[MamaS]

AN unexpected side effect of the "New Depression" or the more politically correct "New Reality"!

Birth mothers scam adoptive parents - KXXV-TV News Channel 25 - Central Texas News and Weather for Waco, Temple, Killeen |

[crick]

I'm not really clear on a few things in this article.

1. The couple says they have been "let down" 8 times. Does that mean failed match/placement or feeling that they truly have been scammed?

2. It says 75% of the emoms change their minds about placing. Well, that's not a scam if they just changed their mind. So I'm not sure what the purpose of the article is really.

Seems to me the article WANTED to touch on a growing number of true scams due to the economy but it ended up being more about failed matches?

Maybe I missed it...

[thanksgivingmom]

I agree with Crick - the article was confusing to say the least.

Quotes like:

Lackmeyer estimated that nationally, 75 percent of birth mothers end up changing their minds about adoption.

Don't help much. Birth mothers are women that actually place.....so what are they considering "birth mothers"? Women that talk to an agency? Women that consider placement? Women that "match" with a PAP?

I suppose it's stories like this that make me so passionate about accurate terminology. Articles like this seek to demonize birth mothers, when the reality is that there isn't a single ACTUAL birth mother in the entire article!

[MamaS]

Crick, that is the main problem. How can anyone distinguish between someone who changed their mind and decided to parent(which is their legal right) and someone who never intended to place for adoption but just wanted financial support (which is morally wrong and probably legally wrong)? SO, PAP's just rent apartment after apartment, pay medical bill after medical bill, and provide gift cards, gas cards, taxi fares, etc. to expectant mother after expectant mother until they finally run out of money and hope? Seems like there should be a better solution for both parties!

[crick]

Well there I agree with you..it always comes down to the money. I personally wouldn't adopt this way or pay out normal living expenses as any expectant mother whether they are thinking of placing or not is responsible for themselves. (jmo)

As it is, there are those willing to take these risks and until we have stricter enforced laws regarding expenses, we will always have this issue. Scammers are low life who give true emoms and bmoms a bad name.

Personally I wish more paps would stop paying expenses. We are the more powerful "group" and if we stopped showing the money, then I think that would put a dent in the scammers ability to do this. As well as put a dent in the agencies who are not truly working on behalf of either party.

Just my opinion...I know a lot of people will disagree. that's okay!

[RavenSong]

This is a really poor piece of journalism, IMHO. And it also shows the importance of using accurate terminology in the world of adoption. Not one of these expectant mothers were birth mothers.

The thing that really jumped out at me was the statement, "Legally, a birth mother has 48 hours after the birth of the baby to decide whether to give up the child." This statement is just plain wrong. A woman who has just given birth does not have to decide within 48 hours whether she's going to place the baby for adoption or not. I would assume the 48-hour period following birth is the time period that must elapse before a mother is even allowed to sign the consent forms...unless Texas has suddenly enacted some draconian laws. It doesn't mean that she has to sign those forms during the first 48 hours or else forget placing at all.

Women who have contemplated placing their infants for adoption and then change their minds are NOT scammers. That 75-percent figure makes it sound like that's what they're doing. Women who are not pregnant and who tell an adoption agency they are in order to get money are the scammers...and should be charged with fraud at the very least. They certainly are not "birth mothers".

[thanksgivingmom]

Originally Posted by crick

As it is, there are those willing to take these risks and until we have stricter enforced laws regarding expenses, we will always have this issue. Scammers are low life who give true emoms and bmoms a bad name.

Exactly.

And the sad part is that these journalists, agencies, and even some in the adoption community don't always do anything to clarify the difference between scammers and actual women considering placement or those that go on to place.....

Originally Posted by crick

Personally I wish more paps would stop paying expenses. We are the more powerful "group" and if we stopped showing the money, then I think that would put a dent in the scammers ability to do this. As well as put a dent in the agencies who are not truly working on behalf of either party.

Just my opinion...I know a lot of people will disagree. that's okay!

Crick, I couldn't agree more!

[thanksgivingmom]

Originally Posted by RavenSong

The thing that really jumped out at me was the statement, "Legally, a birth mother has 48 hours after the birth of the baby to decide whether to give up the child." This statement is just plain wrong. A woman who has just given birth does not have to decide within 48 hours whether she's going to place the baby for adoption or not. I would assume the 48-hour period following birth is the time period that must elapse before a mother is even allowed to sign the consent forms...unless Texas has suddenly enacted some dragonian laws. It doesn't mean that she has to sign those forms during the first 48 hours or else forget placing at all.

Oh thank you Raven!

I knew there was another quote that left me REALLY miffed.

Talk about misleading!

[oceanica]

Where are they getting these figures?
There are no concrete (or non-concrete) numbers on pregnant women who change their minds OR scammers!
Agencies won't let their own data out and there are no other studies that I could find to quantify this. I really would like to know what the rate of mind-changing and the rate of actual scamming is out there. (Yes I have a wierd inclination towards quantifying everything.)
Oh well, another case of so-called "journalists" being incredibly uninformed and passing their incorrect information on to everyone.

[RavenSong]

Oceanica, I agree with you...where are they getting these so-called statistics? I sure can't find them anywhere on the 'Net.

TGM, I wanted to thank you, my friend, for being the first one to bring up the importance of terminology. It IS so darn important, mainly because language defines us in many ways as human beings; it also defines the world around us...it's important.

Crick, I agree with you about the e-mom expenses. I wish all PAPs would just say "no"...not put up with it all. I'm not sure what the answer is, though, for impoverished women experiencing unplanned pregnancies and contemplating adoption. I used to think that they would probably qualify for welfare programs; however, I've recently learned that that's not necessarily true, especially for the "working poor". All I know is that the bmom expenses, which were put in place by the adoption industry to begin with, lead to so many conflicts.

I was just remarking last night to my partner how I wouldn't be surprised to see the return of county "poor farms" in the near future. These current economic times are getting kind of desperate for many people.

[MamaS]

Originally Posted by crick

Well there I agree with you..it always comes down to the money. I personally wouldn't adopt this way or pay out normal living expenses as any expectant mother whether they are thinking of placing or not is responsible for themselves. (jmo)
Just my opinion...I know a lot of people will disagree. that's okay!

Doesn't this contradict what so many birth mothers have said on this forum? "I gave up my baby because I had no help or support (from family, society, etc.) If there had been help available, I would have kept my baby." So, the PAP provides the help and support and the mother keeps her baby. Except that the PAP doesn't realize that is what is happening until the end, when they discover they are not PAPs at all.

[BrandyHagz]

Maybe it's me - but I find a HUGE difference between accepting/getting help from family and accepting/getting help from a complete stranger who wouldn't be helping you if they didn't think there was a chance to adopt your child.

In a perfect world: Money wouldn't be a factor, because money wouldn't be involved.

We'd stop hearing about 'birth mother scams' and start calling it what it is - a scam, plain and simple.

Adoptive parents aren't the only people hurt by these 'birth mother scams' - real life, legitimate women who truely are birth mothers are hurt as well.

[thanksgivingmom]

MamaS, it's my understanding (and other first Mom's on this forum may absolutely jump in!) that it wasn't that they had no support through pregnancy, but for the entirety of the child's life.

When a woman here says your quote of: "I gave up my baby because I had no help or support (from family, society, etc.) If there had been help available, I would have kept my baby" - that extends MUCH past labor and delivery.

I suppose I don't know how much paps are expected to give out, but I highly doubt that it's enough to make a significant impact on a Moms ability to financially provide for her child for 18+ years......

[MamaS]

Thanksgiving Mom: In the past 24 months I have seen 3 private adoptions (up close enough to know some details). The MINIMUM given by PAP's and received by the expectant mother was:
a.) 12 months paid rent on an apartment
b.) $500 per month gas card (this was when gas was sky high)
c.) $300 a month in gift cards for Walmart or Target
d.) Transport to and from medical appointments and all medical needs (test, prescriptions, etc.) paid that were not covered my expectant mother's medicare.
e.) Paid sitter to stay in the apartment with mother's other children while she was in the hospital giving birth.
In fairness, in every instance the expectant mothers did surrender the babies (all three were boys) and the PAPs are now happy APs.

[thanksgivingmom]

I guess my point was, YES, that can make a HUGE dent for someone that's pregnant.

My guess would be, however, that the 12 months rent thing CERTAINLY wouldn't end up being 12 months for someone that parents (not sure how early people can match, but I would doubt it even a whole 9 months) and that all the expenses certainly wouldn't make the following 18 years doable financially without further support from family/friends (if for the eMom money was a considerable factor in the first place).

Thus making my point more that the women on here that say that they wish they had support meant either long term (as in not just through pregnancy) and also not just financially. Having a family not emotionally support you as a single parent is quite taxing as well.

But thank you for those numbers on the 3 private placements you've seen closely recently.

Personally, I just haven't "met" (admittedly online mostly) any women that took money like that....especially in such large quantities.