[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.

[RavenSong]

Belle, I totally agree with you...it is a form of coercion in my mind. That used to be a very common tactic used by adoption agencies during the Baby Scoop Era to coerce young mothers into signing the relinquishment papers. Many of us back in those days were warehoused in maternity homes. If we didn't want to sign the surrender papers after our babies were born, we were often told that we would have to pay thousands of dollars to the maternity home and agency before we could take our babies home. Needless to say, most young moms ended up signing those relinquishment papers. (I think Rylee experienced this. Hopefully she'll see this thread and comment.)

[RavenSong]

I forgot to add that I don't believe in expenses being charged to the prospective adoptive parents either. IF the expectant mom needs help with her living expenses, and cannot obtain financial assistance through government programs, then the agency should be paying for it. And I'm talking only about situations where the expectant mom cannot work due to medical problems. I'm not sure what should happen in the case of unexpectedly losing her job, which in today's present economy could become a real possibility.

[melissa_bear003]

I'm the one that stated it on the aparents board, so I thought I'd comment here as well.

I think its completely and totally unfair and ridiculous that paps can pay thousands of dollars in support and health care monies, and basically be told too bad, try again. How many people can afford to take that ride, time and again?

I completely agree and support that a woman has the right to change her mind and parent. No question.

But, when someone has paid your living expenses, health care, etc, then yes, I do think you should be obligated to pay that back. Why should the paps have to be out that money? Why should anyone be financially supported for months? It is a style of contract (or at least, that's my view of it) and while either party can cancel at any time, I really think its wrong that paps are the ones that end up financially stuck. I think it should be viewed as a sort of loan, to be paid if the contract is cancelled. I don't find that coersion, but being responsible for one's actions. If you accept money, knowing that the intention is to adopt, then decide to parent, then yes, you should pay the money back. The funds aren't a gift, they're viewed as a part of the pap's responsibility (in some areas).

I'm all for complete elimination of any sort of financial support for paps. I think it would go a long way to stopping those women who are simply scamming parents for money, and never honestly considered placing their child.

ETA: I'm not saying anything NEAR : Pay before the child goes home. I'm saying, "Pay back $X a month" or whatever, same as you would with any loan.

[AlisonMarie]

Oh, yes, that's coercion. I don't think money should be involved at all. And if there is, it is the aparents loss. They shouldn't have given it in the first place.

I just don't think money should be involved. If the bmom can't work due to pregnancy complications, there are programs that can help with that, and aparents should point the mom in that direction. It's not the aparents responsibility, in my opinion.

BUT, if there is, the bmom should not have to pay it back, it's the aparents loss for giving her the money.

[melissa_bear003]

Originally Posted by AlisonMarie

Oh, yes, that's coercion. I don't think money should be involved at all. And if there is, it is the aparents loss. They shouldn't have given it in the first place.

I just don't think money should be involved. If the bmom can't work due to pregnancy complications, there are programs that can help with that, and aparents should point the mom in that direction. It's not the aparents responsibility, in my opinion.

BUT, if there is, the bmom should not have to pay it back, it's the aparents loss for giving her the money.

If paps are simply handing over money, that's one thing. But when its part of the agreement of the match that they pay health care, living expenses, etc, I don't see why it should be their loss.

Again, I completely agree that there shouldn't be that onus on the paps...but the reality of it is, I've read several threads where people have spent tens of thousands of dollars...and somehow, I just don't think its fair that its, "oh well, too bad for you."

[agathaj]

I agree. PAP should not have to pay thousands to an agency and to an extectant mom. It shouldn't happen - period - then there is no need to pay anything back. The state should ensure that every emother has proper pre-birth care. Adoption should be secondary to that.

[bromanchik]

I also do not believe in prospective adoptive parents paying an expectant mom's expenses.

However, when it happens, adopting parents go into it knowing that money is a gift. If they do not want to risk that money they should say no to the match. This system exists, in part, because adopting parents have bought into it as part of adopting. But it is a choice adopting parents make. The best way to not lose money is to not agree on that kind of support.

[MamaS]

One of the previous posters said they paid the agency, not the birth mother. If the adoption fell through, the agency was 'on the hook' for the expenses. Okay, and when the second birth mother comes along, where does the agency get the money for her? By raising the fees for all the other prospective adoptive parents! That is one reason agencies charge in the five figures for a simple domestic adoption.
If you go through a lawyer, you don't have even that shield. There have been people who posted here who have been through three or more failed attempts, have paid living and maternity experiences for three women, and were left with no baby and not enough money for another attempt.
We arrest people who buy drugs and we also arrest people who sell drugs. If we are going to make it illegal to pay birth mother expenses we should also make it illegal for the birth mother to ask for or accept money. But as long as a pregnant woman can say: I want you to have this baby, but I don't have the money to eat nutritional foods and I don't have the money to go to the doctor, etc. the PAPs are going to fork it over for the sake of the baby. Talk about coercion -- that is coercion!

[Janeytwo]

Hey All!

I agree with all the others who say money shouldn't be part of the equation. I hope we get to the point where that's a reality.

I'd like to add something that I thought was interesting.
As some of you may know, my cousin and his wife adopted 2 babies recently. One from an open adoption -one from a closed adoption.

Anyway, my cousin's dad and I were sitting having lunch a few weeks back and my uncle says, "They're planning on paying X's college tuition to thank her for the baby." Now "X" is the birthmom from the open adoption.

I did a doubletake on my uncle and said, "Why are they doing that, Unc? I know they're thankful to X for the baby and that's wonderful that they feel that way, but they don't owe her anything."

I found it interesting that my cousin and his wife didn't follow up with moneytary considerations to the girl who'd relinquished her son through closed adoption - even though they knew how to contact her as they'd been in direct communication with her attorney since she'd chosen them. Not that I think they wouldn't have given her the same offer; they are kind people. But the pressure didn't seem to be there to feel that "owing" as it were.

Please don't misconstrue that as a judgement of open vs. closed adoption. Though I am admittedly from the closed era and don't always understand the politics of OA that's not my point. (And I would rather chop off my own foot with a dull machete than risk starting that war up.)

What I'm saying is that they shouldn't have to feel like that. When my Uncle asked what I meant by my comment, I simply repied that the only person they owe a college education to is their children - not their children's parents.

I hope it's okay that I added this story here - I just thought it sort of followed along in a way.

[CalamityJane]

One of the biggest forms of marketing that agencies use to attract pregnant women, or birthmothers as they call them, is the promise and sometimes vehement encouragement of financial help during pregnancy.

One of the biggest forms of marketing that agencies use to attract adoptive parents is the promise of quick turnaround and a quick and easy process.

In my opinion, the guilt falls squarely on the shoulders of the professionals involved. There is no blame to assign to the parties involved, in my opinion. You can only do what you’re educated to do. If agencies were responsible for the expenses involved in the pregnancy, I can guarantee you that they wouldn’t use money as a marketing angle to attract “birthmothers”. If agencies would stop making these “fast placement” promises and dangling them in front of potential adoptive parents like a carrot in exchange for astronomical fees (in which they have played a huge role in racking up), that would be a step in the right direction.

There are hundreds of women who have placed their children for adoption and never accepted a single dime of assistance and for every ten of those, there is one agency who is “sticking it to the man” in the name of “expenses” that they never paid, but they know they can collect, because people who were promised a quick turnaround have given them carte blanche for the situation.

It is a vicious and disgusting circle.

I also believe that agencies should be paying these expenses they promise to pay, because I firmly believe, once they are required to do so, they will move heaven and earth to find a way to get those needs covered via donations and/or free services, like Crisis Pregnancy Clothing Closets and Homeless Shelters. Once they are required to pony up, they will stop offering heaven and earth to these women during a personal crisis and instead, provide actual support and services.

Just think, if there were government oversight, mandatory licensing and price gouging laws in place – everyone would pay the same, regardless of the child – and every woman would get the care she needs (although, I admit, in some cases, it may not be the care she wants, as there are some people who simply use adoption as a means of supporting themselves, sadly).

[RavenSong]

Back in 1972, the year I relinquished my son, birthmom expenses were unheard of. Come to think of it, so was the term "birthmom"...we were known as natural mothers back in the olden days. Anyhoo, paying a birthmom's expenses was never done.

Voluntary newborn adoption in those years was often carried out through the County Department of Social Services. I don't think many counties do that anymore, which is too bad in my opinion. But then times have changed. Back in those years, most kids in foster care were voluntarily placed by their parents due to financial problems, such as losing a job. They stayed in foster care until their parents got back on their feet financially. Maybe DHS doesn't do voluntary newborn adoptions anymore because they're swamped with CPS cases?

I surrendered my baby to the County DHS, and I know that his parents didn't pay a dime. When I was pregnant, I asked the social worker if the parents would be paying for anything. She told me that they would have to reimburse MediCal (California's Medicaid program) for the childbirth expenses incurred in the hospital. I thought that was pretty fair, especially since they weren't being charged any other expenses. It turned out to be a lie, however. When I reunited with my son, his mom and dad told me that they didn't ever have to pay anything, including any medical expenses.

My own feelings on the matter is this: if I were in charge of the world, I would outlaw private adoptions and most agency adoptions. I would require all adoptions to go thru the state or county. The adoption, itself, should be free to the adoptive parents. They should be required, however, to pay for the bmom's and baby's prenatal care and birth. The only other expense I would allow would be temporary foster care (cradle care) until the aparents are selected. Of course, this wouldn't be necessary if a match is done before the baby is born. But I'm not Queen of the World, so I'm sure this will never happen.

The entire adoption industry really needs to be reformed. These fees they're charging PAPs are ridiculous...

[RavenSong]

Originally Posted by Janeytwo

What I'm saying is that they shouldn't have to feel like that. When my Uncle asked what I meant by my comment, I simply repied that the only person they owe a college education to is their children - not their children's parents.

Janey, when I was pregnant at 16, I was approached by the Chairperson of the Department of Psychology at a renowned university in La Jolla, CA. He and his wife wanted to adopt my baby really badly, and they offered to pay for my entire undergraduate work if I would do an independent adoption with them. They also dangled the possibility of paying for my graduate work, too, if I decided to go on for an advanced degree. The professor had known me since I was 13 years old, at which time I was taking university courses thru an experimental gifted-child program. When he heard thru the grapevine several years later that I was pregnant, he decided he wanted my kiddo.

I did consider the offer for about 3 days or so. But it really grossed me out, for some reason. First of all, it felt like they wanted to buy my baby. Second of all, it was too weird that they were focusing on genetics...after all, if I had started doing college-level work at 13 years of age, chances were good that my child would excel academically. (I knew that was one of the reasons when they kept asking me about Mike's IQ and academic achievements.) And lastly, I was really worried about why they weren't going through an agency. It wasn't like the waiting lines were real long back then...my son's parents only waited 5 months after their initial application before he was placed with them.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I told them no. I knew that at 16 years old, I couldn't judge their fitness. I wanted whoever adopted my child to go through a rigorous screening. So in the end, I decided the County Department of Social Services would most likely be the hardest screener. And the rest is history, as they say.

[EZ2Luv]

I also agree that money should never be involved in an adoption as far as bmom getting help from PAPs.
Because there is money involved it will always be a motivating factor and considered coersion.

I think though in the case of a scammer it is different. See the lack of nationwide laws make it very easy for emoms to circumvent and get financial help on the premise that they know they can simply say they changed their minds.

That fine line is there and say am emom has no intentions of ever placing but she goes and plays the agency and PAPs for thousands and then plays the entire scene inviting PAPs to the birth ect. Has teh baby and just either avoids PAPs or changes mind. Not saying deciding top parent is ever a bad thing, just to already know that you fully intend on parenting from the start.
In that case the Bmom should be made to pay some type of restitution if it can be proven that this was her plan. However it is aVERY difficult to do.

Now in the read that this intially started at, I believe there were a few red flags where the emom was caught lying. IMO hard as it might have been, the PAPs should have cut off the cash flow and let the agency handle it and call them only after the baby was available.

No one like the term "buying a baby" and I hate it myself, but sadly, this exactly what these agencies are doing along with the lack of these laws.

There should be no money outside of an agency fee that PAPs pay and nothing from PAPs to emom.

The scammer emoms that use their pregnancy to make money should be punished. I am talking about the ones who promise multiple couples their baby and are recieveing money from them.

Most emoms would think of their baby first and not what they could grab from PAPs.
I am sure the Bmoms here would much rather see the PAPs and APs use whatever money they had for their children.

Meanwhile there are things PAPs can do to reduce the probability of being scammed and one is walk away at the first red flag as hard as it might be. Only work with states that have laws set up to prevent emom expenses. Find an agency that has a plan in place for this or handle emoms needs themselves. And lastly only consider baby brorn situations.

Until then, the way things are, there will always be scammers that know they can get away with this.

To me there is a BIG difference between simply changing their mind, and scamming. The agency that the PAPs are paying big money to should do their job and know what to look for.

EZ