[paigeturner]

Well Wizard, being equally blunt I say the following with all due respect:

If you don’t want to pay charity to an expectant mother, then don’t. Paying it to “get a baby” is immoral, IMO. Frankly I don’t like the idea of adoptive parents paying directly to expectant mothers either. I believe some support for those that need it should be built into the base fee and the agency should make a fair assessment of those that need it. I didn’t ask for nor did I accept a single penny. However, I was pretty ticked off when going through my dad’s papers after he died, I found copies of the payments made to the hospital to pay the portion of my and the babies hospital stay that insurance didn’t cover. My father was unemployed at the time I relinquished my son. The burden of the hospital charges should not have been left to those of us who went home with empty arms. After all, had the adoptive parents given birth they would have experienced co-pays and other medical expenses, but I guess in my case they got a free ride.

I venture to guess that the bulk of adoption costs don’t go to birthmother charity. Adoption facilitators, attorneys and others have to be making huge profits and in my opinion many are acting as the middle man in a baby sell. That a domestic, infant adoption can cost over 30k just makes me angry. It’s unreasonable and plays on the needs of people trying to make a family through adoption. I think the entire industry needs an overhaul and needs to be better regulated.

As for the idea of charity…I don’t like forced charity either. I don’t like giving charity to adoptive parents with my tax dollars in the form of the adoption tax credit. So, I guess in adoption there are costs we all shoulder that we don’t like.

[devildogwife]

We paid expenses for my son's birth mom and would do so again. She needed some help and we were happy to provide that. Had she changed her mind, we would have lost everything. It was a risk worth taking though. I'm glad we helped her and that while she was pregnant, she was warm and safe and didn't go hungry.

Wizardofoz-you don't speak for all adoptive parents obviously. Nor do we consider expenses "birth mother charity."

[Amaurosis]

Personally, I think that paying "expenses" beyond medical bills is unethical. There is enough coercion inherent in the system without adding in the financial obligation component. I definitely think it is wrong to pay to compensate for the "blessing" or "gift" that the emom is considering, or as some kind of reward for not aborting(!).

That said, we did help our son's bmom out with a few things after TPR -- we bought a car seat for here parented daughter, because I couldn't stand to see her 2-year-old crammed into an infant seat. I also bought a few groceries.

I think the bottom line is that you have to decide what you are comfortable with from an ethical and financial perspective, and go from there.

[WizardofOz]

devildogwife, look up California adoption laws. Birthmother expenses are legally defined as "charity". I did not come up with that term - whoever came up with adoption legislation did.

[paigeturner]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

devildogwife, look up California adoption laws. Birthmother expenses are legally defined as "charity". I did not come up with that term - whoever came up with adoption legislation did.

CALIFORNIA CODES
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 8800-8823

8812. Any request by a birth parent or birth parents for payment by
the prospective adoptive parents of attorney's fees, medical fees
and expenses, counseling fees, or living expenses of the birth mother
shall be in writing. The birth parent or parents shall, by
first-class mail or other agreed upon means to ensure receipt,
provide the prospective adoptive parents written receipts for any
money provided to the birth parent or birth parents. The prospective
adoptive parents shall provide the receipts to the court when the
accounting report required pursuant to Section 8610 is filed.


I did a statutory search and couldn’t find the definition you refer to Wizard. The above was all I could find. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind citing the specific CA code defining birthparent expenses as “charity”.

Nonetheless, as I stated before, if you’re opposed to paying expenses then don’t. There are plenty of expectant parents that don’t seek expenses and would in fact be offended by the offer. Whether or not expenses are defined as “charity” is a moot point (though I still would like to see the definition you mention) – paying expenses to birthparents is NOT a requirement for adoption. You stated earlier that you are opposed to paying expenses, that expenses are the same as baby buying, but what the heck, it’s the only way I can get a kid… Why not stand up for your convictions? Most of the first mom’s I know have not lived under a bridge; though I do know several that lived in maternity homes during the baby scoop era and one or two that were homeless during difficult times in their life. I wouldn’t wish a maternity home on anyone.

I have an idea, let’s take the dollars from the adoption tax credit “charity” so many adoptive parents enjoy and instead apply it towards mandatory counseling for parents considering placement of their children and other services needed for those women who may need some help. Perhaps then adoptive parents wouldn’t have such a difficult choice in deciding whether or not to pay expenses.

[rd200]

Paigeturner- I cant disagree with you more on the adoption tax credit. My tax dollars go toward alot of things i dont like paying for either. But a huge reason on why people CAN adopt IS because of the adoption tax credit. And believe me, it doesnt cover the whole thing. We arent getting a bonanza, not even close. Personally there alot worse things we are paying for as tax payers than the adoption tax credit which, by the way, helps the child also, not just "charity" to the adoptive parents. Which in my opinion IS NOT charity to begin with. I am not going to ENJOY my tax credit because it will be going toward my LOAN that i took out to adopt. Which is only going to cover a portion of the adoption. And contrary to popular belief, many aparents are not rich.

So maybe we should do away with state health insurance, which my tax dollars pay for, because i'm sure people ENJOY not paying for their health insurance and letting others foot the bill while i pay $600 a month for mine and then some for theirs!! there are alot of things that need to change in the adoption industry, but i personally think that the tax credit isnt the first that needs to be addressed!!! Rach

[crick]

I don't think Paige meant that adoption tax credit is really a charity anymore than firstmom expenses are a charity. I think it's just being used as a point to say that in an industry so wealthy and yet the two parties directly and most personally involved having to shoulder so much (the aparent & firstparent), it's ridiculous to have certain things.

Like...if adoptions did NOT cost the 30k that they do, to pay the "professional" fees then the adoption tax credit "charity" would not be necessary. It would be affordable to adopt, firstmoms would not have to shoulder expenses they are not responsible for (sorry, but the birth of the baby *should* be the aparents responsibility to pay for if that child is placed with them, imo) and this would not be an industry fueled by greed and unthical practices by "professionals".

I think that's the bottom line here anyway...that we are all jumping through hoops set by the adoption professionals and somewhere in here we have ways of standing up and saying "you know what...this is not okay with me and here's the choices I'm going to make."

[WizardofOz]

Paige,
FAQ's about Birth Mother Expenses

It says therein "his section does not make it unlawful to pay the maternity-connected medical or hospital and necessary living expenses of the mother preceding and during confinement as an act of charity, as long as the payment is not contingent upon placement of the child for adoption, " etc.

-> birthmother expenses are considered charity.
Q.E.D.

I was also explained that birthmother expenses are legally considered charity by my adoption attorney.

[paigeturner]

Crick – thank you, work called (had to go testify on a really nasty tax bill) and I had to step away. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Wizard – thanks for the code. I was looking under family law and not the penal code. They do call it charity meaning: Rules or conditions of payment may be extracted from this statute. Those conditions of payment are that each expense must be:
Maternity-connected;
Necessary;
Of the mother;
Preceding and during “confinement;”
An act of charity; and
Paid unconditionally.

But, that also means that it is voluntary. It troubles me that some will go against their beliefs to get what they want. If you don’t agree don’t pay them; I sure as heck wouldn't help out more than what I felt was necessary and even then I would never pay directly.

I believe I’ve read several threads in the past on this forum that agency fees have gone up according to adoption tax credit increases. Somebody’s making big money and it sure isn’t going to benefit children or keep their birth parents in the lap of luxury. I’ve never said that adoptive parents are rich; I’ve never even thought that. I have stated, many times, that I think reforms have got to happen to protect all members of the triad from fraud, coercion and harm. I think it’s ridiculous that parents are forced into taking out loans all with the expectation that the taxpayers will pay them back. It all just smells bad to me.

[WizardofOz]

Paige, you brought up a very good point, namely that birthmother expenses (which include "postpartum support" thses days) are supposed to be
1. voluntary
2. paid unconditionally (as per code)

Now, here is the problems that I have with that. As for the "voluntary" part, point #1 - well, the agencies/attorneys usually tells you how much you have to pay to the birthparents. The only thing that is voluntary here is whether you want to be presented to the potential birthparents or not. Once you say that you are interested in a situation, you will pay what they tell you.

In our first adoption we sponsored two perfectly healthy individuals for a duration of 4 months. Did we find it justified? Not really but the end result, namely placing their child with us, was indeed the child's best interest. BTW, our birthparents complained to me later, that they "almost did not get any money for the baby" which shows their understanding of what birthmother expenses are about.

However, we have to remember that birthparents come in all varieties, every situation is unique. There ARE birthparents out there who genuinely need assistance.

I do have an major problem with the postpartum support and here's why: The custom is that adoptive parents pay it only after placement, as per point #1. However, this contradicts point #2, namely that these expenses are paid unconditionally. So as adoptive parents, if we already agree to birthmother expenses, in principle we have to pay the postpartum support unconditionally. To be the devil's advocate, however, if that money too would be paid unconditionally, it would attract scammers even more.

In general, the practices prevalent in private domestic adoption in the United States are unheard of in any other country that I am aware of. As I said before, a tighter regulation on the whole topic is needed, I think that it's getting out of hand.

[Mrs._K]

So many takes on this great question. We met out bmom at the beginning of her 5th month and were chosen at her 6th which leaves 4 months of support plus the after birth care. Our atty guidelined our expenses as "anything that would pertain to the health of the baby" ie: maternity clothes, utilities, rent, phone, food (if needed) and other items. It could also include new tires or car upkeep (can't have them stranded) among other things. Could even be a bed if she is required to be on bed rest and sleeps on the floor. It really depends on your atty and the situation. My advice is to talk it over with your atty. Don't let your atty take over your desires and needs. I wanted to handle it on my own so I didn't have to pay the fees of reimbursement of expenses. I simply couldn't afford it. It gets hairy but I've done well so far. However, I can't say I would really recommend it to all aparents. There have also been times when my bmom has tried to get additional money. She had a job and basically quit as soon as we got involved but lives with her parents, a brother, sister and sister in law. We were paying bills on 6 nonworking adults so we had to make adjustments and are not paying all the bills. Each situation is different. Follow your gut and the bottom line, if you feel your trying to influence a decision, you've gone to far.
Also, there is a failed adoption tax credit, make sure you check that out. We've considered backing out several times due to some extreme circumstances and still don't know if ours will fail but we made a commitment so here we are, waiting.

Good luck

[WizardofOz]

Mrs. K, you are up for a long match, I wish you good luck.

Personally, I think that adoptive parents should not lose any money if a potential birthmother does not place.

Especially in this economy, it is to be expected that scammers will abuse domestic adoption to get financially supported for a while and it is not right that prospective adoptive parents become victims of those individuals.

I am a proponent of the following schemes:

1. Baby-born situations where birthmom has already signed relinquishments and it is irrevocable.

2. An agency/attorney who has, what I call, "secured track to adoption" fee schedule: You pay a one-time flat fee which includes birthmother expenses once and for all, no matter if the birthmother(s) you're matched with place(s) or not. There are more and more agencies out there which offer this kind of fee structure to their clients.

I expect this to become a growing trend as more adoptive parents get sick and tired of long matches and inflated birthmother expenses.

[dpen6]

After reading this thread it just confirms my contention that adoptions should be post birth. The subtle resentment I am feeling toward the money aspect is making me feel kinda icky. The whole money thing should jsut be between the agency's and aparents..seperate from the agency and bmom. Otherwise in my opinion it is nothing but baby selling and baby buying..period.

The risk of a bmom being coerced is huge. The risk of a pap of losing money is huge. thyere are scammers out there but they are NOT bmoms they are woman that are scammers...there are desperate paps that will scam a potential bmom just by the very act of coercing, promising the word and once the "deal"...ie baby...is done they are long gone with all sorts of rationaiztions on how it was ok. And it all invovles money.

I know pregant woman that are thinking of placing want to screen the potential parents of their child but there is got to be a better way then what is being done now. I understand the need of a good realtionship to devolp while pregnant but the risk of one or the other being"scammed" is to high.....

Maybe profiles can be shown to the pregnat woman but no meeting until after birth and decsion is solidfied..then the 2 parties can meet.

I don't know whatthe answer is but I do know I didn't like the cold
ness of the talk of money in such an emotionally charged issue as one mother lsing and one mother gaining a baby....

In the meant time baby is seen as a comm0odity...not thereal person they are.....

Therehasgot to be a better way....

[Mrs._K]

dpen6, you are right, there does need to be a better way. Private adoptions are a high risk. There are also those out there who will use this as an opportunity. Bmoms and paps as well.

As far as the money thing goes, when I began this process, I went into to it as: how would I want to be treated. The first thing my atty asked me was, "Are you desperate?" My answer was no. This allows me to be rational in a very emotional situation.

With my situation, there is no agency involved 1st beause that is not how it came to be and 2nd because I didn't have 30K to pay someone to find me a child. This was not the avenue we were planning on taking. My atty also stays out of my case because that can become very clinical. My bmom and I are together at each appt, go for lunch, talk on the phone, etc. I treat her with the respect she deserves.

Also, knowing the risk involved, I realize that if this adoption does fail, I have helped a girl who needed me to be with her for even a period of time. Does this mean that I will not feel all the emotions that go along with any failed adoption? No, I will.

In the end, I have gone into this with eyes completely open and I know I have not done anything out of line. I can't speak for anyone else nor am I going the "judge" anyone for what they feel they "had" to do.

As far as post birth adoption...would that mean more abortions? These women have made this choice for a reason. Right now since there is no other answer, the only thing we can do is pray and be supportive to others going through this.

Also, I have never looked as this a one mother losing and one gaining. I looked at it as gaining another family.

This has by far been the most stressful experience of my life and I've had a few. However, I know that I will have the strength to deal with whatever the outcome.

This can be done properly without thinking that one is buying or selling. I don't feel that way at all.