For those who want the money removed from adoption how are people supposed to get paid?

Question

I am a social work (NOT IN ADOPTION) but i know people who do. Trust me we are not rich by doing this. We could make alot more money doing something else but many of the workers i know do it because they really think they are doing a good thing. The people i know don't deal with the mother they certify the adoptive parents. They make sure the home is safe and check their background so that people hopefully do give their kids to someone who loves them and has a home waiting for them. Are they supposed to do it for free. The fees that are paid go to pay for the paper Social workers salary and court cost to make it legal. The agencies i know of in my state don't make a profit. They have to look for grants to keep running because they barley break even.

Answer 1

I haven't seen anyone say that we should take the social workers out of the foster care system and adoption industry. We need to take the non profit adoption AGENCIES out of the system, and we need to do that now. The social welfare system needs to be massively reformed and thats to no fault of yours. Childrens needs aren't being met, as a social worker you see that. The children who need homes are being overlooked for the newborn infants, you MUST see that in your job.

Answer 2

This is what I know.  An adoptive parent told me that her adoption cost $7,000.  This included home studies and attorneys fees.  Why is there a need to charge $30,000 to $100,000?  Heck we have one adoptive parent on this forum Noodles who has been scammed.  Just as adoptive parents are held to higher standard, so should the social workers, adoption agencies and attorneys.  They are dealing in human lives.  We treat animals better.  You bet I hold them to an even higher standard.  You bet I want to take the money out of adoption.

Answer 3

They're not talking about removing money, but profit from adoption.

MOST of them realize that people need to get paid for providing a service, but no one should be PROFITING off of children.

ETA:  PAPs do have to pay for the home study, in our case it was a separate fee from the "Agency Fee"

Answer 4

As adoption is for the child, not for the parents in Canada, social workers are paid through taxpayers dollars.  Social welfare of children are the collective responsibility of all people and the burden should be shared.

As for other places, paying the social worker is one thing, having someone profit extensivley off of children is anohter.

Answer 5

Hi R,

I agree that social workers should still make a living.  Dedicated, concerned professionals are needed to continue working with children who need homes, and most do it for the right reasons.  Social workers need not work for agencies though, in order to help children.  What needs to change is the structure that surrounds the adoption industry itself.  

Social workers should never have to double as salespeople for their employers.  That has the potential to interfere with what's best for the children.  Success should never be measured in the number of families separated.  The emphasis should always be on the best interests of the child, without any pressure from other sources.  As you indicated, some social workers may draw the same salary regardless of the number of placements.  Keep in mind that agencies are not able to employ workers if not for the revenue extracted from the PAP's & AP's who are being exploited, but more on that in a minute.  

Prospective adoptive parents should not let the "non-profit" status of an agency fool them for a moment.  That is merely a tax distinction.  It doesn't mean they are not making a profit off of the children.  It is a business.  All that means is that AFTER all expenses, salaries, & bonuses are paid each year by the business, then there is nothing left over on paper.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist of an accountant to figure out how to legally balance the books to make it do that.  Although your director may not be drawing a large salary, you cannot be sure about additional bonus structures or what other agencies around the country are making.  It would be misleading to say that non-profit status is any indication of proof that no children nor adoptive parents are being exploited in the process. The fact remains that adoptive parents are paying exhorborant fees and that must be going someplace!

Evidence shows that adoptions have become increasingly more expensive over the last 30-40 years.  Before that, most AP's report it was a reasonable, nominal fee to adopt, even from agencies.  What happened since then?  The product and the service is still the same.  Why is it different in the U.S?  The obvious facet is supply & demand.  There are fewer babies available for adoption.  In our economy, when there is something (a baby) that more people want than is available, when unregulated, that naturally will drive up the cost.  The fact that some charge more according to ability to pay more is further evidence that unnecessary amounts are being charged and paid for the adoption process.  Add to that the eagerness of childless couples to add to their families, within a setting of unaccountability, and you have a formula for corruption.

What can be done about this?  The problems arise because we have agencies, both profit & non-profit, dealing in transactions that basically reduce children to commodities in the free enterprise system to those willing to pay.  Those financial problems are non existent in the adoptions that take place through the state.  Regulation is needed by the government in order to put the focus back on the children's needs.  Regulation would remove the recruitment aspect and the bonuses that are currently paid per child placed through agencies.  Those are totally unnecessary and are a disservice to both the children who need help and to the families who seek to adopt.  Those steps alone will greatly improve the ethics utilized in the adoption arena.

Other countries do this quite successfully and they do not have the associated problems with adoption that the U.S. and Canada have.  Look at Western Europe and Australia for example.  Their adoptive parents do not get ripped off because they do not have adoptions that make profits there, and they find homes for all the children who need them.  The people who work in those fields do earn a salary from the government that is not contingent upon finding additional children to place with new families.

To sum it up, it's not that anyone is expected to work for free.  It's that once the profit aspect is removed, then the focus is purely on providing services for children, without there being any alternative motives whatsover by those who could take advantage of the situation.  Thanks for asking.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 6

I am referring to infant adoption, not foster care adoption.

First off, many people who work at adoption agencies are not social workers and do not have degrees in social work.  There is a big difference between a social worker and an adoption case worker.  People who work in the adoption industry need no degrees or licenses.  In most cases, it is two completely different lines of work.

Secondly, the people who work for the agencies are only the first tier of those collecting a profit off of adoption.  There are people running the business collecting a huge profit.

And lastly, the so-called adoption fees and classes required by agencies to adopt have skyrocketed.  One adoptive mother right here on Y!A said she was told by her agency not to even ask where the money was going because it would hurt her chances of adopting.  Now that is just crazy and in my opinion is equivalent to extortion.  And people want a baby so badly, they shut their mouths and pay what they're told to pay.   That does not seem fair to me.

Adoptive parents are the ones being fleeced by the industry and they are so fearful of losing their chances that they will do whatever the unregulated industry tells them to do.  Scary.

There needs to be regulations put into place that protect adoptive parents from being taken for a ride and protect children from becoming commodities.

By no means did I ever say that adoption should be free but it should be regulated.  People should not have to mortgage their homes or have bake sales.

Adoption is supposed to be about helping, not buying.

Answer 7

i don't know why it would cost the price of a luxury car for paper, court, and a social worker. not to mention social workers get paid by the state and the state gets paid with federal funds as well as state taxes and not by the individual families. the people doing the work might not get paid but believe the people that own the facilities are. that is such a crock.

Answer 8

I thnk what most people want to see is it being run by the state just like foster care. That way the adoption social worker will get paid just like you do, wheather there is a placement or not.

Commissions for placement is an incentive that may compromise many people. The fees do seem to be quite inflated if you compare it to other things like collage courses.

Why can't classes be done but the county when they do foster parents classes and the money could pay those people salaries and benefire foster children.

In our class there were 13 couples (26 people) and odds are 1 may be placed, but all of them paid $1,200 for the class right? that's $15,200 for 60 hours of classes.  1/4 of these people were disqualified (that I know of from keeping in touch there may be more the 3 couples) because 1 woman had CF, one couple couldn't be match until they made their "deposit" on their "placement fee" and 1 (well i don't know their reason, they kept it private) shouldnt' these people be disqualified BEFORE being alout to pay for this class and homestudy?

And why do they only show profiles of people who have made "deposits" even though most will not be matched.

Then theres the calculation of placement fees. which is a % of the couples income (20% No less than $8K and no more than $25K) If this were an acutal cost then why does it cost more for those with more income? Do you think also that this way of calculating would encourage the workers to for the pregnany woman profile of people with higher incomes rather than a batter match.

Answer 9

I understand all of the talk about how adoption SHOULD be -- that it "should" be a "last resort" because children "should" be with their (bio) family or extended family.  Well, if wishes were horses.... The point being that most of the time there is nothing ideal about the situation a birthmother is in.  And if families members were willing and appropriate -- where are they?  Most birthmothers who consider adoption say they would never want their family to raise their child.  That is reality.  Sometimes we just don't want to face what is. This is the choice that this mother made.  We cannot go back and undo the years that led up to this decision, and we cannot change the usually complicated reasons for this decision.  But we can honor and accept it.

Answer 10

Somethings gotta give somewhere. I looked into adoption of an older child (in their pre or teens). I'm in my forties, happily married, own a home, and have raised three biological children. I know I could give a child a good home and the stability they need, along with tons of love, to enter adulthood. And race isn't important. But looking at the net for local children , it costs more than $8-10 THOUSAND dollars! I'm not wishing for a baby or a child from some other country. It's sooo sad that money keeps these wonderful children full of potential  from receiving a family they so deserve.  They're not animals with a pedigree, but children..human beings. So sad.....

Answer 11

Look I was in foster care... and lost many friends in it. Adoption should be an absolutely last resort.  People have families and extended families. Their is no reason why children should be placed with strangers unless again it's a last resort.

For those who want the money removed from adoption how are people supposed to get paid? Well Tell you what if that is their biggest concern then it's pretty simple.. Find people who care in the government, (I know I know, impossible) But if these government agencies are going to take on this responsibility then they should be prepared to pay for it. I didn't need to be rescued, I went from out of the frying pan and into the fire the moment I entered care. I had so much family trying to take custody but the government would not let them. I was adopted given back adopted given back adopted given back placed in about 10 foster homes and I can't even remember how many group-homes...

If the foster care system was not so broken their would not be such a adoption racket in business. C.A.S and agencies like it are corporations ... with boards of directors etc etc...

If people are not willing to help kids with out getting paid then they need to go find their bread and butter somewhere else. It's pretty black and white. What began as a small movement between a few groups is now an international movement. Of foster kids and parents who had their children stolen... fix the foster care systems make the agencies accountable for everything thing they do instead of just how many  pens and pencils they go threw as the Ontario ombudsman said to the Canadian parliament..

Then worry about who gets to make money off children in adoption. I think the children deserve that much. Don't you?

I strongly suggest looking at the first link to get an idea of the conditions where these kids are stored like cattle until they are adopted.

(( A little story about the damage of adoption. Look it up on google, Two people got married had s*x the works to only find out after they were marred that they were brother and sister cause of the sneaky secretive nature of adoption))  Adoption in it's current state is barbaric and done under suspicious terms.  Adoption needs to be done with complete transparency. Other wise people become victims.

Answer 12

Why can't the 'commission' or goal structure be eliminated?  What if people get paid the same weather or NOT the child is placed?

Why aren't PAPs paying for the home study? Shouldn't it be a service they pay for, like when someone goes to an attorney?

I don't get it...

Answer 13

I understand what you are saying... but this isn't really a question as much as a reply to those who don't understand why there are fees to adopt children.

I understand what it's like working your butt and not getting paid fairly for all that it is you do. I think it’s sad because there are a lot of people who only do the job for the money… the people who do it for the love of the children involved, don’t get enough positive confirmation from anyone but the children.

It would be nice if we paid the people who cared for our children’s best interest got more money. Case workers, daycare attendants, teachers… all positions where the development [or well being] of children are involved all receive LOW pay.

Answer 14

I'm glad you asked this question. My experience as an adoptive mom has left me with a lot of respect for what social workers and other adoption professionals do. Our experience was not at all the "money machine" others talk about. All of our expenses paid for services rendered (i.e, itemized time spent on our case) by counselors and attorneys. It was all reasonable much like any other legal matter. None of the offices I walked into were terribly fancy.

What I found were human beings with ethics and compassion for everyone involved. The message was always the child and birth mom come first and I was always aware that the birth mother could change her mind. In the end, she wanted us to parent. (Open adoption of course.)

This is based on my experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else. There's corruption in everything and I don't doubt some of the adoption horror stories I've heard on here. But not all adoption professionals are that way. There are birth mother's who want another family to parent their kids and there are safe, ethical, professionals who can facilitate that.

Answer 15

I wanted to take issue with part of your question and copy and pasted it here:

"... they really "THINK" they are doing a good thing. The people i know DON'T DEAL WITH THE MOTHER they certify the adoptive parents."

Those two points you made right there is enough for me to say, if you "THINK", therefore, you don't know. If you don't KNOW what you're doing is right, then you shouldn't be doing it. They DON'T DEAL WITH THE MOTHER...  wow, they don't know???? I find this either false or if true, horrific.

I just saw that you also said, "they are SUPPOSED to do it for free.The fees that are paid go to pay for the paper Social workers SALARY". I don't understand....

Money does pass under the table.... this is America. I've been educated the hard way on this one, surely you're not that naive.

I rest my case.