[Jensboys]

The Canadian system (which is similar to what most other developed nations do) is in fact a "savings plan" like what others here advocate (that idea that if you want to stay home -you should be able to save enough to do it) BUT its a savings plan that you can pay into for the lifetime of your working career and you get to benefit from it at the beginning.

Most moms these days are in their 20s, some young, some older. How many of them can afford to save enough to stay home with their babies for a year? Not very many - even though all major child development data says thats the best option.
So the govt facilitates this program for the benefit of all its citizens that a small amount is deducted from your pay cheque as soon as you start working (a maximum amount of $725 a year if you make upto or over $48,000, it lessens if you make less than that) and you can "withdraw" from this savings account when you have/adopt or foster/adopt a baby/child as long as you've worked a certain number of hours in the previous year.

Now because you have withdrawn over your contribution when you are young, you continue to pay into the program throughout your working career. So yes, essentially YOU have "saved" the money but the govt. allows you to benefit from that savings before you have contributed your whole amount.

Whats the good of being able to take maternity leave when you are 60????? Yes, by then we will have saved a years income, but we certainly cant afford to do that today.

[HappyMomAnna]

Originally Posted by: Brat

My husband and I looked into older child adoption initially, but because our county is so screwed up, we were not able to even get in the system, and heard from others that it might take years. That's because our government doesn't take care of its children. Instead of slamming adoptive parents for wanting to take care of the children that birthparents loving place in our arms, why not ask your local politician why he can't be a part of legislation that addresses wasteful governmental spending? Because I don't know about Canada, but I know that I am taxed for things I ought not be.

If you were not able to enter the system.... There may be some reason why ?

The experience of OTHER people is NOT the same for ALL...The caseworkers have skills at weeding out certian types of interested people....for a variety of reasons.

Children adopted from the system are very WELL taken care of when the parents are able to endure the process and demonstrate the kind of committment it may very well require in order to be the best Advocate for these children...which often requires the ability to over come road-blocks from entering the system--to finding the correct treatments....

NOT all Families Should adopt through the SYSTEM and that is perfectly fine....But there is no reason to SLAM it because this was not your choice.....That does NOT help the KID's Looking for families.....

EVERY AMERICAN has the ability to be involved with the legislature--but again this takes the ability to not stand in front of a road block and give-up....

People wanting to see changes in our system have vary many ways to HELP make changes...sometimes it starts with contacting your own State Senator or Representive and finding out HOW....

There are a NUMBER of regular people involved on both the STATE and Federall government in a variety of different ways to see changes in the system. It does not come to you like a benifit check mandated might--It takes effort on the INDIVIDUALS part to become a part of the ways to see change....

This post is determental to the efforts some of us are making with the government systems in order to see to it that children in the US find families to adopt them.....

[numbr1dbcksfan]

*sigh* Too tired to argue today. I am sorry if I said anywhere that adoptive parents should not be privvy to the same government subsidy that Biological parents are.... I thought I said that the government should subsidize no one and that it is an employer choice.

And, of course, that is only my opinion. And I never once said or thought that Adoptive families are inferior. Im sorry if it came across like that.

[Brat]

Originally Posted by HappyMomAnna

Originally Posted by: Brat

If you were not able to enter the system.... There may be some reason why ?

We did not enter the system for one very good reason: the child we were meant to adopt was waiting for us.

The experience of OTHER people is NOT the same for ALL...The caseworkers have skills at weeding out certian types of interested people....for a variety of reasons.

You're right. Of course...we know of one other couple that foster-adopted a child. 'Course, they were given inaccurate information about the child they adopted, and he has disabilities that no one told them about.

If I can find it online, I will send you an article about our county's foster care system. Many people who would like to provide a home for a waiting child cannot, due to bureaucracy, not their own bad behavior.

And, true, true: social workers weed people out. That's their job, at both public and private agencies. They didn't screen us out, though, Anna. You'd have to...actually take the time to have a conversation with us to do that...right? You'd have to...keep accurate records of people who attend seminars, right? Makes me kind of sad that you'd infer my unfitness in your first sentence. I may not always agree with you, but I'm surprised at the thinly veiled personal attack.

But oh well.

Children adopted from the system are very WELL taken care of when the parents are able to endure the process and demonstrate the kind of committment it may very well require in order to be the best Advocate for these children...which often requires the ability to over come road-blocks from entering the system--to finding the correct treatments....

That's right.

NOT all Families Should adopt through the SYSTEM and that is perfectly fine....But there is no reason to SLAM it because this was not your choice.....That does NOT help the KID's Looking for families.....

Didn't slam your system. It may be good as gold. I clearly stated that I had difficulty getting into MY county's system, and we're not alone. I give people enough credit to know that their experience might be different, in their hometown.

What doesn't help kids looking for a home is when people post their horror stories in fostering/adopting them in order to garner status and attention as a hero. Ironically, this isn't what discouraged us. The system did a great job of that all by itself.

EVERY AMERICAN has the ability to be involved with the legislature--but again this takes the ability to not stand in front of a road block and give-up....

You should be able to tell by now that I am quite persistent. However, you have no idea what I do in real life on behalf of children, both, ironically, on the job, and for my city council district. You don't know what I have said to people in power about our system. That doesn't mean that I have to put starting a family on hold for several years to prove a point. You didn't, so perhaps you should not judge.

People wanting to see changes in our system have vary many ways to HELP make changes...sometimes it starts with contacting your own State Senator or Representive and finding out HOW....

There are a NUMBER of regular people involved on both the STATE and Federall government in a variety of different ways to see changes in the system. It does not come to you like a benifit check mandated might--It takes effort on the INDIVIDUALS part to become a part of the ways to see change....

Couldn't agree more.

This post is determental to the efforts some of us are making with the government systems in order to see to it that children in the US find families to adopt them.....

No, it's not. Posting elongated horror stories about actual children is.

Here is a reminder of the first post of this thread: We are looking for other parents who adopted a newborn and were denied the right to take the same amount of accrued sick leave as birth mothers. This is research for drafting federal legislation prohibiting this discriminatory practice. Please email me at tmar3809@aol.com with your story and the name of your employer. There are a large number of companies who practice this and we need to know. Thanks.

I was not only denied paid sick time when adopting a newborn, I had two personal/sick days taken away. While another co-worker who was pregnant retained her benefits. For no good reason, other than she was pregnant and I was not. That's not fair. Yet, people want to jump on this thread, which is about rights, and tell me to clam up. No, I'm going to answer this fellow, and I'm going to hope that this thread takes on a life of its own, and that someone who is a decision-maker will make the rights of all members of the adoptive triad a top priority.

You don't agree with me, and that's fine. But please don't preach to me about not being an advocate until you've walked the talk. I do.

[crick]

Just a friendly reminder to have disagreements in a respectful manner.

There are many sides to the issues and we won't agree with everyone...

Thanks!
Crick

[paigeturner]

Originally Posted by Jensboys

The Canadian system (which is similar to what most other developed nations do) is in fact a "savings plan" like what others here advocate (that idea that if you want to stay home -you should be able to save enough to do it) BUT its a savings plan that you can pay into for the lifetime of your working career and you get to benefit from it at the beginning.

Most moms these days are in their 20s, some young, some older. How many of them can afford to save enough to stay home with their babies for a year? Not very many - even though all major child development data says thats the best option.
So the govt facilitates this program for the benefit of all its citizens that a small amount is deducted from your pay cheque as soon as you start working (a maximum amount of $725 a year if you make upto or over $48,000, it lessens if you make less than that) and you can "withdraw" from this savings account when you have/adopt or foster/adopt a baby/child as long as you've worked a certain number of hours in the previous year.

Now because you have withdrawn over your contribution when you are young, you continue to pay into the program throughout your working career. So yes, essentially YOU have "saved" the money but the govt. allows you to benefit from that savings before you have contributed your whole amount.

Whats the good of being able to take maternity leave when you are 60????? Yes, by then we will have saved a years income, but we certainly cant afford to do that today.

Jen,

I've been watching this thread because I'm curious about how the Canadian system works and because in WA state there is a bill pending that would do some of the same things this program does, but on a much smaller scale. In committee hearing the Canadian EI program came up.

I did a little digging out of curiousity. The contribution rates dropped in 2005 for the EI program. An individual making $39,000 per year will contribute $761 per year, the contribution level is capped at this amount. Your employer will pay 1.4 x more or $1,065 per year. Again for employers the contribution level is capped. My understaning is that everyone pays.

According to the information I pulled from the EI website, the maximum benefit per maternity leave is $413 over 50 weeks or $20,650. On its face its a wonderful benefit and as far as I know, in the States we do not have public benefits anything close to this.

But, I thought I'd dig a bit more into the costs. Lets look at a two-income family making the maximum contribution rate of $39,000 each over 30 years. The family and the family's employer over that time period would pay $109,560. If a family uses the benefit for four children then they've paid for it.

However, what about those who only use the benefit for one child or what about childless couples? Do they pay anyway? If it is a "savings plan" as Jen contends then do those who never use the benefit get their money back?

Not trying to be argumentative or put down the Canadian system, because I think its a good thing to take care of families, but I wonder if it would be more cost effective to have employers come up with a plan that suites their workforce. Just some thoughts and I'd love to discuss this further.

[Leigh131313]

HI paige!

Dont forget, its not just for maternity leave...its also if you lose your job at any time..(without it being your fault, ie layoffs)

Leigh

[paigeturner]

Well, duh...I'm such a dork. So, it is like the unemployment insurance we have in the states only it extends to maternity leave. OK.

In WA we're looking at an additional program that would be paid by the employers to fund family leave insurance that would cost employers .02 per employee per hour plus an additional $20 per year per employee, paid again by the employer. This would be a separate program from unemployment. So I went to the website provided in the hearing and just assumed (you know what they say about that) that it was for family leave only.

Thanks for pointing that out. It is a good program then IMO.

[Brat]

Today I received a packet from the Dave Thomas Foundation to assist me in asking my employer to provide adoption benefits. It made the following points:

1. According to a research study, 95% of Americans are in favor of offering adoption benefits.

2. So few people adopt (1%) in a typical workplace, it really doesn't cost the employer much to offer the same benefits to biological parents as they do adoptive parents.

3. On the other hand...offering adoption benefits sends a message to employees that starting a family through adoption is actually a viable method, and may actually encourage employees to consider adopting a waiting child.

4. Adoptive parents are in need of more support than those that give birth. A typical birth experience is about a year. Parents who go through the arduous adoption process often enter it after years of infertility and its accompanying costs and then take years to research, get their homestudy and then finally adopt. The packet educates employers about all that goes into the process--and about the fact that the typical birth is covered by insurance and costs parents $900 out of pocket. A typical adoption is $15,000 out of pocket. Employers, interested in retaining employees and supporting their workforce need to be just as aware of the needs of adoptive parents as of those who give birth.

[I sincerely hope that the above point does not make parents who give birth to their children feel marginalized. That is definitely not my intent, nor that of the foundation.]

There's lots of other stuff, too. My company is in the midst of working on our employee handbook, so this is perfect timing. For one thing, the foundation suggests offering paid or unpaid time off both during the adoption process and afterwards. At the moment, my workplace offers neither, beyond your regular vacation days. And...I've already stated what they did with my PTO days.

[paigeturner]

Brat,

This is awesome information. Please update us on the outcome. I just found out that my employer offers both adoption assistance and offers the same leave to adoptive parents as it does for bioparents. I found out because a co-worker is in the process of adoption. I was thrilled to know.

[HappyMomAnna]

I personally think this is a far better approach then mandating it with the government. I feel that if employers and tax payers are forced to do something then the MEANING of why and what they are doing is lost....

[Jensboys]

Originally Posted by paigeturner

Well, duh...I'm such a dork. So, it is like the unemployment insurance we have in the states only it extends to maternity leave. OK.

In WA we're looking at an additional program that would be paid by the employers to fund family leave insurance that would cost employers .02 per employee per hour plus an additional $20 per year per employee, paid again by the employer. This would be a separate program from unemployment. So I went to the website provided in the hearing and just assumed (you know what they say about that) that it was for family leave only.

Thanks for pointing that out. It is a good program then IMO.

lol Paige, thanks for admitting you're a dork lol

Our (un)employment insurance, as others explained, covers maternity and paternal leave as well as covering any employee who loses their job (other than being fired for wrong doing etc). Its a social safety net - not just geared towards new parents. As I said, its not like there are groups of protesters in Canada trying to get the program to stop. Its widely accepted, gratefully appreciated and used when required.

Jen