Just wondering if birth mothers got the same Moneys that you get when you adopt?

Poverty is the single biggest reason both why newborns are surrendered for adoption and why children are apprehended and put in foster care. That is a fact. When there are no job, no daycare, under- or unemployment, and strict welfare rules such that you will NOT get additional monies if you have further children, and there are lifetime time-limits on when you can actually receive welfare, when WIC is NOT an entitlement but states get block funding for it that does NOT help all eligible mothers -- you get mothers who are forced to surrender their babies.

“Most infants placed for adoption come from poor families. Check with any of the adoption agencies and their adoption lawyers to verify that the number one reason for relinquishment today is the inability to afford to raise the child. This is a sad commentary on the richest and most powerful country in the world” - Reuben Pannor

No, there is NOT the help out there. If the thousands of dollars what are paid to foster parents and adoptive parents were paid to these mothers instead -- mothers innocent of child abuse -- then they would not have to lose their babies.

In Australia, there are such universal family bonuses bonuses paid by the federal gov't to top up income, along with welfare and sole parent support. The minimum wage is $14/hour and every new mother gets a $5000 baby bonus. If they can do it, so can we!!

Many children who are adopted out of foster care their parents rights were either willing terminated or terminated by the courts. I was adopted from FC my family got no money after I was legally adopted they did while I was still a foster child. I did not have the benefit of having my education (college) paid for by the state or government. I was covered under my father’s military medical plan and because I went to college they covered me until I was 23.

If someone is placing strictly for financial reasons then yes I could understand how some benefits that people who adopt (Infant domestic adoption) can get would help them keep and parent. That said there are countless programs and assistance if someone wants to keep and parent their child and the only thing stopping them is money. If someone is too proud to accept this help and aid that is no one else fault but their own pride. From what your talking about giving someone monthly money from the government this is also aid and help so really if someone is to proud to take and accept aid that is already available I don’t see them taking money from the government because that too is aid.

Hmmm, perhaps I was a foster parent in the wrong area then. The amount we were given was just barely enough to care for the child and we certainly did not do it for the money. At the same time however, we were able to keep getting part of that money after we adopted and that was to protect against adoption breakdowns. It's a standard thing in my Province and is automatic when an adoption occurs through foster care.

Funny part is, it is actually less per month then what someone would receive on welfare or through supplemental social assistance. By that I mean that if a set of birth parents had chosen to keep the child (although in our case she was removed by the courts) those birth parents would have been eligible for more money per month in welfare and assistance then we receive for taking care of the same child.

For us, there is no college education provided to our daughter, either due to her adoption or due to her being First Nations (she's non-registered). The only reason she will be able to go to college if she wishes is because it was our choice to set aside a good portion of her monthly money after her adoption. We are not obligated to do that and the money is for her upbringing, not her college and such, but we were in a position to be able to save it for her.

As adoptive parents in the UK we didn't get a penny - it may have changed now I don't know but 12 years ago when we adopted from foster care our son came to us at 14 months from foster parents he had been with since birth.

because of red tape etc he wasn't actually adopted until he was almost 4 - in that time we got no money apart from child benefit. No maternity or paternity leave - in fact it was a prerequisite that the main carer (me) had to stop working to be at home - not allowed to put child in childcare etc and my hubby used his holiday entitlement to have a couple of weeks with us

This wasn't just us but it was generic across the board. Adopters have a far better time of it now with the same rights as having a child born to them - which is how it should be for every child

If you adopt a child from foster care, you do get paid the monthly child care stipend until the adoption is finalized - just as you would for any foster child. However, you don't always get additional money paid to you after finalization; if the child is special needs, yes, you will, but even then it's on a graduated basis according to their needs. Additional support through the school system and community is again on an as-needed basis, at least in the state I live in. If the child is evaluated and they don't find a need for these services, they won't be provided. A couple friends of mine adopted a sibling group from foster care about a year ago - both kids were evaluated and it was determined that they didn't need additional support. As soon as the adoption was finalized, there was no more monthly monetary support, either. They're just raising them as they would non-adopted children. And, they would be very happy to hear that their children were going to get their college and rent paid - that would be a new one to them, I can promise you that. I suppose they would if they qualified for financial aid? But just because they were adopted as toddlers from foster care... I've never heard of that program, and I know they haven't because they're already worrying about how they'll pay for college for two kids.

As far as I know, most births are covered by the mother's medicaid or the adopting parent's private insurance. If the mother was keeping her child, medicaid would still be the coverage method, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything?

APs have to show proof of insurance and sufficient income to pass their home study. They would not be approved to adopt if they did not have private or employer-paid insurance (or were on medicaid) and were on food stamps. Adopted children are covered by the AP's insurance, not by medicaid. I believe foster children are covered under medicaid while they are foster children, but they aren't after the adoption is finalized (I might be wrong on that though).

I do understand your point about providing that money to the mother in order for her to keep her child. However, that money would then - to be fair - have to be provided to every pregnant woman, would it not? Otherwise, it would open the argument that someone would have to make the determination of who qualifies: who would make that judgment? The government? An agency? Would $11,000 (roughly the amount of the tax credit) be enough for her to care for the child for the next 18 years? Would whatever foster parents get per month (sorry, I'm not sure what that is) be enough for every woman in every situation? Would only single women qualify? What about struggling two-parent families? Would they only get that money once all the available resources (food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, medicaid, etc.) were being utilized, or should it be given to them as soon as they say "I'm pregnant" or "I'm not sure I can keep this child if I don't have extra help"?. In what ways could it be assured that the money was spent on the child? If the funds are expressly to keep the mother from placing her child for adoption, should she be required to produce receipts? I think Foster Parents have to. Adoptive parents are required to, down to the penny (for the tax credit).

Finally - if your daughter is too proud to use food stamps, wouldn't she be too proud to take money from the government?

Well here in Australia biological parents actually get more money for a child than foster or adoptive parents do! My sister in law is a (wonderful) foster mum who has adopted one of her children from care. As a biological mum I got baby bonus with my children, which is a lump sum payout of around $4000. Many of the babies my sister in law fostered came from parents who had been given this money, plus more, then turned around and spent it all on themselves, neglecting to provide even the basics for their children. As a foster mother my sister in law spent thousands of dollars out of pocket to set up and provide for her foster children, and she just gets a small fortnightly allowance which is actually less than many biological parents on low incomes receive.

In Australia very few people place their children up for adoption I believe, and I honestly feel it may at times have to do with the financial incentives to keep their children. Frankly women have money thrown at them to have babies. Obviously this doesn't come near the cost of providing properly for a child, but for someone who's priorities are a bit screwy it's a reason. I do know personally a couple of younger women who have had babies due to the money they will get, then neglected or abused those kids and had them put in care.

It's very sad, but unfortunately throwing money at people will not necessarily make them wonderful parents. We have such a wonderful welfare system available here in Australia, no parent is left without financial means, yet we have horrific numbers of children in foster care. Doesn't really add up does it?

I am sure things are different depending on what state you live in, but where I live it is not like that at all. My fiance and I have raised 3 children for the past 3 years that are not biologically ours, we are not foster parents, the state did not place them with us. I worked for a daycare for a year when the bio mother approached me saying that she didn't want her children anymore and would I take them. We took the children lovingly, I went to see what help we could get and the state gave us food stamps and medicaid, they wouldn't pay for childcare or give us ADC because we were not related to the children. We finally got the adoption granted this past February, as soon as that was granted the state cut us off of everything. Our children won't have there college paid for by anyone but us. The way you are making it sound is that adoption parents get a "free ride" in raising cost, which is very incorrect!!! If your daughter is too proud to use food stamps, which help, then let her do it on her own and stop complaining.

Just tell your wife what you've said here. Simple. I'm sure she's only thinking of your children, perhaps they'll care and what will you tell them - you just couldn't be bothered finding out their natural heritage. I do think it's inhumane to never let a mother know what became of her child though. That's pretty cruel. I guess I always felt, out of simple human decency, that I wanted to let my mother know how I turned out. Beyond that, if she wanted a relationship, great! and if not, well at least I 'did my bit'

In my state foster parents do get money monthly to care for the child. Tax payers pay for the kids that mothers did not keep. The second you adopt the child you get nothing, you get no money at all. I have an idea if a mom can not keep her baby, why not just not have sex? You do not HAVE to have sex, be responsible do not make children you can not care for.

Felicita's answer nailed it. Poverty is the number one reason children are relinquished and/or placed/taken into foster care. If we had better support systems for those at the bottom of the economic ladder there would be far fewer adoptions as well as fewer cases of abuse and neglect. Economic difficulty causes people to do all kinds of things they wouldn't do under "normal" (meaning financially secure) circumstances. Have you noticed that adoption is often linked to poverty - worldwide? It is THE number one reason for family breakups in all forms - adoption, divorce, abuse, neglect, even murder. It is a cycle that is hard to break.

Substance abuse is often a side effect of poverty too. People who are struggling often suffer from self-esteem issues and some self-medicate to get by and unfortunately self-medication often leads to addiction and abuse.

People who are struggling to care for themselves (and if they have a family-even more so) make all sorts of sacrifices that people who live "comfortably" would never dream of. Have you noticed in the news that egg donors, plasma donors, surrogacy etc. have all risen due to the poor economic climate? So have the number of women who are applying at strip clubs, escort services and for pornographic magazines and films.

http://oudaily.com/news/2009/mar/25/fertility-clin...

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=160541

http://www.click2houston.com/money/18991020/detail...

IMO, this is the worst possible kind of exploitation of the "lower class", because people often choose to see these "choices" as "self inflicted" and therefore have less sympathy for the victims and are less willing to help.

This is nothing new either. People have been selling their biological material, prostituting themselves and giving up their children because of poverty for ages. We have just gotten more "advanced" about it - not necessarily more ethical.

IMO, if we can ever learn to act as a global community and truly live in a world of equal rights and opportunities where people support one another, rather than exploit each other's misfortunes, we will see poverty virtually disappear and many more families will remain in tact.