[jaenelle]

If, say, the birthmom is a resident of one state but is staying with relatives in another state, and that's where the baby will be born... which state's laws apply?

Thanks!

[mommamarci]

I believe it is whatever state bmom is a resident of, but I am not 100% sure of that. Sorry...

Edited to add: I think this because I seem to remember someone on here who adopted. Her son's birthmother stayed with them until his birth, but they still had to get ICPC clearance even though he was born in their state.

[Vogi2002]

Yes, it is birthmom's state, or state where baby is born...

[jaenelle]

Originally Posted by Runyan2002

Yes, it is birthmom's state, or state where baby is born...

Well, the birthmom is a resident of one state and the baby will (I think) be born in another state. So if the two states are different, then which is it?

[timbo30]

Our son's b-mom delivered in a state that she did not live in. ICPC had to be done between our home state and the state where our baby was born. Timbo

[rose32542]

With us my sister lived in Philadelphia when she became pregnant, and was receiveing state assistance there. She moved in with us (in AZ) and our adoption has followed the laws here because this is where the babies were born. I am not sure if she actually established herself as a resident of this state; she had been here less than six months when the babies were born, but she was considered a resident at least for the purposes of receiving state assistance.

I would say it probably depends on the states involved. AZ considers all babies born here to be Az residents. I wonder what would happen if the bmom's state of residence and the state the aparents are residents of both considered the baby "theirs?" Probably wouldn't happen.

[Lovebug]

Our son was born in a state different than the one his bmom resided in and the laws went by where he was born.

--Renee

[denisenw5]

We asked this same question to our agency's attorney and were told that the laws of both states would be followed. I would think that for the purpose of ICPC, the state where the baby was born and your home state would be involved. The mother's state of residence would need to also be referred to. For example, if the state where the baby is born allows a woman to sign the permanent surrender at a minimum of seventy-two hours, but her state of residence allows two weeks, you would wait the two weeks not the seventy-two hours.

[rredhead]

DS's bmom wanted to have the baby in the neighboring state because the process was faster. She ended up not going that route, mostly for transportation reasons. We were always told that the states for ICPC are the state in which the baby is born and the state in which the aparents reside. If S had come to CA, then there wouldn't be any ICPC at all.
That said, CONSULT AN ATTORNEY from the pbmom's state of residence. According to our attorney in MO, if S had delivered in KS, then some MO laws would still apply.
THIS is only one of the reasons why I'm wishing the US had some federal regulation or standardization of adoptions.
Good luck!
-R

[beth9927]

I think it may depend on the state. Our bmom lives near the Ky OH border. Our bmom is in OH, us in KY. We thought if she could just cross the border and have the baby, we wouldn't have to go through ICPC. Our atty said that no, she wouldn't be considered a resident of Ky, so it would be OH. Go figure.

Beth

[Fran27]

That's weird. With my agency they let us use either our State laws, or the birthmother's - when it's practical of course. Where the baby is born doesn't matter, it's where she signs that is.

I guess I'm confused now I definitely agree that there should be some sort of federal laws about adoption, because this is beyond stupid...