[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by powderpiggy

If the emom knew full well before she ever accepted any $$ that it will be paid back, so it is not something that is held over an emom's head as a surprise, is it really any more coercive than accepting the money to begin with? Maybe it is less coersive because it could help alleviate any perceived 'guilt' over accepting $$ and not placing.

For there to be fully informed choice in placement, an emom needs to see, hold and know her baby. She cannot fully make that choice before the baby is born. Placing a child for adoption is not a transaction. It is a heart breaking decision with a whole lot of factors involved.

[belleinblue1978]

I'm with Brenda. A woman/man/couple need to meet that baby before they make a choice. Someone can be SET on adoption and once that baby is born, it is a whole different thing because something that was an abstract idea is now a real being in your arms.

The other thing I see is that prospective adoptive parents aren't in a crisis situation. When you are faced with an unplanned pregnancy at a not so great time, there is ALOT of stuff in your life. Making an adoption plan is just one piece of that usually. I'm not talking about anyone here, but there are attorneys, agencies and prospective adoptive parents that prey on that, and money is one big way to do that. If you don't know where your rent money is coming from or your next meal, well you get my drift.

[EZ2Luv]

How can a mother say GoodBye without even saying Hello? I am of the thinking that a bmom should take all the time she needs(without stringing PAPs along) to say hello and get to know her baby.

I have read threads where bmoms have decided to take baby home for a few days and while I cannot imagine how stressful it is for the PAPs, I feel it is the absolute best way to go about it.

I would much rather see that happen than a bmom rush into signing papers that are going to have a life long life changing impact on her. At least when a bmom takes time she has clearly been able to make a desicion that she is sure of.
I wish PAPs would see it that way insted of just "hurry up sign and hand me the baby" If I were a PAP I would much rather wait it out and know that this is what the bmom really wanted.
In the past few months there have been situations where the bmom/family has taken baby home for a few days or taken longer to sign and they ended up signing and PAPs ended up with the baby. So just because a bmom doesn't rush to sign doesn't mean that she isn't going to.Personally, I think there should be a law saying that bmoms have to wait at least a week before they can sign. I think that would be best for ALL involved. This way the Bmom cannot say she was rushed or coerced and if she is on the fence she can at least better think her decision through.

I have had 3 babies and I really could not make any major decisions for a week after the birth. Seriously, I had a hard enough time deciding which going home outfit the baby would wear ( I must have changed my mind 6 times), let alone a major decision. Between medication and hormones being all over the place I was in no position to decide anything.

EZ

[loveajax]

eparents imo have an ethical (though not legal) duty to pay back paps imo.sadly I see here ''unlicenced therapists'' here trying to argue differently...if no expenses should be paid there should be no prebirth ''matching,'' imo. I would pay expenses (and I did not) for the sake only of my unborm child, not for someone who had no intention of placing to ''scam'' me (which btw I believe is a aberration, not the norm).

[RavenSong]

LoveAjax, I'm confused about what you mean when you say, "sadly I see here ''unlicenced therapists'' here trying to argue differently..." Could you elaborate on that a bit, so I can get it thru my dense brain, lol? Thanks.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by SchmennaLeigh

I second (third, fourth, whatever) the idea that potential families should go into any money handling with the understanding that it is a gift. Otherwise, not only is it coercive for the expectant mother but akin to the purchasing of a child. Not that, often, that is even the intent. But if you are viewing that money as anything other than a gift, it puts it in a different category than what is allowable by law.

Except that it's not really a gift. Would the paparents be giving huge sums of money to a complete stranger if they weren't expecting to get a baby out of it at the end? They're having their arms twisted by the adoption agency, which is calling these sorts of expenses a fee, not a gift.

Seems to me that these sorts of payments are coercive to both parties, the bparents and the aparents. All the more reason not to match at all until the baby is actually born......

[RavenSong]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

Except that it's not really a gift. Would the paparents be giving huge sums of money to a complete stranger if they weren't expecting to get a baby out of it at the end? They're having their arms twisted by the adoption agency, which is calling these sorts of expenses a fee, not a gift.

I'm starting to really question how the adoption industry is getting away with charging their extravagant, outrageous "fees" at all. I'm sorry, maybe I'm just too dense to "get it". But how in the world is $30,000 or $35,000 not selling/buying a baby?

Personally, I wish all adoptions were handled through the state or county governments. No fees, other than legal expenses and cradle care. Back in the 1970's, all the county DHS's here in California handled voluntary newborn adoptions. There were no fees to the aparents, and MediCal picked up medical costs for all prenatal and delivery costs.

The only other agencies back then in California were the big ones, like Catholic Charities and Children's Home Society. It's my understanding that they only charged nominal fees in those days.

When in the world did all these private agencies start popping up? And why are they charging so much money? And how are they side-stepping the whole issue of baby selling???

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

Seems to me that these sorts of payments are coercive to both parties, the bparents and the aparents. All the more reason not to match at all until the baby is actually born......

I agree that matches shouldn't occur until after baby is born. One thing I'd like to point out, though. When coercion happens to an expectant mom or birthmom, I think it's a more serious issue. After all, she's the one that losing her child (if she surrenders under coercion). You can never replace a child you've brought into this world. You can always replace money, but you can't replace a human life. Just my two cents, my very tired two cents...

[agathaj]

I agree with Raven - does anyone know how it got all messed up with these agencies charging PAPs horrid fees? I'm guessing it is to do with a lack of new born babies available to adopt.

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by loveajax

eparents imo have an ethical (though not legal) duty to pay back paps imo.sadly I see here ''unlicenced therapists'' here trying to argue differently...if no expenses should be paid there should be no prebirth ''matching,'' imo.

I am actually a fully licensed therapist.

Why do you feel there should be no matching pre-birth if expenses are not to be paid? That seems limiting. I am interested in your reasoning behind that.

[cetalley]

Originally Posted by loveajax

eparents imo have an ethical (though not legal) duty to pay back paps imo.sadly I see here

...if no expenses should be paid there should be no prebirth ''matching,'' imo. I would pay expenses (and I did not) for the sake only of my unborm child, not for someone who had no intention of placing to ''scam'' me (which btw I believe is a aberration, not the norm).

LOVEJAX, I too am slightly incensed by that remark. When I come to the forums at a.com, I am here to SHARE my journey, and opinions. I most certainly do not try to dispense therapy, on ANY level. I assumed that is what the forums are for...to listen, voice, and hopefully learn from one anothers experience. I tend to rant at times, but I think we all do, and also feel that is a reason to come here. Back to the topic ....My journey earlier in this post is real, and I had truly EVERY intention to relinquish, like I said I was not prepared at all, to bring a child home...let alone twins. However, when being GIVEN things and NOT asking for things...it is a GIFT. I NEVER 1 time asked and even questioned how she(SW) could afford to do so, her reply was not to worry ...SHE gets reembersed for those things. I had no intentions of holding my twins, until my fiance, and the nurse convinced me to do so, that is when I fell in LOVE with THEM. Never once did I think" oh my lord I can't change my mind I have had ALL this stuff bought and paid for"...nor did I 1 time think that "ALL THAT STUFF" WOULD BE USED TO THREATEN AND MAKE ME SIGN AWAY MY CHILDREN. If I had been told, yes I could take my babies home and we need to set up a payment plan to pay back the agency, then I would have GLADLY and PROUDLY , done so. Instead, I was told sign or lose the twins and (by the way lose my 6 yr old) to foster care, leaving a judge to decide their fate, until ALL bills were paid...COERCION...ABSOLUTELY. THERAPIST...I am not.......

[cetalley]

By the way, I have since found out..agency had no license and my boys were basically sold to highest bidder, in 1986...no less than $16,000.00 for a SINGLE cc male...GOD only knows what was paid!

[loveajax]

brenda, to be honest, I was referring to you (i thought I read somewhere that you were not licensed so I apologize).I have seen emoms ''counselled'' to parent even after they make an adoption plan....that's fine advice....it seems I never see added on ''don't accept any more funds'' or ''make sure you tell paps.'' I meant to say if people are being counselled to parent, they also should be counselled either not to ''match'' with paps and certainly not to accept money from them. imo it's really a simple ethical issue.I do not believe in paps paying fees directly, thoughsadly that seems to be the ''norm.'' they are paid though in the expectation of placement (which of course can change) but they are not a ''gift.''anyway, I apologize for getting my facts wrong and not being clear.

[loveajax]

cetalley, I wanted to add that what happened to you is absolutely outrageous. I do not mean to suggest that you had any ''obligation'' to place your kids because of payment.I think in many situations I have seen with friends, the eparents ''know'' that expenses are being paid directly by paps. I have seen some pretty outrageous stuff happen....probably why it should not be allowed at all.

[stinky_kitty]

Originally Posted by loveajax

I have seen emoms ''counselled'' to parent even after they make an adoption plan....that's fine advice....it seems I never see added on ''don't accept any more funds'' or ''make sure you tell paps.'' I meant to say if people are being counselled to parent, they also should be counselled either not to ''match'' with paps and certainly not to accept money from them. imo it's really a simple ethical issue.

You're assuming that the emoms were taking money and I know that for most of us, no money was asked for, or accepted.

[CalamityJane]

I just want to point out, most of the professionals involved with agency's in the capacity of "Birthparent Counselor" are neither a birthparent, nor a counselor and it has been my experience, having talked to many birth parents over the years, that these unlicensed counselors are often the ones pushing for matching, expenses and the like.

Maybe the question isn't "who owes what" or "why do I have to gift" - maybe it's "why do we have unlicensed, uneducated and ill-equipped people playing the role of counselor"?

Maybe, if there were someone who was licensed and educated as a therapist/counselor in that role, we'd have a far better outcome in most of these situations. Women wouldn't be 'counseled' to match or 'counseled' to accept money. They would be 'counseled' to explore their feelings rather than make a decision that typically results in some adoption professional being written a check for a large sum of money.

Maybe that is where the breakdown is. Maybe the fault doesn't lie on the shoulders of those who are using these adoption professionals or adoption advisors. Maybe, just maybe, it lies on the shoulders of the ones who are laughing all the way to the bank.