Adoption and living expenses?

Question

do people really pay living expenses while the mother is pregnant? is it legal? do people pay for babies?

Answer 1

I adopted my son 4 years ago and never had to pay anything to or for the birth mother.  But I do live in California and we have welfare in our state. It pretty much gives food stamps, money, and really cheap living to pregnant woman already. The state will also provide them with health benefits.

Answer 2

My sister has adopted out 2 babies and in both cases the answer is yes. The adoptive parents (in nevada at least) are responsible for making sure the pregnant woman has a "safe place to live". So for my sister in both cases the adoptive parents rented an apartment for her for her whole pregnacy. Plus she got a monthly allowance for "food & clothes" (in the form of $500 a month WalMart gift cards). If you ask me its sick and the same as buying a baby no matter what category you put the payments into!

Answer 3

oh yeah...

many potential adopters will pay for housing, food, maternity clothes, and just about anything else WHILE PREGNANT.  once the kid is sqeezed out, most won't pay for a pack of maxi pads...

it's a hustle...and kinda unethical. IMO

Answer 4

Allowable expenses vary by state.  Some states are very strict and keep it to just medical and legal, while other states allow the PAP's to pay for rent, clothing, food and any other expense deemed necessary to live (utilities, car, etc).  These expenses can be paid throughout the pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after the birth.

As to the point brought up by someone else here that the PAP's and agencies hold it over the expectant mother's head when she changes her mind, there is only ONE state that allows the PAP's to go after the money they spent.  All other states allow the expectant mother to change her mind, and not pay anything back.  While it may be threatened that they will go after all money spent, the law allows the expectant mother to take all allowable living expenses (per state laws) and NOT pay them back, even if she changes her mind.  Part of the expenses paid out is for legal counsel.  So, the expectant mother has access to a lawyer who could let her know that it is nothing more than a threat.

What is interesting is that expectant parents can look for PAP's in a different state, based on what is allowed for living expenses.  In other words, if their own state doesn't allow much, they can look for a more lenient state and then choose the PAP's and use THAT particular state's law on living expenses.  Interstate adoption allows for cherry-picking laws.

ETA:  No mommyofone, it CAN and has been done based on which state the PAP's live.

To the others, they can threaten all they want, there's only ONE state that will allow PAP's to go after living expenses paid out when an expectant mom changes her mind.  And, she has an attorney (ironically, provided for her in the expenses paid by the PAP's) that can guide her through that.

ETA2:  I'm not making excuses Gaia...in fact, I have no idea what you mean by that.  

Regardless, as I have already said, part of the expenses that are commonly paid for, are legal expenses.  Most every state allows for that.  And, if you want to talk about coercion, the agency does strongly encourage that PAP's cover all expenses, including legal.

Once you hire an attorney for the expectant parent, they ARE represented by someone who does NOT represent the PAP's, or the agency.  If the attorney does not do their job in letting them know the laws, shame on them.  But, considering they would be highly scrutinized and at risk with the bar, I doubt the majority of them are not doing their job as they are paid to do.  Oh, and they are out NOTHING if the adoption doesn't go through.  So, they don't have any incentive to NOT protect the expectant parent's rights.

Answer 5

This is actually very common.  Many adoption agencies encourage this.  But not only is this practice right on par with buying a baby, but it's also highly unethical (BECAUSE the PAP's are buying a baby), and coercive.  Often, after the mother gives birth and is able to see her child, she wants to change her mind.  But the adoption agency and the PAP's have the months of paying her bills that they hang over the new mother's head, telling her she'll have to pay them back, or they'll sue her, or she OWES her baby to the PAP's.  That's not the kind of atmosphere you'd want to put a hormonal, fragile person into if you honestly want to adopt a child in an ethical manner.  What will that child say when s/he grows up and finds his/her mother, who tells him/her that she only gave her child away because she was basically forced to, after these people paid for her "trouble"?  Um, yeah, I know I wouldn't be a happy camper.

Angela:  Calling it something else doesn't change the facts.  You said the same thing I did...you just prettied it up.  Adoption is messy.  Don't shove the sh*t in the closet; bring it out so people can see the truth and make decisions based on reality.

John:  If she doesn't know about the laws, she'll probably still feel REALLY intimidated.  It's not in the best interests of the money-grubbing agency to inform her of her rights..including the right to the lawyer that was paid for.  So, if she doesn't have a lawyer, doesn't know her rights, is broke and destitute, what do you think she's going to do?  This is not an uncommon occurrence.  Quit making excuses.  Laws don't go and find people.  They're pretty d**n quiet when you don't know what to do.

Answer 6

Don't listen to Gaia. Yes I'm sure that most adoption agencies do this in generally no. The adoption agency "eats" the fee or should I say the adoptive family does if the adoption doesn't go through. It just part of the process if you are going to adopt. They also pay post adoption for the mother to pay for the mother's rent for six weeks, food, etc as the mother will not be allowed to work. IMO this is not buying a baby this is helping the mother out so she is not in futher debt or despair. Others though rather take state money and get paid to adopt so I guess somehow that is better than buying a baby. What not get money instead of give it away. Wow that is so much better

Answer 7

As an adoptee I have issues with this practice.  Many times it is the BM who request the "cost of living" expense, which I think is nonsense.  She would have to pay her bills even if she wasn't pregnant, so now why should she suddenly have another couple pay her bills.  I understand why some PAP/AP's have done this, they think it is right for their child, but come on, I do not think the expenses as in cars, housing, etc should be covered.  As many say on here the BM is the mother until she hands over the child, then she should cover her own cost.

I know if I was adoptee and found out my BM requested money while she was pregnant with me I would be devasted and offended.  I would of felt that she used me as bait to get money and all I was to her was a good.  Luckily that did not happen in my case because if it did I probably would have nothing to do with my BM today.

Answer 8

It depends on the situation... I have heard of this occurring but I am pretty sure the legality and the extent of it varies from state to state.  It is probably mostly in the US and it likely is for women who don't have health insurance, so the adoptive parents pay for the doc check-ups + Hospital stay.

Answer 9

the laws vary by state, but some expenses may be paid, including living expenses. It is illegal to pay for the baby. The expenses that are allowed usually have to be maternity related such as clothes, transportation,medical care, help with food expenses etc. Some states  also have a limit of the total amount of money that a parent may receive.

Answer 10

I helped my son's birth mother with living expenses, although she never got cash.  I did it because she had gotten herself into such a situation, no job, no car, no income, etc, that I felt it was necessary to do this, and that I did it to ensure the safety and health of the baby, as well as her.  My attorney said that it was legal.  I also made sure she knew that if she changed her mind, that by law, I couldn't get anything back from her.  

I'd much rather help a woman get a few necessary maternity clothes, good nutrition, and prenatal care than to take the risk of them not gettting any and being harmful to the baby.  I'd also much rather help a woman, and although I am so blessed with my son, even if I hadn't been, I would have felt good in my heart to help her through the pregnancy more comfortably.  I also had meals taken to her, and made sure she had minutes on her cell phone after the baby, as well as a few other things, during her 8 week recovery afterwards.  

I'd never pay for a baby, and I truly hate that people are so ignorant to think that anything I did to help her was done as a payment to get my son.   It's a reason I don't like agencies.  I'd much rather help her than to pay an agency $40,000.00 for the paperwork that in reality costs about a $1000.00.

Answer 11

Everyone else is right, except the state by state laws govern based on where the expectant mother is, vs. where the PAP's are.  We have attempted adoptions in two states (one successful), both with very different guidelines.  In some states the mother has to demonstrate (with dr notes) that she is no longer able to support herself (and/or family) due to the pregnancy.  In others a judge must approve every nickle of expenses paid, in most cases agreed upon well in advance.  Since this is a fairly common practice, most PAP's comply and take the risk.

Answer 12

You can "listen" to anyone you want to...Angela B has no right to treat you like an imbecile who can't decide for yourself who you should "believe".  How crass.

Yes, people DO pay off pregnant women by paying for her rent, her groceries, medical expenses, etc.  

Is it "buying" a baby?  Technically no, but it sure as h**l makes it hard for the woman to decide to KEEP her child if these people have invested SOOOOOO much.  

It's a guilt thing...or, some of them even go so far as to threaten her if she changes her mind, by telling her she must pay them back if they don't get the baby.

This kind of thing is called COERCION and it should be ILLEGAL.

Answer 13

This is one of those nebuluous areas in adoption.  

Legally, in many states it's possible for the prospective adoptive parents to pay for some living expenses of the pregnant woman.  It's supposed to be understood that the pregnant woman can change her mind at any time and is under no obligation to pay back the prospective adoptive parents.

Ethically, however, it gets murky, in my opinion.

I do think this creates an awkward atmosphere where the mother may feel obligated to complete the adoption.  I also agree that there are domestic infant adoption agencies that encourage PAPs to agree to front expenses.  When we were researching domestic infant adoption, we were told that we would be unlikely to be selected as an adoptive couple BECAUSE we were unwilling to pay living expenses!  

Conversely, there's nothing to stop highly unethical pregnant women (or couples) from taking advantage of prospective adoptive parents by getting as much money as possible then "changing their minds".  There has been some documentaries made about cases like this.

Bottom line, I think it muddies the waters too much.  Even if it is legal in some areas, I think it is unethical and the potiential for abuse is too great.