Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, this isn't true. There are always going to be SOME babies available to adopt. My sister adopted two infants in the US, and our good friends adopted two more. It's just that people hoping to adopt have to get rid of the idea that all they need to do is to get their name on a list and be patient, and sooner or later, their number will come up and it will be their turn.
It isn't like that at all. Prospective adoptive families have to "sell" themselves to the birth mother, who is handed a number of portfolios of couples who all appear to be the most ideal people to parent an infant who have ever walked this earth. But it's entirely possible and even likely that after a couple spends all the money and time to sign up with an agency and prepare an enticing portfolio, no birth mother will ever select them as parents for her baby.
I can't rep you again but I will in the future.
It is degrading that in domestic adoptions, prospective parents basically have to ADVERTISE themselves to "birth mothers".
The young woman made a mistake. Trying to rectify that mistake thru adoption is good. Giving her power over the family who adopts her child is crazy and over the top.
I saw a documentary where a BM was looking thru prospective parents' portfolios and she saw a ranch style (one level) home and said "I never liked houses like that. Next".
It is degrading that in domestic adoptions, prospective parents basically have to ADVERTISE themselves to "birth mothers".
The young woman made a mistake. Trying to rectify that mistake thru adoption is good. Giving her power over the family who adopts her child is crazy and over the top.
I saw a documentary where a BM was looking thru prospective parents' portfolios and she saw a ranch style (one level) home and said "I never liked houses like that. Next".
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Ugh. I agree. This is where an experienced social worker could probably make a better choice than a shallow-minded teen.
In the past, social workers tried very hard to match babies with adoptive parents who "looked like them." For example, a friend of mine who is now in her mid-50s was adopted at birth by a American couple of Scottish heritage. She found out as an adult that her birth mother was not only also ethnically Scottish, but had a surname that was only one letter different from her adoptive parents.
Of course this idea doesn't work well when the babies are minorities or mixed race and a "matching" family can't be found. I'm also not implying that it's a huge priority that adopted children look exactly like they could be the biological children of their parents. But, as I have mentioned elsewhere, my sister's adopted son is a visibly different race from her and her husband, and his race is also a small minority in the city where they live. This has caused emotional and other difficulties for him, and my sister regrets that she didn't take it seriously enough as a potential significant problem when he was adopted.
The "advertising," if you want to call it that, is done through a licensed agency. not directly from the would-be adoptive parents to the birth mother. And yes, agencies will accept a large number of portfolios, or, nowadays, videos, so birth mothers have hundreds of couples to choose from for their one baby. Statistics alone tells you that since there are at least two million couples waiting to adopt infants in the US, most of them will never be able to adopt through this means.
My sister adopted two newborns, but both of them were private adoptions. Before that, they had been planning to adopt internationally, because the chance of being selected for an infant in the US was just too small.
Isn't that the problem with adoption agencies? As you say, agencies will accept large number of hopeful adoptive families and "most of them will never be able to adopt." How is that not fraud or at the very least deceptive business practice?
Why cannot these agencies only work with a handful of hopeful adoptive couples they know that they can match with available birth mothers? I think it is great that your sister was able to adopt new newborns! What about the other couples that have paid the exact amount your sister did for her two adoptions, passed the same home-study, and have waited years to get the same services that your sister received?
It is degrading that in domestic adoptions, prospective parents basically have to ADVERTISE themselves to "birth mothers".
The young woman made a mistake. Trying to rectify that mistake thru adoption is good. Giving her power over the family who adopts her child is crazy and over the top.
I saw a documentary where a BM was looking thru prospective parents' portfolios and she saw a ranch style (one level) home and said "I never liked houses like that. Next".
This is so wrong on so many levels.
I agree. How can the system be reformed? Adoption agencies spend millions lobbying various state governments to continue this very adoption practice. So many childless couples want to adopt, simply cannot find a viable adoption situation. They lose thousands upon thousands of dollars to adoption agencies that clearly know that they cannot match this couple, but still demand tens of thousands of dollars just to tell them they cannot match them or "no birth mother will ever choose them."
Again, how is this not fraud or deceptive business practices by the adoption agency?
Isn't that the problem with adoption agencies? As you say, agencies will accept large number of hopeful adoptive families and "most of them will never be able to adopt." How is that not fraud or at the very least deceptive business practice?
Why cannot these agencies only work with a handful of hopeful adoptive couples they know that they can match with available birth mothers? I think it is great that your sister was able to adopt new newborns! What about the other couples that have paid the exact amount your sister did for her two adoptions, passed the same home-study, and have waited years to get the same services that your sister received?
You raise valid points. I suppose where it not being fraud comes in, is that the agencies actually do not know which of the prospective families will be chosen by birth mothers and which will be passed over. After all, limiting the number of applications would reduce the "choice" of the birth mothers, and "having lots of choices" is considered the greatest good these days, so no one sees it as fraudulent or deceptive for them to take as many applications as possible. And I am sure there are clauses stating that there is no guarantee of a match and no refunds are offered. If that's out in the open and accepted by the families applying, it's not fraudulent or deceptive.
My sister got lucky. Both of her adoptions were private, through word-of-mouth "referrals." Literally, both times she got a phone call telling her that the friend of a friend was looking for someone who met a certain description, to adopt her baby, and she and her husband fit the bill. But they lost the thousands of dollars they had already invested in adopting from Colombia.
My friends who adopted two babies got them through the county. They had fostered one baby, then decided they couldn't foster any more. Their first adoption was a tiny preemie whose birth mother's rights were terminated while the baby was still in the NICU. I don't know all the details, but I believe the baby was offered to them by the county social workers and not by the birth mother. A couple of years later, they put out their portfolio with an agency and were chosen by a birth mother who apparently specifically wanted a family who already had a girl to be her baby's older sister. Again--lucky. But they didn't know when they started out that they would be so lucky, or get any children at all.
You raise valid points. I suppose where it not being fraud comes in, is that the agencies actually do not know which of the prospective families will be chosen by birth mothers and which will be passed over. After all, limiting the number of applications would reduce the "choice" of the birth mothers, and "having lots of choices" is considered the greatest good these days, so no one sees it as fraudulent or deceptive for them to take as many applications as possible. And I am sure there are clauses stating that there is no guarantee of a match and no refunds are offered. If that's out in the open and accepted by the families applying, it's not fraudulent or deceptive.
My sister got lucky. Both of her adoptions were private, through word-of-mouth "referrals." Literally, both times she got a phone call telling her that the friend of a friend was looking for someone who met a certain description, to adopt her baby, and she and her husband fit the bill. But they lost the thousands of dollars they had already invested in adopting from Colombia.
My friends who adopted two babies got them through the county. They had fostered one baby, then decided they couldn't foster any more. Their first adoption was a tiny preemie whose birth mother's rights were terminated while the baby was still in the NICU. I don't know all the details, but I believe the baby was offered to them by the county social workers and not by the birth mother. A couple of years later, they put out their portfolio with an agency and were chosen by a birth mother who apparently specifically wanted a family who already had a girl to be her baby's older sister. Again--lucky. But they didn't know when they started out that they would be so lucky, or get any children at all.
Do you think that adoption agencies/professionals don't know which couples will be "lucky" and get a placement? Do you think adoption agencies know that they cannot sustain their business model with only "lucky" couples? Most agencies do at most do 20 adoption per year pre-COVID. That would mean at best their total revenue ~$800,000. I'm told that with advertising, employee costs, birth mother costs, rent/electricity/water, and legal/court fees, the required revenue is ~$2,000,000 per year. If that is true, where would the agencies get the rest of their funding? I wonder if the agency could bring on additional couples that could have a very small or no chance that they would find a match, and require them to pay the $40,000 and then tell them no refund. It isn't the adoption agency's fault they could not match this couple, it's "birth mother's choice." So what would you call that business model: fraud, deceptive business practices, or a Ponzi scheme? I also have to wonder about the statement that an agency is required to offer birth mothers a wide choice of hopeful adoptive couples. How many couples can a birth mother look at? 10, 100, 1000??
Edited to add:
I've also not seen in any adoption literature the fact that most hopeful adoptive couples will not be successfully in bring home an infant. I would think at the very least they should be very upfront about that and it should be printed on all their marketing materials, not in the contract's fine print.
Ugh. I agree. This is where an experienced social worker could probably make a better choice than a shallow-minded teen.
In the past, social workers tried very hard to match babies with adoptive parents who "looked like them." For example, a friend of mine who is now in her mid-50s was adopted at birth by a American couple of Scottish heritage. She found out as an adult that her birth mother was not only also ethnically Scottish, but had a surname that was only one letter different from her adoptive parents.
Of course this idea doesn't work well when the babies are minorities or mixed race and a "matching" family can't be found. I'm also not implying that it's a huge priority that adopted children look exactly like they could be the biological children of their parents. But, as I have mentioned elsewhere, my sister's adopted son is a visibly different race from her and her husband, and his race is also a small minority in the city where they live. This has caused emotional and other difficulties for him, and my sister regrets that she didn't take it seriously enough as a potential significant problem when he was adopted.
In the 1950s and 1960s, we were dealing with mostly white, domestic adoptions. I think the social workers went a bit overboard in their attempt to match children.
In this day, most Caucasians are of mixed heritage European stock. Many American babies are bi-racial. These attempts to match seem archaic and futile.
When we were adopting from Korea we were asked what our eye colors we had, We knew that almost no Korean child has either green or blue eyes, but the case worker had these questions on her list so we answered them without comment.
As to transracial adoptions, we purposely bought our home and raised our children in an area where there were many adoptees from abroad and a significant Asian community due to the presence of a large research
hospital and a large research university.
She never befriended an Asian child either adopted or from an Asian family. I think knowing that she was not the only one in any class was helpful to her, though.
As to transracial adoptions, we purposely bought our home and raised our children in an area where there were many adoptees from abroad and a significant Asian community due to the presence of a large research hospital and a large research university.
She never befriended an Asian child either adopted or from an Asian family. I think knowing that she was not the only one in any class was helpful to her, though.
This was smart and I feel sure was very helpful to your children.
We live in a part of the country which is quite diverse (many ethnicities from all over the world, many Latino, Asian, and mixed, not just "white" and "black") and for a number of years were part of a homeschooling group in which there were many adopted children. They had come from China, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Ghana, to name the ones I can recall off the top of my head. If my sister had raised her adopted son here, I don't think he would have felt that he stood out either in the community or in his social circles. But in their city, which was 90% white--and the 10% who were not white were mostly not his race anyway--he was noticeable. Having a family who didn't look like him, including a sister who DID look like their adoptive parents--was really difficult.
It is degrading that in domestic adoptions, prospective parents basically have to ADVERTISE themselves to "birth mothers".
The young woman made a mistake. Trying to rectify that mistake thru adoption is good. Giving her power over the family who adopts her child is crazy and over the top.
I saw a documentary where a BM was looking thru prospective parents' portfolios and she saw a ranch style (one level) home and said "I never liked houses like that. Next".
This is so wrong on so many levels.
What I bolded...what's the alternative? I'm sincerely asking. It's HER baby, until she signs over her rights. Yes, she has a precious commodity. Do you think the baby should go to whoever throws the most money at it?
This was smart and I feel sure was very helpful to your children.
We live in a part of the country which is quite diverse (many ethnicities from all over the world, many Latino, Asian, and mixed, not just "white" and "black") and for a number of years were part of a homeschooling group in which there were many adopted children. They had come from China, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Ghana, to name the ones I can recall off the top of my head. If my sister had raised her adopted son here, I don't think he would have felt that he stood out either in the community or in his social circles. But in their city, which was 90% white--and the 10% who were not white were mostly not his race anyway--he was noticeable. Having a family who didn't look like him, including a sister who DID look like their adoptive parents--was really difficult.
Our original part of the country has a deceptively diverse sound to it - The NYC Metropolitan Area. However, Long Island is fairly segregated, as is Westchester, North Eastern NJ and South western Connecticut. One might think that these are "diverse" areas, but they are very high priced and not only racially segregated, but economically segregated.
Asians tend to be drawn to areas with good public schools, and I share that value. It would have been more difficult in our area to find a school district where there were many bi-racial (black - white) families and students. There were Africans from Africa, but that's a whole other culture.
I am guessing that you live on the west coast. Do you mind if I ask what ethnicity your sister's son is?
The situation does sound difficult for her and for her son.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
