[mckenna]

i want to start off by saying i do not want to offend any one. that being said, out of pure curiousity, i got on an adoption website and there was a place to view available babies. i was looking at the profiles and so many said, daily alcohol use and drug use by the mother during pregnancy and then fees of 15,000 + to adopt the child. i am a foster parent and so many of my foster parent friends receive babies born drug exposed or drug addicted and many become available for adoption at zero cost. wouldn't these babies be removed from birth parents if it was determined they were drug exposed or addicted? how can agencies charge these outrageous fees when the child would probably be removed from parent custody anyway. i am not trying to say that these babies are not worthy, i am not the well versed in private/domestic adoption and would like some insite into this. thanks

[DianeS]

As far as I know, protective services will only remove a child from the parents at birth if the child actually tests positive for the drugs at that moment in time. They don't remove the child without that, not even if the mother admits to such drug use. So even if drugs and/or alcohol were used constantly, as long as the baby was born "clean", the parents usually retain custody.

Then, if the parents go to an agency to have their baby adopted, the agency is certainly going to charge their normal rates to do the same work as they would do for a healthy child.

It is true that if the adoptive parents got custody of such a child through the state, the costs to the adoptive parents would be next to nothing, but there is a certainty that comes along with private adoption that there isn't in foster-adoption, and many people are willing to pay for that.

[Tigger]

I'm actually with you Diane. I'm also a foster parent and I know for a fact there are thousands of foster kids waiting for homes. Why would you pay that kind of money!? Just so you can get an infant rather than an older child!?

[ladyjubilee]

As far as the "just so you can have an infant" thing goes, that's pretty much why folks around the world do the wild thing and have babies----just because someone reaches that same end through adoption does not make their choice to begin with an infant invalid, unreasonable or selfish.......that said, I think its important to remember that foster adoption isn't "free". The expenses for foster adoption just aren't covered by the adoptive parent. The state has expenses, just like adoption agencies....only the state bills the taxpayers so we don't see exactly how much each adoption costs.