What do you think of putting a moratorium on infant adoption?

Question

There are 140,000 American children in foster care. Many are up for adoption, yet languish in the system. Shouldn't we put a moratorium on infant adoption until every child already in foster care has a home? No newborns would get adopted. No new children would be brought into the country from overseas. These children would wait until those already in the system had families. Wouldn’t a first in: first out policy like this help? If so why hasn't it happened yet?

Answer 1

NO! What happens to all the newborns that need homes. Risk their health and future? Makes no sense. Adoption is not an easy road. Anyone who thinks adoptive parents are taking the easy way out and picking and choosing is crazy.

Answer 2

I don't think it would make any difference.  My understanding that for every healthy, white baby, there are 10 couples waiting to adopt it.  All those couples HAVE the opportunity to adopt foster children, but are choosing not to.  In some cases, training is required to adopt some of those kids with behavioral or medical problems.

What it might do, however, is to reduce the pressure on poor, caucasian mothers to give up their children for a 'better life.'  They would know that the kid would be hanging out in foster care until the moratorium was over and give them an opportunity to reclaim their baby since it hasn't been placed.

Finally, keep in mind that not all people, including me, are eligible to adopt in the US.  In my case, it is due to imperfect health (doesn't affect my life span or ability to raise a child).  Folks who do not have college educations find that their applications are round filed by social workers even though they have a good income (machinist, contractor are 2 examples).

Answer 3

Interesting idea, but here's our story......

Our son was removed from his home for valid reasons.  He was placed in kinship care with his bio grandparents.  The bio family decided they wanted to make an adoption plan for the child rather than see him be placed into foster care, especially because of his medical disorder.  They chose us and we proceeded with our adoption.  

Based on the suggestion you made, they would not have had choice as to who adopted their child.  Does that in a sense defeat the rights of the bio parents that we are all trying so hard to protect?  

I also worry that if foster care was the only way to adopt, you would have more social workers coercing mothers or "capturing" children without valid reasons because of the money the states receive for all kids in foster care who they find a permanent placement for.  I use the word "capture" because that is what the social worker in our son's case called it when she tried to stop our private adoption.  She stated that our son was a "caucasian infant and therefore a hot commodity".

I think in theory what you have written is a nice idea, but as with all good ideas, there are always exceptions to the rule or flaws that could occur.

Answer 4

Many people just wouldn't adopt. People have the right to want what they want.   I am adoptinga  toddler but i won't go over 4 if they are not avaible i just won't adopt.  I feel (wheather it is justified or not) that older kids bring to many issues.  Also kids in care are there for a reason abuse both sexual and physical and for an older child that means thearpy and adjustment issues.   Also people want the experience of rasing a baby they want families. If they can't get it they won't do it.    Finally many kids in care belong to sibling groups and they try not to seperate them.  That putts a big kink in the system

Answer 5

My opinion on this is that infants placed immediately suffer much less emotional trauma due to not missing out on bonding and nurturing.  Without that children develop all types of disorders regarding abandonment and are unable to effectively bond with others.  So rather than reduce the foster care overcrowding it would actually increase it.  There are so many good and wonderful people out there that want the joy of raising a child, but know they are not emotionally equipped to take on an older child that will almost surely have some issues to deal with.  With your proposal those people will be denied the joy of the entire experience of raising a child and you will deny children that are born healthy and emotionally strong the bonding and nurturing required to keep them that way.

The problem with foster care overcrowding is that there are not enough Americans out there that are willing to take on these children and give their lives over to the life long commitment of care required to help these traumatized children into adulthood and hope and pray that they learn to live life in the present and let the past go.

It is an interesting proposal and unique.  With enough creative ideas brought forward perhaps real change can be brought about to help all of these children.

Answer 6

I have heard it is difficult and pricey to adopt children out of our own foster care system. You might ask why it is cheaper to go overseas? I have heard from couples that have adopted overseas that they feel more comfortable that the child's bio parents won't come and take them back. There needs to be some kind of reform!

Did you know Canadians adopt black children from the US, like we adopt from other countries? WOW! I wish the US could get it together!

Answer 7

NO. then it would be a vicious circle and you wouldnt be helping anyone at all.

Answer 8

Unfortunately, this would be a disaster -- for these foster children!  These children are not just big babies -- they have  endured trauma, abuse, neglect.  They have had to develop coping skills which are often unhealthy.  Many are depressed.  Others have attachment issues.  And, some are just waiting to be loved by a Mom and/or  Dad and part of a family!  But heaven help those who are placed with parents unable, unwilling, or unprepared to deal with them as they are, and not expect them to be perfectly behaved and fit into their hearts and homes from day one.  Adoption of older children from foster care usually takes much care, training, counseling, education, preparation, support and guidance.  If we have parents who have that, and are able to love unconditionally, then YES!  Enforce the moratorium!

Answer 9

It's a nice "pipe dream" but not real world thinking.

Answer 10

so we should let all of the babies grow up in foster care or a group home until some arbitrary age makes them "old enough" to be adopted? you'd end up with even more kids being messed up by the system. the younger a child is adopted the better. (depending on the exact age) they have little to no recollection of anything other than the loving adoptive family they have. all a policy like that would do is flood the system with more kids.

Answer 11

I think it is a horrible idea...I think it is a bad idea to legislate women's individual choices...and how to handle an unwanted pregnancy is probably the biggest decision a woman will ever make.  This should be her choice not the governments.   I can't imagine forcing women to keep their babies any more than I can imagine them being forced to give them up.

Answer 12

I am saddened to hear about all the older children that are in foster care- however I can tell you for a fact- we tried to adopt 2 of those children and were told no- we wound up adopting 2 precious infants who are now 19 and almost 16.   I think the question should be shouldn't we put a moratorium on abortion? 4,000 a day in the USA alone- doesn't that number startle you?  If we put a moratorium on infant adoption , there could be far more abortions-  if a birth mom was told she could not adopt out her child, where do you think the child would go if she could not or would not raise the child herself?

Answer 13

I think that is an excellent idea Tobit.

Afterall - that IS what adoption was created for - wasn't it??? - to care for children that need a loving home???

NOT to fill the needs of adults.

Wasn't that also why the tax breaks were introduced in your country - to encourage foster/adoption??

Sad really that the adoption agencies & adoption lawyers found loop-holes in that - and get away with tax breaks for infant and overseas adoption.

They shouldn't.

Foster kids deserve it more.

Answer 14

Sadly, most families only want to adopt babies because of the emotional and behavioral issues of older children.  (Hey, if you'd been taken from your parents and bounced around from foster home to foster home you'd have issues too!)  Not a bad idea, but it wouldn't work.

Answer 15

I don't think that is going to help the problem.  I think the problem is the whole system.  People who are terrible parents are given chances over and over to raise their children.  When finally they exhaust all their chances, the children are put into foster care (or sometimes, the kids get shuffled back and forth for years) and by that time they are finally removed for good from the home, they are older and alot of them have behavioral issues from the horrible parenting. Can you blame adoptive couples for not wanting to raise children that have tons of behavior and social issues? I mean, to try to get services to treat  these types of kids can be a total nightmare!  These children need to be removed from their rotten parents right away, and put into decent homes for good. I am tired of watching all these horrible people have tons of kids, not parenting them properly, and then the system gives them all these chances to prove themselves (and then, it never happens)  And then, what do you do with the truly responsible people, who KNOW they can't parent their infants/children and WANT to give them up for adoption? You want to tell them they have to keep those babies? I don't think so.  Your plan would not work.

Answer 16

You are joking, right? If not, that's crazy! You seem to want to perpetuate the "flame war" in here. Why would you want infants to languish in orphanages and pile up in foster care or group homes? There are many who are so traumatized that they are un-adoptable and can't be fostered. There are many who are caught up in the legal system while they wait for their bio's who are addicts, prisoners, alcoholics, etc. There are lists of people, some who could truly take special needs children and then there are some who are not. Are you going to force people who choose not to have children to adopt the children in foster care? Do you really want the government to wield that kind of power and play God with these children's' lives? Do you live in the US and have you any idea what the constitution and bill of rights are about? Did you ever read 1984 &/or study anything about Hitler's regime?

HOW  SCARY ! ! !

PS- possum, that is not why the adoption tax credit was created. It was created out of fairness to adoptive families, being that we are equal to all families in the eyes of the law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.j...

Clinton gives tax break to aid adoption

http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archiv...

Birth of a Child and Adoption Tax Guide - Kiplinger.com

Answer 17

I do think more children in the foster care system need to be adopted. But what about newborns that are placed for adoption should these children just go into the FCS and have to wait a certain age before they can be adopted because of this temporary ban on adopting newborns? There are birthmothers who abandoned their babies or know that they want to place the baby for adoption.

Not to mentioned some people would just not adopt just like some people who can’t have biological children choose not to adopt for whatever reason. You would have people who would only want say a child 4 ½ or younger. That would just downright refuse to take an older child.  

The UK is also starting to adopt quite a few Black American babies.  Actually adopting from the US FCS is general the cheapest forum of adoption that people in America can do.

Answer 18

Yes I think we should have a moratorium on infant adoption.  Yes I also believe foster care adoption should be reformed as well.  We have too many mothers and fathers whose rights are being violated.

Answer 19

I know it wouldn't be a popular idea, but I like it.  After all, adoption is about finding families for children, not finding children for families.  At one time in our country, that's exactly what it was about.  Of course, people found they could turn it into a money making industry by becoming "consumer driven" so here we are.  

Some say that it wouldn't work because people mainly want babies.  Well, adoption isn't supposed to be about what adults WANT.  It's about caring for the needs of children.  

As far as flooding the system with more babies, I hardly see that becoming a problem.  Firstly, there are loads of people wanting to adopt.  Secondly, more women would choose to parent, as agencies wouldn't be touting the wonders of relinquishment.

Answer 20

Kewl!   I'd like to see what is working for Australia put into practice in the USA

Do Americans HONESTLY think all those infant adoptions are essential - I mean, really

Answer 21

It sounds like a logical idea but I have to wonder what would happen to those infants whose mothers CHOOSE to place their child for adoption. In reality there ARE birth mothers who make that very decision based on personal circumstances and WANT their child to be raised in an environment that they can not give. Do you suggest these infants go directly to foster care rather than to a family chosen by the birth mother?

Answer 22

Unfortunately, I think it would create a black market and that would make things worse.

There are adults who were products of grey and black market adoption who have no paperwork whatsoever.  Some do not even have birth certificates and no way to trace their roots.  Stopping infant adoption would simply create a bigger underground system than what already exists.  And that would be very, very bad.

People want what they want and some will stop at nothing to get a baby.  Putting a moratorium would not stop infant adoption.

And the truth is that there are women who do not want to be parents.  They should be allowed to place rather than parent if that is truly their choice.

Answer 23

Good idea, the people who are on a "three year waiting list", should be matched up to a child that is in foster care. I think that counseling should be mandatory with all adoptions.

Answer 24

It would be irresponsible to "assign" people to children, or children to people, who are not willing or able to parent them.  "First in: first out" sounds great on the surface, but would be very, very harmful to those kids who have high needs.  Parents have to be ready for what they're getting, and willing to put their knowledge to use.  Give a child with RAD to a family who wants a healthy, white infant, and you're going to have a disruption within months.  Waiting children need to be placed with families who know what they're doing, not just as parents, but as people who are aware of the issues their children are facing.

What we need is more education about foster adoption.  I had no clue that it was even out there until I had been talking about adoption for years.  I'm lucky I found someone who had actually been through it, and could educate me.  It's a very well-kept secret.  Maybe because it's not a big money-maker. *puke*