Why do people say they couldn't be foster parents but accept legal risk private placements of infants?

I think, as you have already alluded to, the big problem is that people get the terms confused and don't really understand the process when it comes to adoptions from foster care. They automatically assume that adoptions from foster care = temporary or somehow risky and problematic without understanding that the children for adoption through that process are not "foster children" in the original sense of the term.

I think there is also that level of "hope" involved. With being a foster parent, when you really want to adopt, you know that it will be temporary (to varying degrees) and people worry about being attached to the child that will eventually leave. At the same time though when they are trying to adopt in the forms of adoption you mention they glom on to that "hope" that things will work out. In the majority of cases it does too which only perpetuates the problem.

I would never - ever - rail against an adoptee. How is it the child's issue - at all? I only express my opinions to adopters that ask. But I don't hold grudges. I'm just not a fan of international adoptions (babies or otherwise) only for one reason. There are thousands and thousands of kids - right here in the USA - that want and need forever families too. I have nothing against kids that were adopted from abroad. I'm glad they are being adopted. But in most countries - statistics that aren't shared by agencies - show that there are enough people to adopt them in their own countries, with China being the only exception. But lets face reality - Domestic adoptions within the host country aren't as profitable as international adoptions. India for example has a 10x higher international adoption rate then domestic. Why? Only answer I can think of is that the Indian government knows they can "inflate the costs" and get more income. They would have a hard time justifying inflated costs to their own citizens. I just don't understand why adoptive parents look internationally - first. Maybe the agencies convince them that it's cheaper, and more needed? To me that would be the ONE logical reason. Agencies don't (can't) make money from Foster care - so they take that option right off the table. I also wonder if foster care is somehow put-down, dismissed, or discredited by the agents to the parents? Why else would someone adopt an older Russian child, for example, that is age 5 and over instead of looking here at home? What makes the parents think these kids won't have the exact SAME developmental issues as kids from foster care?? The fact is, parents get LESS reliable history about the child's needs from international adoptions then they would from foster care. At least from foster care - the adoptive parents are provided with a full case history. They'd KNOW right up front what the child's needs are going to be. Do International adoptions mask or erase such things (at the source?) from the records in order to make the child more desirable. (or 'marketable' it would seem).

Where I live, the foster agencies tell you not to go into foster care to adopt, because the GOAL of foster care is to reunite parents and children in the end. There are children who are/become adoptable, but most foster agencies aren't adoption agencies, and therefore only act to place children temporarily. Foster children also get the stigma of being "damaged" because they had bio parents who the state decided were unfit.

Friends of mine are foster parents, and they are always upset when a child is returned to an unfit home. One of their foster children have been sent back and returned three times, and the state still won't terminate the parents rights (they send them to rehab, then send them home, give them their child back, and they go right back to the crack house!). While there are tons of excellent foster children out there looking for a permanent home, I think the children who act out have also turned a lot of people away from them all. My friend had one 9 year old child who would cut up her clothes and break everything he could get his hands on. I personally wouldn't want to deal with that, so I can understand why many people are afraid to look into this route.

In adoption, there are contracts, promises, and other things (even though they're aren't legally enforced right away). It is very different emotionally. You aren't playing second fiddle to an unfit parent that the child remembers. And while you have to worry about the b-mom changing her mind, it's not the same as knowing that the parents are working to get the child back (as is the case with foster care).

I do also believe a large number of parents want newborns as well, for whatever reason. Maybe they feel that there's more bonding and therefore less emotional damage done to the child. However, if I were a b-mom in an adoption situation, I would want to have a family picked out and ready before the baby arrived, so I don't fault them on that.

Per-birth matching gets a lot of publicity. (Besides its illegal in Aust. considered unethical.) That could be a contributing factor. After all how many movies are made about a kid being adopted from foster care...

I can understand a couple that have never parented children hesitating to parent kids on temp basis. I feel you need some parenting skills to deal with things that crop up with a child being taken from their parents and placed into another home overnight.

Domestic foster to adopt is conducted differently here. There are different approaches with a dept in Child protection to deal with it. So even though both our children came to us before they were 12 months old through adoption, they still had a period of time in foster care.

The main difference I see is that when a child is placed in our home, even though the legal adoption isn't finalized for months later we aren't put in a position of the child's birth family still being able to change their mind about adoption. (And if goes to court if the father hasn't shown up, he has the same rights as her if he's identified... after social services tries to track him down, and he's still not around then his rights are terminated due to abandonment. It can also happen in a case of a baby being left in a public place. All done before we are contact.) That time is long past by the time we receive a phone call to ask if we will accept placement.

Until recently they wouldn't allow a couple in the adoption pool to foster kids. I know many adoptive parents that wanted to foster but we're not allowed to.We we're even being offered to become permanent foster carers. (At times these children have been adopted by their foster families.) After all the assessments which we had to more than foster parents have too.

A few decided to protest big time about it and finally they're being heard and can be assessed for fostering as well. So I'm wondering if can be like that in the US in some states too.

I think it would probably partly be due to the expected outcome when getting into the situation. I've never considered infant adoption so I can't speak 100% on that. I do plan on adopting from foster care but could never do foster to adopt.

From my thought process going into an infant adoption everyone has the shared expectations that it will end in adoption and not the child being kept by the parents. Even the biological parents go into it with the acceptance that it will end in adoption. Yes the biological parents can change their mind in the end but generally all are in the arrangement thinking it will end the same way.

With fostering to adopt your goal is to have the child reunited with the biological family. While you may want to adopt the child the system is working to place them back with their families and as a foster family you are expected to support that from what I understand. I would find it too difficult to have a child in my home for months to years, helping them through their trauma only to have them returned to their biological families. Selfish as that may seem you cannot help your emotions.

Not sure if that makes complete sense or not. It did in my head but its nearly 230am here. I'd also imagine the time frame for attachment would be different. With infant adoptions a few months of expecting the birth and then a few days/weeks where the family can change their mind vs months/years in foster to adopt.

People are not educated. Our foster son has PC and his free to adopt and we will be doing so hopefully and people we meet still think his parents can come back and get him. They feel that it is some how more secure in infant adoption. They don't realize that women do change their mind

ETA

Also when you foster to adopt there is a much longer time where the parents can get the child back in most places parents have 13 months to do their case plan. In private adoption mom has a few days to 30days to change her mind.

Also remember most of these people want an infant so they can parent from the beginning. There are infants available in foster care but we were told to get one you have to foster because foster parents are given the chance to adopt before he general public once PC is taken and in most cases they do.

With pre-birth matching there is no baby to get attached to - just the idea of a baby that you've never seen. Our daughter left the hospital with us, after the mother signed the relinquishment. If she hadn't signed yet, we would still have taken her home, but know the risk was greater. In our state it was only a few days between the signing and her chance to change her mind. After that the only really way of the adoption falling through was the father's termination had a problem (but we weren't expecting any) or we screwed up badly and the agency wouldn't approve us after the post-placement visits. However we're pretty normal people, with no major problems, so the post placement was no big deal.

The point I'm trying to make is that in many adoptions there is very little risk of losing the child once they are in your home.

I agree, and do not agree with pre birth matching or matching before the woman has the right to change her mind. We made a decision to only get involved in a situation after parental rights have been removed and there was no waiting period.

Fostering though is quite different than adoption. I think, to be honest, that a pre-birth placement or taking an infant before the mother's rights have expired would be HARDER than losing a foster child. When fostering, you are doing a job as a foster mother. You KNOW that the role you have is to keep the child safe in a nurturing environment. You KNOW Your job is not to try to keep the child for yourself. Until otherwise stated, fostering is about trying to reunite the families.

So I think there is much higher risk for disappointment when taking a domestic infant, but perhaps they think it will be easier to persuade her if she changed her mind. Coercion comes to mind.

With the adoption laws in our state, there is 10 days after either the birth of the child, or the consent to adopt forms are filed to rescind the adoption.

In foster care, you can have a child for 3 years before adoption is complete. The entire goal of foster care is to reunite families, except in the most extreme cases, therefore, the emotional roller-coaster continues on.

We happened to adopt privately, before even being educated about the ease of adopting through the foster care system. I cannot even begin to tell you how my body trembled, how my heart was racing, and how the flood of emotions went through my body when the 10th day happened. When I realized it had passed, I literally almost fell down. At the same time, I was emotional and crying because I know that his first mom was going through extreme pain at the same time (she could have changed her mind and was given the resources, and the know how to do it).

Since that time, we tried to adopt again several times, including with our J's first mom. She kept that baby after 3 days. Just because I didn't give birth to her doesn't mean at all that I don't feel the pain. Everytime I talk with someone, I give them options, to know that it's in the best interest of the child. I actually am "aunt" now to 3 kids that first moms kept, with my help. The pain is worse than when I miscarried in the 6th month, because I am a more emotional person now. The pain is horrid, and the emotional toll is bad.

Do I want to adopt again? YES. I am considering foster care, however, in our area, they don't have a child available that will work with our situation. I do want to adopt, and not foster children who will be returned, because I think it'd be hard on my 16 month old. I try not to get attached so much, but any time I meet someone who's considering placing, and then get told no, or they just move on to someone who'll pay them for the child (it does happen-I KNOW), I can't help but get emotionally involved, because the love is there. I'd rather adopt a todder than a baby, it's just almost impossible to find one to adopt, without 10's of 1000's of dollars.

Well, I do agree that children need to be adopted from foster care first and foremost, as they are the children who truly need parents. However, I am not opposed to private adoptions either. Don't get me wrong, I am completely opposed to truly coercive practices, such as threatening to call CPS should a mother decide to keep her baby. But I believe some private adoptions have a place. My birth mother placed me for adoption privately because I was 'unwanted', and that was after I had been quite badly abused at the hands of her and my father.

I agree with the first answer, that the expected outcome may be different. I'm not saying I condone taking an infant, or not, but I think to the potential parents that may be a big factor in their decision. Also, in all fairness, maybe not everybody feels able to parent an older child through foster care adoption. My (adoptive) parents were foster parents for many years, and to begin with they only ever took toddlers, as they were young and beginning parents, and they just didn't feel they could meet the needs of an older child with any problems they may have.

Sometimes people are too quick to assume people's intent. It makes me sick when I hear things like "I want a white baby so I can pretend it's my real kid", but truthfully I don't think all people wishing to adopt are like that. I don't believe there is anything wrong with wishing to parent an infant who is legally free for adoption, when that child's parents have willingly relinquished their rights, with no coercion whatsoever.