[taz99]

I shouldn't be so naive, I know, but I'm absolutely shocked to discover that some adoption agencies charge a staggered rate for adoptions depending on the race or ethnicity of the child being adopted.

I want to write a letter to my congressman and senator about this practice. I'm so angry! I know of one Texas agency that does this, but it's so upsetting.

Does anyone else know of any other agencies who do this terrible thing with pricing, almost as if children of non-Caucasian descent are worth less? I'm so outraged!

[oceanica]

My agency doees this and since I am getting an aa baby I am not upset that I have to pay less. You may think it implies that aa babies are "cheaper" but I think the agency gets money from the government. So it's not that they are cheaper but that all of the cost doesn't have to be paid by you. They must think it's an incentive to get people to adopt babies that are more difficult to place.
Dear hubby told me that he saw or read somewhere that it "saves states money" because paying welfare costs for the baby till age 18 is a lot more expensive. They've apparently studied this and found that since the programs have been in place it's saved the states money. I am going to ask dh about where he heard that.
(Please don't flame me I'm just repeating what I heard!)

[Linny]

I can agree with oceanica too....and IF that's the reasoning to 'price' babies in a less expensive realm, I seldom have a problem with it.

To me, consider how horrible it is that fees are CONTINUING to raise---for ALL babies! We've adopted many times....in fact, we've been adopting over the last 27yrs---internationally, through foster/adopt---and privately through agencies. I'm also keenly aware of fees with attorneys and agencies across the nation...not just in my vacinity.

I can tell you that agencies/attorneys have raised their fees INCREDIBLY over the last several years...and the offer of the 'adoption tax credit' didn't help in this respect at all.
I pity any 'just starting out couple' who'd like to adopt more than ONE child, because financially, it's a reach----for anyone. Combine that with practices that some agencies have of 'matching'----placing large amounts of $$ up front----money that's risky to lose (and CAN/HAS been lost) by hopeful adoptive parents....and the scenarios get even more expensive and ridiculous.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but most agencies I'm aware of, don't have the difference in fees anymore-----they've just RAISED THEIR ENTIRE FEES on ALL babies to the point it's insane!!!!!! (shaking head here).

Keep in mind too, that fees used to be lower for conditions that were considered 'special needs', because the agencies knew the adopting couples were taking MORE risks in adopting them. (Drug exposure, some physical conditions, etc) Anymore, drug exposed babies, etc are considered 'healthy'....which is something that bothers me too.

That's a vent, I realize....but before you get too upset over an agency that might charge less for a 'minority' baby....consider that sometimes, those fees ARE state supplemented, as well as making it possible for some hopeful adoptive couples/singles to actually adopt a baby/child. Who knows.....those same people actually might get to adopt more than one child too!!!!

Jumping off of the soapbox now....

Sincerely,

Linny

[aclee]

I agree...I don't think the AA infants are underpriced...I think that they charge WAY more than they need to for CC infants because it's so competative, and let's face it, families will pay it. I don't believe for one second that any agency or attny is taking a loss on an AA adoption, so if they can do the AA adoptions for less expensive, why don't they do all adoptions at that price?

[Linny]

...so if they can do the AA adoptions for less expensive, why don't they do all adoptions at that price? --aclee

Exactly...and AMEN!

--Linny

[sbaglio]

I agree with what's been said by others. In addition, the lower fees can be an incentive for parents who otherwise would not consider adopting these babies, to do so. I've never thought about it the way aclee articulated it - she's probably correct in that adoptions of CC infants are likely artificially raised.

With all the med school debt that I have, adopting DD at a lower expense allowed us to be parents. So I don't regret that for a second.

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by oceanica

My agency doees this and since I am getting an aa baby I am not upset that I have to pay less. You may think it implies that aa babies are "cheaper" but I think the agency gets money from the government.

Private agencies do not get subsidies for placing AA infants. They get subsidies for placing children from the foster care system. In infant adoptions it is a racist practice based on "Supply and demand".

[BethanyB]

I think they lower fees for AA adoptions for the wrong reasons. It just seems wrong to me that in order to entice someone to adopt an AA child, you need to lower the fee. If the fee is the only reason they are willing to adopt an AA infant, I would say the child deserves better than that. I also agree that the CC prices should go down and be at the same price as the AA adoptions. What bothers me more is when the scale gets even more complicated with CC's being the highest price, then biracial children being a little lower (a little lighter- maybe) and then the "full" AA children being the lowest cost.

If we want to be able to provide adoptions to people who otherwise can't afford it, why not make adoptions be based on a sliding scale as far as income goes. Every person deserves to be able to afford to adopt a child. I know I could not afford it and adopted a child from foster care.

When I asked an agency about the pricing differences they stated that CC babies in in demand so they have a lot more work to do in those type of adoption situations. I just think it's wrong. I don't want the prices to go up and but want them all to come down so ALL children are on an equal playing field and no one is being "discounted."

[mommamarci]

Our first look into transracial adoption was because of the lower fees. It was not that we wnated a 'bargain baby.' We simply saw there was a greater need for parents of AA babies. Had the fees been the same, I am not sure if we would have even considered it because we would not have realized the unequal numbers of parents adotping. That said, we DID NOT adopt transracially simply because it was cheaper. We did a lot of research and soul searching before making that decision.

It does stink the fees are different. In the end, we adopted both times through an agency that charges a set fee. (Which is lower than most fees at agencies that charge different rates...)

[sbaglio]

Originally Posted by BethanyB

It just seems wrong to me that in order to entice someone to adopt an AA child, you need to lower the fee. If the fee is the only reason they are willing to adopt an AA infant, I would say the child deserves better than that.

I agree in principle with most of what you're saying. But we are an interracial couple, and went into adoption with the hope of adopting a child of color. The fees were what they were, and were a relief, to be frank. The finances were a separate issue. I'm sure that if we were wealthy, we could have considered a lot more agencies and situations. But the fact that adoption of the type of child we wanted cost less, is something that we are in no way upset about.

If what everyone says is true, and there aren't enough people to adopt AA children, why not make it more favorable for people of few means to become parents?

I again come to aclee's point - Maybe the fees for adoption of AA children ARE the true fees, and those for adoption of CC children are inflated. One might even consider that a racist practice towards CC children.

[BethanyB]

I'm not blaming you for taking advantage of being able to adopt a child at a price you could afford. I just hate that it has to be that way. I wish all adoptions were cheaper and based on what it truly costs to provide the basic services.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that CC babies being priced higher is a racist practice. Can you explain?
Putting a higher dollar amount on something means that it's worth more than the same exact thing (a baby) just because of the color of the baby.

[sbaglio]

Originally Posted by BethanyB

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that CC babies being priced higher is a racist practice. Can you explain?
Putting a higher dollar amount on something means that it's worth more than the same exact thing (a baby) just because of the color of the baby.

Sorry I didn't explain myself...When I said that elevating the costs of adoptions of CC children could be seen as racist, I meant exactly what your next sentence said. I was arguing that saying that CC children are worth more was, in fact, insulting to them and their families. For those who consider themselves on par with everyone else, this practice might seem discriminatory. A different way to look at it, I know.

[BethanyB]

I guess I just can't see how something being considered more valuable can be insulting towards the people who are considered more valuable. KWIM? Isn't it insulting to the people who are considered less valuable?