Do you think that adopting children...?

Question

Do you think that adopting children should be free?or at least cheaper?

Why or why not?

Answer 1

My husband and I have adopted from foster care, that is free or next to it.

Private adoption is something I don't know much about, sorry not to be of more help.

Answer 2

it is essentially free if  you adopt from the foster care system.

Answer 3

Yes I do think it should be free, but then again not everything in life is free, so yes cheaper.

I am currently on a couple of adoption agencies lists and I am well aware of the cost of adoption. If you want to adopt  a child, you shouldn't have to prove it with money, just with love.

My pastor and his wife currently have 3 children that are 7.5, 8.5 and 7 months old and they want to adopt two little boys from Guatemala and it is a lot for the papers and then for the adoption fees.

I understand that if you don't have the money to adopt, then how will you be able to support a child, but that isn't always the case. Adoption can cost THOUSANDS of dollars and that isn't always how it has to be.

So yes, adoption should be cheaper.

Answer 4

Yes, I tihnk it should be cheaper. Not free (after all people who work in these organizations need to eat and get money for their job). These kids need families. People who can't have their own kids should adopt children if they want to. If they aren't rich cheaper adoption would help. I mean, why not?

Answer 5

It cannot be free, as a lot of work, legal, investigative etc, is involved, and the people doing that can't work for free. Many of them have specialized degrees and experience and don't work on a volunteer basis. You wouldn't want children adopted out to people who haven't been investigated, would you?

But aside from that, sure, there are plenty of children who need homes. But many people (maybe the majority?) only want to adopt healthy infants. There you go. That leaves out special needs children and older children. There are fewer people who want to adopt them. But yes, they do exist.

Answer 6

I think it should be FREE.

NO money whatsoever should be made in the exchange of children.

If there were no profits to be made, we'd have no coersion and no industry.

Answer 7

definitely cause there are kids out there who does not have a family, home, it's hard and to make it even more hard for the process that's bull it should be at the snap of a finger to give a child a loving home where they would feel safe and ;loved .

Answer 8

Maybe a little cheaper, because some people are very caring, and want a family, but do not make alot of money, so they cannot do anything about it.

Adopting definitely should not be free. Some people would just "take" them and abuse them, and use the poor children to work and stuff like that. Now, that it costs so much, that does not happen so often.

Some think that we should not sell the kids as if they are "things", and not "people", though. I agree, but not fully.

Answer 9

The cost should be minimal in my opinion.  With the rising costs and the fees associated with most adoptions it is all most like they are selling babies in a legal way.  I think they should focus more on screening and making sure that kids are being adopted in to a mental and physically healthy families not those that are just financial able to make it happen.

****not all adoption costs♥

Answer 10

Free would be good.  Why are adoption lawyers, social workers, doctors, case managers, government employees, etc entitled to get paid for the job they do?  When everybody else in the world does their jobs for free.  They should not be any different than the rest of the world.  Just because they work in the adoption field they shouldn't be paid to do their job.

I know let the tax payers pay for your adoption.  Or how about no background checks? No pre/post adoption counseling? That would eliminate alot of the costs.

Answer 11

If adoption was free, everyone - including child molesters and abusers - would be standing in line to "get a child".  

I believe that many of the fees associated with adoption are needed to protect the child.  Fees associated with fingerprinting, criminal checks, etc., are all necessary to insure that the child is being placed in a safe home.

When we were going through the process, I was devastated about the costs, but as we began realizing the importance of the fees, I have to admit that if it helps to save or protect one child, then it is worth every penny.

However, I do agree with others that people should not be "profiting" from adoption.

Answer 12

I don't think it you cost anything at all your wanting to adopt a child and give him/her the love they need why should someone have to pay for that.

Answer 13

It should certainly be cheaper and easier.  So many children needing familes.... so many loving families that would take them in, but the process is so prohibitive.  It's a shame.

Answer 14

No, I don't think it should be free. It might sound bad- but I think the fees are a good thing- helps make sure the family can actually afford a child.

Although it tends to end up free for a lot of people- they get children free through their churches. I have known several people that get to do it for free. I have a friend that just recently adopted 3 children for free from Romania- their church paid for the whole trip there and back, all of the adoption fees, legal fees, and translators.

I was in foster care from age 5 to 15 when I moved out on my own- with that being said I think that there should also be something that restricts who can really be foster parents. It really does seem like anyone can be foster parents- once you are the foster child. Some of the foster homes I lived in were so dirty, there was no space, they didn't allow us to have/eat fruits, veggies and proper foods--- they just fed us frozen meals and stuff because it was easier- which i love fruits so it sucked.

Answer 15

I think rooms at the Four Seasons should be cheaper, too.

Answer 16

I know that it is substantially cheaper in other countries that we Americans compare ourselves to regularly: Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia. That is because their governments subsidize and control the process. There are fewer loopholes, and fewer opportunities for greed to override the purpose of adoption, which is to find appropriate homes for babies and children who need them.

So, yes, I think taking private industry out of the equation is not only possible, but actually responsible and necessary.