Adoption costs vs. costs of helping mothers?

Well considering if you hand out to someone, then all they do is take, and they don't learn, so 30-50k (at least) and if you adopt, then 15-25k (by my agencies standards anyways)

I'm confused. I have no problem with public assistance to mothers so they can keep their children, but you say that most single mothers don't need it, or only just to get on their feet. If public assistance in the form of welfare, housing allowances, food stamps, education grants, etc., aren't the costs you're talking about for a woman to keep her child, what are? It's hard to answer your question about what adoption costs verses helping a mother without knowing what kind of help that mother needs and for how long. Does she live with family or need an apartment? For how long would she need rental assistance? Does she need food stamps? Counseling? Child care?

I did foster care for a few years before adopting. The impression I got from our social worker is that the state wanted these children adopted out because it would cost less than to keep them in care waiting on family reunification. What a horrible way to set policies.

There is help out there for mothers who need it. A mother in need can get food, rent, and medical all free.

Adoption credits for adoptive parents and welfare assistance for mothers who choose to parent are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist at the same time.

The taxpayer cost for private adoption is zero, even if she's on Medicaid because whe would be anyway. The cost for a public (foster care) adoption is roughly $2500 and then there are the costs associated with the foster care placement.

The purpose of the adoption tax credit it to encourage adoption. The children in gov. care cost the system far more than a one time tax credit. Children who aren't raised in a stable home cost the gov. even more. The gov. doesn't do this out of generosity to adoptive parents, they do this because it is very cost effective.

States vary in the aid they provide. In my state here are some low-ball figures for a single mother:

WIC=$100+/mo. times 2+ yrs=$2,400

MFIP=$600+/mo times 5 yrs.=$36,000

MA=$200+/mo times 5 yrs.=$12,000

subsidized housing=$400+/mo times 5 yrs=$24,000

Total of: $74,400 over 5 years which is annually greater than the one time adoption tax credit.

These figures do not include the multiple referrals to agencies that provide free clothing for mom and baby, infant supplies/equipment, free diapers/wipes, cash/gift card incentives for breastfeeding/prenatal appts., well-care checks, daycare assistance, free household items, etc.

As you can see, it's more costly to use the available aide for mothers in need than for an adoption.

Be well.

There is already help for women who keep their children. I don't think you'll find very many mothers out there that will give up their child solely because of finances.

I knew a girl in college who gave her son up for adoption because she just wasn't ready for a child. She was no where near the poverty level. Heck, by my standards at the time, she was rich. So I'm not sure what the "cost" of helping her keep the child would have been. I'm guessing those costs would've been huge.

Maybe we should just force all females from menarche to menopause to see a psychiatrist on a weekly basis so that they are mental and emotionally prepared if they get pregnant. Hmmm... I wonder what that would cost... Heck, I guess it doesn't matter what it costs. We have free health care here now!

Well, let's see. The cost of adopting a child in the US ranges from near 0 to probably over $50,000.

The cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is estimated at over $200,000, based upon a child being born in 2007.

I guess it depends on how much assistance you feel that PAPs should be required to fork over to help mothers. So how much should non-adoptive parents be guilted into paying too? How much money are -you- giving to support mothers in keeping their children? Above and beyond tax dollars, naturally, since you've already excluded that from your argument.

It's been said that it's not the job of the fertile to provide a baby for those who are infertile. It's also not the job of those would would adopt to support every single person who is falling on tough economic times.

I do believe in charity and caring for your fellow human beings, but it is a rather skewed perspective that says that because someone is looking to adopt they should feel some greater moral obligation for charity than someone who is not looking to adopt. Everyone has a moral obligation to offer assistance. It's not just the adoptive parents.

I think it would REALLY depend on the mother's personal life circumstances. There are a lot of factors, but the main one is this: are they willing and able to work, or not? If yes, then it should probably only be a few thousand dollars (with a range in the low 4 digits to low 5 digits, I would guess, from personal experience with assistance programs) to help them find a job and get their life started. If not.. that's a ******* sinkhole. I'm sure it would be more cost-effective and kind to the kid to let someone else adopt them.