[binkybear]

Originally Posted by belleinblue1978

This is taking from a discussion on the aparents board about pre birth expenses for emoms.

First of all, I'd like to state that I don't believe in expenses. I wouldn't have and didn't take any money from my son's parents. There is help available and people can work when pregnant.

However, the idea that paying a couple back for expenses should be mandatory if a woman, man, or couple choose to parent is upsetting to me. There were people that felt that wasn't coercion. To me that smacks of coercion. When many women I know place based pretty pre dominantly for financial reasons, of course the threat of having to pay back money would be reason to place. I know, of course you can say, well if she thought she might not place she shouldn't have taken the money to start then. Well, we all know that people that are POSITIVE they will place sometimes change their mind, so you really can't say that either.

Isn't coercion if you don't do A then B will happen? And B probably isn't going to be too pleasant?

Money for support should just be left out of the question. All it is is agencies preying on people in difficult situations.

I don't agree with expenses and won't allow them to emotionally hijack us just as they shouldn't emotionally hijack an emom. If agencies, attorneys, etc play the game...well let's just say they need players or there's no game. PAPs are well aware going into it that every and any emom has the right to choose to parent. If a PAP chooses to pay expenses than that's thier choice, but it too can be and a great deal of the time is coerced. We have to take the desperation out of the equation. Many PAPs pay insane amounts of money out of desperation..not talking to the random small expenses some pick up out of concern, legal reasons, or just goodwill.
No woman should feel so desperate that she places her child from fear and no PAP should feel so desperate to pay fees from fear. It's the fear. The game makers are using that fear and only they're winning in these extreme cases.

[RavenSong]

Hi, Janey...

You bring up some interesting points in your post about open adoption versus closed adoption. I'm not sure that either approach is "easier". I just think adoption can be a hard road to navigate for everybody involved.

OA has its own special challenges, that's for sure. But closed adoption had its own cruelties. I think OA has the potential of dealing with grief earlier for the birthmom. I know that for myself, burying the grief and loss for all those years did a tremendous amount of damage. Emotional repression...god, what a pain...it almost killed me.

I would much rather see a birthmom deal with the pain and grief in relinquishment right off the bat, rather than holding it inside for many years. There is going to be pain and grief, no matter whether the adoption is closed or open. IMO, it's healthier to deal with it, learn from it, heal from it early on. And I think OA allows this to happen, hopefully.

As far as the baby-selling issue happening during the "closed era" or "Baby Scoop Era", it happened way too frequently back then. There were a lot of black-market babies back in the day. I think maybe it was hidden better in those days.

I'm just astounded at the outrageous amounts of money involved in some private agencies, all in the name of "professional fees". These ultra-high-cost adoptions have to stop, IMO. I think some of these private agencies are extorting aparents and at the same time coercing expectant parents. Extortion and coercion...have to be stopped.

[paigeturner]

Originally Posted by RavenSong

If birthparents and adoptive parents could just get on the same page in regard to adoption reform, maybe we could really make a difference. You're the lobbyist, Paige. What do we do? How do we do this??

I would add that adoptees would be a part of any reforms sought as well.

To answer your question, Raven, I’ll start by saying that passing meaningful reforms through legislation is HARD; even getting the smallest changes affecting an emotionally charged issue along with powerful adversaries on the other side takes years. Having said that, grassroots efforts, managed properly can be powerful tools for change. If there’s interest in exploring some starting points in reform, I’ll start a new thread and we can put our collective minds together to form a basic roadmap for what we would like to accomplish. Research would need to be done to see if this could be made into a federal issue with a “one stop” approach. I’m not an attorney, I’m a political strategist, but I think that adoption laws are handled by a state by state approach.

If that is the case then after the grassroots group came to a consensus of “what” types of reforms they wanted, they could form smaller organizations at the state level who be tasked with finding “champions” to carry legislative issues. Concurrently, these types of reforms could be vetted at groups like ALEC, NCSL, CSG and other Intergovernmental groups; these organizations hold sessions on all sorts of issues and vote to adopt model legislation and resolutions. Often if you find a lawmaker to carry your cause at one of these national organizations, they get wedded enough to take it home and give it a run.

Another step is to identify your adversaries. Research their positions in past legislation. And then strategize, strategize, strategize.

I can go on and on forever. Again, we can start another thread…anyone have an idea of where to put such a thread?

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by Jackiejdajda

loveajax


bromanchik


In all the time I have been reading your posts on the net.. Brenda.. I have never seen you 'council' a woman to keep..

I just did a link to your home page.. (drop down menu under the name) and I think what you and others have put up there is very important to/for a woman considering relinquishing..

Jackie

I actually don't council a woman to do anything. I give them information.... accurate and hard information, as well as encourage them to listen to their heart on what it is they truly want for themselves and their baby.

I will say that I have been involved in a number of situations, most separate from this board, where I have helped a mom get her baby back. (Pre-relinquishment.) I have a background in advocacy, so I can be a pit bull when I need to be.

[RavenSong]

Originally Posted by bromanchik

I actually don't council a woman to do anything. I give them information.... accurate and hard information, as well as encourage them to listen to their heart on what it is they truly want for themselves and their baby.

Brenda, the part of your statement that I have bolded is so darn important, at least to me. How many of us were terrified of listening to our own hearts when making that decision to place? I know I didn't listen to my heart...I felt I had no "right" to listen, I wasn't worthy in my own eyes. I didn't understand that I had a right, maybe even an obligation, to consider my own best interests, as well as that of my unborn child.

Giving a woman accurate and "hard" information is empowering, IMO. The decision MUST be made by her, not anyone else. I think it is absolutely wonderful that you're in the field you're in. You are very much needed, Brenda.

Originally Posted by bromanchik

I will say that I have been involved in a number of situations, most separate from this board, where I have helped a mom get her baby back. (Pre-relinquishment.) I have a background in advocacy, so I can be a pit bull when I need to be.

LOL, it's going to be hard for a while to read your posts without thinking about pit bulls. Great image!

[RavenSong]

Paige...

Originally Posted by paigeturner

If there’s interest in exploring some starting points in reform, I’ll start a new thread and we can put our collective minds together to form a basic roadmap for what we would like to accomplish...

...Again, we can start another thread…anyone have an idea of where to put such a thread?

I'm wondering if perhaps we could convince Brandy and Crick to create a new board named "Adoption Reform"? It could include all threads dealing with any legislative efforts, grass-roots efforts, and new laws (old laws, too) having to do with the subject of adoption. We could also include the subject of reforming the foster-care system on such a board. What do you think?

Originally Posted by paigeturner

Another step is to identify your adversaries. Research their positions in past legislation. And then strategize, strategize, strategize.

I'll volunteer for the research position. I seem to have a knack for this type of research...stems from my college days when I was a research assistant (independent study) for the chairperson of the sociology department at my university.

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by RavenSong

Brenda, the part of your statement that I have bolded is so darn important, at least to me. How many of us were terrified of listening to our own hearts when making that decision to place? I know I didn't listen to my heart...I felt I had no "right" to listen, I wasn't worthy in my own eyes. I didn't understand that I had a right, maybe even an obligation, to consider my own best interests, as well as that of my unborn child.

LOL, it's going to be hard for a while to read your posts without thinking about pit bulls. Great image!

You have no idea how many women have told me, "I've never been asked to consider my needs before. I've never been told that I might be the best person to raise my baby."

BTW, my inner pit bull only comes out when people try to mess with me or someone I am working for.

[RavenSong]

Originally Posted by bromanchik

You have no idea how many women have told me, "I've never been asked to consider my needs before. I've never been told that I might be the best person to raise my baby."

You've hit one of my biggest pet peeves about adoption from a birthmom's perspective. One that I've never written about before on these forums. I've always been afraid of voicing here it for fear of being flamed or misunderstood.

A number of years ago, I was sitting one day and talking to a friend about the relinquishment experience. And it hit me like a ton of bricks... What about me? What about my best interests? Could it not have been possible that maybe, just maybe, my "best interests" were also important? And maybe, just maybe, what would have been "best" for me would have been "best" for my son...

I have said many times that expectant moms and bmoms are not martyrs...that we don't have to sacrifice ourselves totally in the name of the "best interest" of the child. We count, too, IMHO. Our lives and our needs count... And sometimes what's best for the mom is what's best for the baby, IMO.

[Jackiejdajda]

bromanchik

I have a background in advocacy, so I can be a pit bull when I need to be.

Good..

Jackie

[Scarlet Moon 13]

Originally Posted by belleinblue1978

This is taking from a discussion on the aparents board about pre birth expenses for emoms.

First of all, I'd like to state that I don't believe in expenses. I wouldn't have and didn't take any money from my son's parents. There is help available and people can work when pregnant.

However, the idea that paying a couple back for expenses should be mandatory if a woman, man, or couple choose to parent is upsetting to me. There were people that felt that wasn't coercion. To me that smacks of coercion. When many women I know place based pretty pre dominantly for financial reasons, of course the threat of having to pay back money would be reason to place. I know, of course you can say, well if she thought she might not place she shouldn't have taken the money to start then. Well, we all know that people that are POSITIVE they will place sometimes change their mind, so you really can't say that either.

Isn't coercion if you don't do A then B will happen? And B probably isn't going to be too pleasant?

Money for support should just be left out of the question. All it is is agencies preying on people in difficult situations.

It is human nature to expect something when you give something. Even if it is just a thankyou or a pat on the back.

Some people will without thinking or on purpose do all they can to make you feel guilty, and the younger the expectant mom the more likely she will cave in to the guilty and give up her baby even if she doesn't want too.

No money should come to the emom directly.

When I was pregnant in 1963 minors were not allowed on welfare. The adoptive parents in the end paid the hospital bills, doctor bills and pharmacy bills that had gone direct to the doctors office. At the end after they had gotten the baby.

I beleive they should pay those expenses. If the baby goes home with the mother then the adoptive parents she not have to pay and the mother should pay of apply to welfare to pay.

[ChromaKelly]

Originally Posted by jp4ga

Some agencies will pressure people both (emoms and PAPS) into making a decision quickly because the other party is looking at another couple or looking at another baby. The agency my friend used, changed the cost after they met the baby and feel in love. The felt like they had no choice but to pay the additional fees or loose the child. It happens to all parties involved and it is not right or fair.

That's kind of what happened with us. We didn't pick this agency, the match happened through a facilitator, and the adoption had to be through an agency in the bmom's state. I would have never, ever worked with this agency except that we matched with C's bmom. The agency was very "into" birthparent expenses. When we had our intro conference call with the agency, the director went over every possible scenario of b-parent expenses we might have to pay - her car might break down, she needs rent money, clothes, etc. I was like, we're matching for two weeks at the most (she was at her due date), how much expenses could we possibly run into in two weeks? Then he says well you could still have expenses post-placement. The facilitator had previously told us that she wasn't asking for any expenses.

So anyway, after placement, we find out that the fees are more than we had budgeted for, they make PAP's pay for the social worker visits, which ended up being two more visits than we were told would happen, and then they also brought up bmom expenses - first and last month's rent, a WalMart card, and we had also paid for her cell phone (we didn't mind that one, it was hard to get a hold of her). I have no idea if she asked for the rent and WalMart card, or if the SW just said "Hey is there anything you need help with?" I don't know if our son's bmom even knows that we paid for that, I suspect she doesn't. We felt like we had to pay the expenses or we're the world's biggest schmucks. No, she couldn't take back the baby, but there was a very coercive feel to the whole thing. I felt like the agency treats PAP's like they are social services.

[Scarlet Moon 13]

Originally Posted by ChromaKelly

That's kind of what happened with us. We didn't pick this agency, the match happened through a facilitator, and the adoption had to be through an agency in the bmom's state. I would have never, ever worked with this agency except that we matched with C's bmom. The agency was very "into" birthparent expenses. When we had our intro conference call with the agency, the director went over every possible scenario of b-parent expenses we might have to pay - her car might break down, she needs rent money, clothes, etc. I was like, we're matching for two weeks at the most (she was at her due date), how much expenses could we possibly run into in two weeks? Then he says well you could still have expenses post-placement. The facilitator had previously told us that she wasn't asking for any expenses.

So anyway, after placement, we find out that the fees are more than we had budgeted for, they make PAP's pay for the social worker visits, which ended up being two more visits than we were told would happen, and then they also brought up bmom expenses - first and last month's rent, a WalMart card, and we had also paid for her cell phone (we didn't mind that one, it was hard to get a hold of her). I have no idea if she asked for the rent and WalMart card, or if the SW just said "Hey is there anything you need help with?" I don't know if our son's bmom even knows that we paid for that, I suspect she doesn't. We felt like we had to pay the expenses or we're the world's biggest schmucks. No, she couldn't take back the baby, but there was a very coercive feel to the whole thing. I felt like the agency treats PAP's like they are social services.

Past hospital, doctor, and threapy, NO she can either stay with her family or get welfare. Today even welfare pays for the medical.

Sorry I am a birthmother and I do not beleive in money for car repair, housing, they had to live somewhere before the got pregnant let them stay there.

This just pisses me off. Open adoptions would be better if the new parents didn't feel they had to pay off the bmom personally. The bmom would be better off not thinking she sold her child.

She may not be able to take the baby back, but she could have changed her mind before she signed the final papers. I couldn't imagine not feeling guilty that strangers paid your way when or if that were to happen.

I have met birthmoms who were truely guilted out of the babies by both amom parents and the bmom's own parents. Imagine the hate that could bring on with your own family against you.

Off to work, take care.

[Scarlet Moon 13]

Originally Posted by belleinblue1978

This is taking from a discussion on the aparents board about pre birth expenses for emoms.

First of all, I'd like to state that I don't believe in expenses. I wouldn't have and didn't take any money from my son's parents. There is help available and people can work when pregnant.

However, the idea that paying a couple back for expenses should be mandatory if a woman, man, or couple choose to parent is upsetting to me. There were people that felt that wasn't coercion. To me that smacks of coercion. When many women I know place based pretty pre dominantly for financial reasons, of course the threat of having to pay back money would be reason to place. I know, of course you can say, well if she thought she might not place she shouldn't have taken the money to start then. Well, we all know that people that are POSITIVE they will place sometimes change their mind, so you really can't say that either.

Isn't coercion if you don't do A then B will happen? And B probably isn't going to be too pleasant?

Money for support should just be left out of the question. All it is is agencies preying on people in difficult situations.

Being logical and thinking it is best can all be thrown out the window after you give birth. Emotions you didn't know you would have or were sure you had under control will disappear.

Then you find you can't give up your child. No one should be put in a position to give up their baby becasue someone paid their way up until the birth.

I agree, if the agency wants to give money, then let them, but they shouldn't expect the young mom to be to pay it back if she keeps her baby.

[Scarlet Moon 13]

Originally Posted by belleinblue1978

This is taking from a discussion on the aparents board about pre birth expenses for emoms.

First of all, I'd like to state that I don't believe in expenses. I wouldn't have and didn't take any money from my son's parents. There is help available and people can work when pregnant.

However, the idea that paying a couple back for expenses should be mandatory if a woman, man, or couple choose to parent is upsetting to me. There were people that felt that wasn't coercion. To me that smacks of coercion. When many women I know place based pretty pre dominantly for financial reasons, of course the threat of having to pay back money would be reason to place. I know, of course you can say, well if she thought she might not place she shouldn't have taken the money to start then. Well, we all know that people that are POSITIVE they will place sometimes change their mind, so you really can't say that either.

Isn't coercion if you don't do A then B will happen? And B probably isn't going to be too pleasant?

Money for support should just be left out of the question. All it is is agencies preying on people in difficult situations.

Other then an intent, nothing should be signed until after the birth. A woman no matter her age needs to both say hello and if that is what she needs to od, then say good bye to her child. Only then should she sign anything. No one should be force or allowed to give up all rights to their baby before it is born. Unless of course there are other circumstances, drugs, crime etc

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Moon 13

Other then an intent, nothing should be signed until after the birth. A woman no matter her age needs to both say hello and if that is what she needs to od, then say good bye to her child. Only then should she sign anything. No one should be force or allowed to give up all rights to their baby before it is born. Unless of course there are other circumstances, drugs, crime etc

I think signing an intent, even if it is not legally binding, is psychologically coercive. Nothing should be signed pre-birth.