Do you think that adopting a kid should cost $?

Question

it seems to steer a lot of people away that I've met. i know that in the foster care system you can adopt and get monthly stipends (in CA anyway)

Answer 1

If you go through the foster system you are getting the monthly cheque to pay for the childs upkeep (clothing food rent that type of thing) the cheque stops coming after you legally adopt the child and the child is no longer a ward of the state.

I think there needs to be some form of payment, people need to get paid for the work they are doing  to process the adoptions and keep records and home studies and to care for the children before they are adopted out but I think it is so over priced it is unreal.  I think it should be a flat fee and that is it, none of this higher prices for certain races  or ages etc. I don't think a profit should be made from it.

Answer 2

I believe that all of the background checks, homestudies, verifications, etc etc should be done to weed out as many perverts and abusers as possible and all of that does cost money. I think it should be even stricter actually, since it seems way too many abusive parents are passing homestudies still. I probably have different motivations for why I believe this way than a lot of people though. I just don't believe in profiting off of the life of a human being, not that I wish it were cheaper so I could afford to adopt more without having to go through the hassle of shelling out more dough (I'm NOT accusing anyone here of this, just generally speaking as this pops up quite a lot on Y!A and it seems some people are just too concerned with their pocketbooks and not the child, but it wasn't provoked by this question). Its a child, not a pair of shoes or a new car. Why should a white infant cost this much, but an older black boy cost a lesser amount? I think all agencies should be held accountable for where the money goes, and it should all be very transparent and justifiable.

Answer 3

I believe that it shouldn't. I wouldn't mind paying fees to have a child transported from another state or country but not the legal fees. Maybe I would feel different if the fees weren't so high. The child is worth more than any dollar I could ever obtain but it's ridiculous to have pay  thousands on top of thousands of dollars to process papers. Its just my opinion!

Answer 4

I wish adoption cost a million dollars. That way there would be less adoptions, and more mothers raising their children.

Answer 5

no i don't think that it should cost money...however they need the money to take care of the other children....so i think i am on the fence with this one.

Answer 6

Depends where you go for a adoption > Morman couple's pay as little as 3, 000 dollars for their blond hair, blue eyed children. I know that is what it cost to steal my grandson and it's cost a bunch of money for my son to fight to get him. No my son is not into drugs and is not in jail and he didn't sign consent forms either but he did claim the baby with our state in time.. If you need the income try something else we have penty of foster parents just doing it for the money.

Answer 7

Wisconsin does the same thing, my friends parents have 4 foster kids.

Answer 8

I think if you are wanting to do a good deed in fostering kids, i don't think you should get paid.

Most foster families only do it for the money.

I think that people should not have to pay to adopt cause you know just say i sold my son i would go straight to jail but let someone put up thousands of dollars to adopt and that is fine.

Which i think is wrong.

Answer 9

Wish it didn't cost so darn much, but there are people - social workers and placement agencies that do make their living from helping children and parents to be brought together.  I think it's reasonable to charge fees for those services.  Sometimes it's just too much.  As for the foster kids, you only get the check until they are adopted, then you support the child yourself.  Unless your child qualifies for SSI or something like that for having a disability and from a low income family then they would get a check from Social Security.

Answer 10

No, I don't.  I was adopted through the state.  My parents shelled out about 200 bucks for paperwork and 20 for the clothes I was wearing when they took me home.

I realized times have changed, but in no way would their legal fees inflate to the 20K or more people pay for kids today because they absolutely have to have a healthy white newborn.

The face of adoption has changed.  I wish prospective adoptive parents were more willing to give a home to an older/special needs child who really needs a family and less concerned about buying the perfect newborn.

Adoption was supposed to be about the best interests of the child--about homes for children who need them, not children for people who want them.

Answer 11

Nope.   I think agencies and their accounting need to be held to a higher standard.  Their books should see the light of day.

Answer 12

While I understand the points made by others, you have to realize that in the past, they didn't charge to adopt. Children were often adopted as slave or household labor.  That was common up until the 60s.  Adoptive parents are less likely to use children that way if there is a cost involved. Consider also that giving birth costs $6,000 - 25,000.

Answer 13

No, I don't think there should be monetary value put on the adoption of a child. There are more children out there in this world needing desperately to be adopted than couples who can adopt them. I think that the cost should be little to none, but the background checks, stipulations, home studies, etc. should be more strict. I believe that there are a lot of families (good, loving ones) that would be willing to adopt if the fees were less. (Myself being one of them) I hear people say all the time, "well, children are expensive, and if you can't afford to adopt them, then you don't need them in the first place." Well... I don't really agree with that. Adding, say, one more child to a house of 5 doesn't really change much expense wise... and if you have enough love to go around... that's what's going to count to that child in the long run anyway. Another point I'd like to make is that there is insurance for birthmothers .... either an insurance carrier (or the state) pays for mothers to seek medical treatment, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc.... but for an adoptive mother the most you get is a write-off on your taxes for the following year.... how is that fair, with the rate of children needing homes ever increasing? I would gladly adopt a child (or even multiple children) never seeking compensation, if the cost wasn't so very high on the front end.

Thanks and God Bless!