get the money.  Women who are not looking out for their children but who want to use them for profit.  It happens a lot.  The thought of children sitting in third world orphanages wanting a mom to love and care for them pulled at my heart too much to purchase a newborn in the US that 30 other families were jockeying for.  

By the way, you can adopt a child in needs, a child less than 24 months old, from a third world orphanage for less than 20K.  

Alice, where in adoption are these "women out there producing newborns to get the money"? Women who want to hire out as straight-up surrogates are free to do that, so I'm not sure that description holds for the pregnant women in the domestic US adoption world.

Lulu, we received copies of receipts for clothes, medical bills, etc. Everything was recorded carefully. Our insurance covered all of our child's costs from birth, and we only had co-pay and deductibles to pay for our baby's birthmom. If one matches and the match doesn't result in a baby for the PAPs, there is no reimbursement, alas; however, if you have a situation presented to you that seems expensive, ie rent or medical, PAPs have every opportunity to decline to have their letters reviewed by the pregnant woman/couple.

I am surprised at the negative tone of Alice's first comment. Surprised that someone within the adoption community would pass judgement on parents who do domestic adoption, and even more on women who make the choice to place a child for adoption. Families who make an adoption plan do so for various reasons, and none do so lightly. This is a wrenching, devastating decision no matter what country it is made in. Please show some respect for women who have the courage to think beyond their own emotional needs and put their children first.

Too many people out there appear intent on judging women who place their kids for adoption, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the decision. It makes me sad when people say nasty things or make assumptions about first/birth parents, but it no longer surprises me.

camamma, I agree that Alice appeared to be overly judgmental. People decide to adopt, and decide to have their birth children adopted, for many reasons, and there is no reason to judge.

Actually, I have heard a lot of judgmental comments lately about international adoption. Comments like, "they are tearing those kids away from their own culture" and "they just don't want their kids to ever know their birth mother, and open, US adoptions are sooooo much more ethical". I totally do not agree with those judgments either, but it is looking like the 2 groups are finding ways to pass judgment on each other.