Is it really hard to understand that there is a difference between infant adoption and foster adoption?

Question

I truly commend the adoptive parents that adopt out of the foster care system. Foster to adopt parents are adopting children who are without parents. These parents relinquish their rights INVOLUNTARILY.

Infant adoption is a totally different venture. A woman and a man are relinquishing their rights VOLUNTARILY. Is it so hard to understand there are parents who get scammed on both sides of this fence? I hear from the fathers and the mothers all the time. I do what I can to help them. Their stories break my heart. Is it so hard to see that there is a difference between the two?

Answer 1

To everyone who answered above me:

NOT ALL BIRTH MOTHERS ARE CRACK HEADS, WHORES OR ANYOTHER INSULTING NAME YOU CAN THINK OF!!!!

Sometimes life deals us a bad hand and the situation that some birth mothers find themselves in is not a situation or enviroment that they want to raise a baby in.  So, before you go condemming the birth mother, just remember that if it wasn't for her giving up the baby or having the baby taken away, you wouldn't have your famiy!!

Answer 2

I definitely understand your point between voluntary and involuntary relinquishment.  

But do you really think that this distinction figures into the prospective adoptive parents' desire to adopt an infant?

Answer 3

I totally disagree that all foster adoption is from involuntary termination. There are parents who either choose to place their child in foster care for whatever reason or the children where removed from the home. After awhile the parents realize they may not be able to care for them or may be unwilling to accomplish what they need to do to get them back so they voluntarily agree to terminate rights.  Also, not all adoptions are infant adoptions.

Answer 4

Uhhhh.... OK.  I can name 10 "foster children" right this second, that were voluntarily given up by their biological parents when they were young children, so.....  You can't really say that ALL foster children are involuntarily taken from the  parents.  Like the person below me said, they don't take children out of the home just because.  The parents had to have done SOMETHING to endanger the lives of those children or neglected them.  In the same manner, I can name 10 people that were taken from their parents when they were infants, not just voluntarily given to a family, so.....

If you do something to abuse or neglect your children, then you deserve to lose custody.   I guess I just don't get what you are saying.  I think adoption is adoption.  Whether its a newborn or a 10 year old.  As long as the child is going to a loving, caring and safe family.... what does everything else really matter?

Answer 5

Well, based on most of the answers to this question so far, I'd have to say... yes, apparently it is hard to understand the differences between domestic infant adoption and foster adoption.

WHY it's so hard, I don't know... self-protection? Denial? Stereotypes about birth mothers? Industry propaganda? All of the above?

It gets really tiring hearing that domestic infant adoption saves children from abortion, abuse, homelessness, poor parenting, etc. So I'll say it one more time: I RELINQUISHED MY DAUGHTER FOR ADOPTION, BUT HER ADOPTION DID NOT SAVE HER FROM ANYTHING. HAD I NOT RELINQUISHED, I WOULD HAVE PARENTED (not aborted), AND SHE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABUSED, HOMELESS, DEATHLY POOR,  OR HAD BAD PARENTS.

Answer 6

I think that whether a child is given up voluntarily regardless of age or the parents rights are terminated regardless of age or the reason, it effects everyone involved.  This is a three way street - adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Answer 7

Sigh.  No, Amy, they just don't get it.

Sure, some foster children are techincally INFANTS, but there is a difference between adopting an infant out of FOSTER CARE and adopting an infant through PRIVATE INFANT ADOPTION.

Kids in foster care are there for a reason.  Be it abuse, neglect, poverty of the parents, whatever, there is a VALID REASON for their PARENTS TO NOT BE ABLE TO PARENT THEM and the COURTS HAVE RULED TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS.

In private infant adoption, yes there may be a valid reason the mother is choosing adoption, but it is NOT ALWAYS DRUGS OR ABUSE OR POVERTY.  Not every private infant adoption is being saved from something bad...it might just be that the mother feels she can't handle yet one more child...maybe she's in college and doesn't feel she can take on the responsibility of a baby...maybe her boyfriend left her high and dry when he found out about the pregnancy....maybe she's only 16 and is scared...maybe she's 40 and doesn't want to start all over with a baby again.

Does this mean the baby will automatically be abused?

NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How HARD is it for people to understand that NOT ALL ADOPTIONS ARE SAVING BABIES' LIVES????

Where is the nearest brick wall because I just feel like beating my head against it.  My god.

Answer 8

The difference is not so much between infant adoption and foster adoption. You can adopt an infant from foster care. Not all children in foster care are "taken" involuntarily. Also, not all children in foster care are free for adoption.

You do make a good point, tho... I also commend parents who adopt from the foster care system. These are usually  from sad backgrounds and are harder to place for adoption.

To Jennifer, I believe that the Safe Haven Laws refer to infants only - there is a time limit on the age that you can drop off an infant and its a very short time.

These children are freed for adoption pretty quickly.

the foster care system is supposed to be a temporary place for kids who are kind of in limbo - they may or may not be returned to their parents depending on if the parents get their act together or not. Unfortunately, many stay in foster c are for a long time, but the system really isn't designed to hold kids indefinitely.

What's really bothering you? I think there is a different question lurking in the back of your mind. Care to try again?

Answer 9

Of course its not hard to understand that people get scammed both birthparents and adoptive parents. However is it so hard to understand that some birthparents choose adoption for their child? That they aren’t pressured by someone to choose adoption, that they aren’t tricked into giving their baby up. I don’t think anyone thinks that all birth parents are whores, addicts etc, but no one can deny that some do fall under this category, just as some parents who keep their children fall under this category. I don’t think anyone can deny that there are some people who should not be parents to any child biological or adopted.  

I was adopted via the Foster care system; my birthmother gave up her rights. She even filled out some paper work to try and reclaim me but she never came to the hearing.  So not all children in the foster care system were given up involuntarily.

Yes I do commend people who adopt from foster care there are children of all ages in the system , yes even infants. A family is giving a home to children/baby that needs it and they don’t have to typical spend a lot of money.

Answer 10

You're forgetting about the laws in some states that permit parents to drop off children at a save haven (church, police station, fire department, hospital, etc.), giving them up voluntarily.  There aren't a ton of them, but it does happen.  These children are voluntarily relinquished, and are put in the foster care system, and may or may not be newborns.

Answer 11

I get it.  Huge difference.  We're in the process of adopting through foster care.  We wouldn't dream of adopting an infant.  Then again, it has taken 5 years of research to get educated, and I'm sure we still have a lot to learn.  We've got the rest of our lives to continue learning about adoption, and educating others.  That's the plan anyway!  We want to learn everything we can!

Answer 12

NOT ALL relinquishments in foster adoption are INVOLUNTARY...........you have not done your research thoroughly, but I understand your point.  My answer here is the same as it has always been. To each his own.........

Answer 13

I disagree that the foster side relinquish their rights involuntarily. They mistreated their children in some way horribly enough to lose their kids. They could have been more decent and kept their kids. The state doesn't just take kids willy-nilly.

Answer 14

There are children both infants and older children that are given up freely to the courts. Then there are children both infants and older ones that are taken from the parents for one reason or another. It makes no difference whether you adopt and older child or an infant, both are in need of a family. And to me those that abuse their children do this voluntarily, so by their actions the court take them. So in essence they are voluntarily giving up their rights by  choosing to be abusive. Point being both the infants and the older children need homes and it is up to the adoptive parents what age child they feel they are best equipped to raise.