Do you think that adoption agencies should be regulated, non-profit with salary caps for employees? Would it?

Question

Do you think that if all adoption agencies were non-profit, with salary caps set at a reasonable rate (I know a woman who operates a non-profit thrift store for her "ministry" and salary is 105,000/year + benefits) with the rate being around what a state employee makes, that it would help adoption overall making it affordable for middle class, and giving 1st moms less pressure, and ending stealing babies from all over?

Answer 1

No I don't think all Adoption agencies should be regulated as non-profits (Regulated yes, just not as non-profits). I think there is plenty of room in the market for non-profit agencies with out forcing them ALL to be.

-HtJ

Answer 2

Yes, all agencies should be regulated. We are talking about humanbeings and not pets. In some countries especially the one's where they seem to come up with so many "babies", even $50 is alot.

Answer 3

A salary cap might be a start but there is no way it could end coercion or infant trafficking. Babies rake in the dough because people want them and that jacked up the price. Lowering wages and tighter regulations would help in many ways... but... the demand would still be there and people would still be taking advantage of it.

Answer 4

No.

I used to work in a big-box retail store.  I was paid an hourly wage.

But I had a weekly & monthly sales goals (also had to have 2 approved credit card applications per week) that were tracked, figured in to my reviews and affected my job security.

An adoption agency needs to place babies to make money--it's how they stay in business.  You've seen it in your pal with the six-figure "minisry".  All 'non-profit' means is they don't have to SHOW a profit--which is easy enough to to if you're not accountable, like most companies HAVE to be.

Answer 5

I do think there should be cap its ridicules that someone should pay so much to give a child or baby a home. Price should not vary based on race that is also ridicules a baby or child in need is a baby or child  in need regardless what their race is. Of course one could say that they [PAP] are  willing pay it and that is true. However it would also level the “playing field” for families who can not afford to spend that ridiculous amount of money  to adopt but still have enough that that they can provide a good home for a child/baby  and provide for at most the basics.  

Lara may be right about the government handling all adoptions, no private agency, agencies would be under the government umbrella and any adoption would have to be oked by the government. That actually seems to be the way some foreign countries do it.

Sadly this will likely never happen for the simple fact people are greedy and Americans are probably one of the most greedy people. Money, Money, Money.  No matter who it may hurt.

Answer 6

Also the incentive for placing a baby should be removed.

Even if the worker makes $30K, but if she places another baby it would bump her up to 31K, then thats where the problem is.

I think adoption should be taken care of by the government just like foster care.

Answer 7

Yes a cap would be helpful but that's not really the answer. Most adoption agencies are contacted by the birth mother she is the one that starts the ball rolling. Social workers and adoption agencies are not standing in the halls at the hospitals.  Most of the wrongfully adoptions are being done believe it or not but are from religious adoption agencies and get this they have the money to pay for the wrongful adoptions they do. And in some states they are regalted but when they break the rules it's only a slap on the hand,