Can anyone think of good reasons why adoption laws...?

Question

Can anyone think of good reasons why adoption laws must be different in every state of the U.S.? Wouldn't it make more sense to have federal adoption laws that could be consistent?

Thank you for your thoughts on this topic.

Answer 1

The federal government is (supposed to be) for the regulation of commerce and relationships among the states.  Since adoptions take place within the states, there is no good (read: "constitutional") for the federal government being involved.

It is, then, a by-product of our federalist system.  Like drinking ages, speed limits on highways, alcohol sales, marriage laws, and so many other state governed laws, having the federal government regulate this would be viewed as an encroachment on the sovereignty of states.  

The federal government has tied tax dollars to following federal guidelines (ala drinking age, for instance, and speed limits), and in that way has managed to make some things more uniform.  But I strongly suspect there is little interest in tying tax dollars to a uniform adoption system.

I do think consistency would be really good in this area.  But it's hard to see how we might make that work in a federal system.

Answer 2

This is something I think about all the time. I have such a hard time when I think about how many women are shipped away from their families to have the baby to keep the father from, "rocking the boat"

I'd be all for federal law.

Answer 3

Because the Constitution does not allocate this power to the federal government; therefore it belongs to the states, if anyone at all.  Unless you want to class adoptions as 'commerce' which would be more than a little creepy...

Answer 4

Well you also have to consider that each state may have diff. needs than others...or higher rates of children in the system.  It's already bad enough trying to adopt through the state could you imagine what a nightmare it would be if you had to adopt through the federal gov. ?

Answer 5

No, I can think of no good reason at all.

"For years, the argument against greater regulation of adoption by the federal government has been rooted in the notion that adoption is a state law issue. The public thought adoption was a benevolent, philanthropic exercise practiced by charitable organizations donating their services to ensure better lives for orphans. In truth, adoption is big business and inherently interstate in nature. The federal government already tightly controls adoption from foster care. The truth is a powerful argument for immediate federal intervention in fee-charging adoption. By leaving regulation to the states, consumers of adoption services have been left almost entirely vulnerable to unscrupulous providers effectively shielded by distant geography from accountability. Adoption has become a multi-billion-dollar industry with some providers realizing revenues of $15 million annually. With the demand for healthy infants far in excess of the supply, American children are literally being sold to the highest bidders, often to foreign nationals living in other countries. Unfortunately, while unscrupulous facilitators trade in human beings for money, adoption effectively remains the only unregulated business in the United States."

Answer 6

Because like anything else, once Big Brother gets involved, everything becomes disorganized but regimented, impersonal, rigid, and doesn't allow for exceptions, individuals, and extenuating circumstances.  When each state can set its own laws, it is likely to be more flexible and is governed by a small system.   But unfortunately, that is the way that all domestic adoptions are moving...toward "socialized adoptions" similar to socialized medicine.  Bad news for all in my opinion.