What effect would having the birthmom pay?

Question

back monies she received while she was pregnant.

If a pregnant woman decided to place her child for adoption and received court approved monies for living expenses and then later decided to change her mind, what effect would this have on the adoption "business"?

What effect would it have on:

1. scamming?

2. Agency fees (ie. agency's might not entice pregnant mms with trips to the Mall which is paid for by adopting families which causes Agency fees to increase....)?

3. Pregnant moms thought processes regarding actually placing their child (will they put more thought into it if they knew that they would be held financially responsible for any monies recieved for THEIR pregnancies/birth)?

Any other thoughts about how this would effect the adoption "industry"?

Answer 1

Terrible idea. Absolutely terrible, IMO.

If moms are required to pay back money, it's going to create pressure with them to go through the relinquishment.

That said, I don't think bio moms should get ANY money, period. Not for living expenses, not for medical, nothing, nada, zip. THAT is what would take the pressure away.... and it eliminates some monetary risk for potential adoptive parents, too.

I personally know women who made adoption plans, wanted to change their minds after giving birth and realizing they could make parenting work, yet felt they COULDN'T because it would be unfair to the potential adoptive parents who had paid their medical and living expenses. So they relinquished anyway, and regretted it.

THIS HAS TO STOP.

No one should be paying for a bio mom's expenses except for HERSELF, her FAMILY, or the GOVERNMENT (with the appropriate assistance programs). Adoptive parents and agencies should NOT be paying anything for the bio mom, period.

Answer 2

i strongly suggest that any woman who is pregnant and contemplates adoption, uses her own insurance or the insurance of her parents. if she doesn't have insurance, she should apply for medicaid. this prohibits any assumed "scamming" or obligation to place.

also, i strongly suggest that any woman who is pregnant and considering placing avoid, 1) pre-birth matching, 2) accepting gifts from adoptive parent prior to relinquishment, 3) paps in the labor and delivery room, 4) any "promise" that the apaps will get a baby.

women make aplans for many reasons; most have nothing to do with attempting to scam anyone. also, many adoption plans have a great deal of thought placed into them, yet, the reason why there is so much emphasis on counseling (which i have serious issues with) and promises of open adoption.

how these proposed reforms will affect the adoption 'industry', you asked?

i think it will further reinforce that women who are considering adoption need to be feared and have their actions monitored by laws, polices and legislation...

i don't know.  i think if people really want to know why a woman would change her mind, i think all one needs to do is ask someone who changed her mind. and not assume that she is a scammer.  to me (as a woman who canceled my adoption plan) the scammer claim is highly offensive and hurtful.

EDIT:

wow... i have to vehemently disagree that the problem with high fees is that women are given so many gifts and money.  the problem with agency fees is that there are too many "hands" in the pot, "agencies, lawyers, brokers..." and these people need to be paid.

also, if the fees are indeed, due to bmom expenses (as many paps are led to believe) then why are the fees to adopt minority and bi-racial babies significantly LESS then caucasian babies?  do you not believe that black and minority bmoms deserve the same help???  is it less expensive to pay for the expenses of a black/latina or mother of a bi-racial child? i posit, no.  what is a variable, however, is that more people wish to adoption healthy caucasion infants, hence, they can demand higher fees.  it's all about supply and demand.  basic economics 101...

contrary to what people wish to believe, not everyone's motive in the adoption game is one of altruism.  if we really want to reform adoption, take the money out of it all together!

Answer 3

The problem as I see it is financially helping an expectant mother who is considering an adoption plan when that financial help is coming from an adoption agency or from prospective adoptive parents.  By putting money towards an expectant mother whether to feed, clothe, house her or pay for her medical care, essentially it creates an obligation to place that child for adoption.  It is another form of coercion that exists in domestic infant adoption.

What you are asking is not new to domestic infant adoption.  If you read the book, "The Girls Who Went Away" the women who did not want to place their infants for adoption were badgered into consenting by insisting that they pay for all boarding and care provided by the agency if they expected to keep their infant.

Also, I'm curious as to your definition of scamming.  It's my understanding that true scamming is relatively rare.  (Where a woman fakes a pregnancy, or purposely misleads multiple families to provide support with absolutely no intention to place their child with that family.)  I do not think that an expectant mother considering an adoption plan who then chooses parenting is a scammer.

Answer 4

I don't know what sort of context you are speaking of but I strongly believe that if compensation will encourage a woman to give up her child, then it should be done.  Any mother who will give up their child that easily should be encouraged to do so.  Giving a baby up for adoption under any circumstances is not easy.  Not to mention, even giving a baby up for adoption will still incur extra costs for the birth mother - - medical costs for those not covered by insurance, maternity clothes, and postpartum recovery items such as large pads.

Answer 5

I am thinking it would end up badly. If a poor woman had to pay back her medical expenses then would she be as willing to go through with some of the routine testing? If that was the case then the adopters wouldn't be getting the "healthy" newborn they so desire. I doubt this would work in anyone's favour.

As for being "gifted" trips to the mall, I have never heard of this beyond pregnancy essentials. Are they getting items for personal use? Isn't that kinda buying her off? Isn't that kinda illegal as the laws stand?

For every "scammer" out there sits a woman who is parenting her own child. If you ask these women to pay back medical expenses then the ones who went back on the adoption for their own decent reasons may find this a coercive tactic to relinquish even if it is not what they ultimately want.

No, I really don't think this could fix any of the things wrong with current adoption policies.

***edit

I just want to add in that nobody in my country will ever be faced with this situation. Medical care is not a privilege of the rich but is a basic necessity and nobody is turned away from a hospital in Canada. Anyone unable to pay their health care premium is given a subsidy and nobody is given better treatment options due to wealth.

Even though medical care is substantially cheaper here than in America our adoptions are still very expensive... wonder why that is? Could it be *gasp* that adoption really is big business not unlike your local WalMart or Safeway store? *shudders* So again I say that I do not believe that making a woman pay back expenses is a good route. Health care should be available to EVERYONE who needs it not just the "entitled".

But then again I don't really believe in much of the things that are done in adoptions. I don't think that an agency or the potential adopters should be involved with pregnancy at all. If what they want is a baby then they should be getting a baby not a pseudo pregnancy so they can "feel" like they were "there".

Answer 6

sometimes it is the best for the child and it better than abortion which is worse for the women. I would not call it scamming I would it call it loving the child. It hard for them it usually tennagers. Giving up a child for adoption and never seeing is hard but you know it is best for that child.

Answer 7

I am not sure I agree with you. I think that the number of women who are placing their child up for adoption to get  extra money are slim to none. I do not see this has an overwhelming problem. Although I am sure it has happened. Maybe you watch to much Hallmark. I do happen to agree with the poster who said that NO ONE should be paying for ANYTHING for a bio- mom other than herself, her family or the government.

Answer 8

Heres an idea stemming from Australias current system of adoption.

Take out pre-birth relationships between potential adoptive parents and expecting mothers. All adoptive parents onto a list to wait for adoption, where they dont get to pick and choose what baby they want and get, so the real dedicated people who are in it for the CHILDREN get the children. So the children who NEED homes, don't get pushed aside because a newborn is on its way, illiminating foster children aging out of the system and getting dumped on the streets to fend for themselves at 18.

encourage mothers to parent, give them the resources they need to do so, and if after trying, and having assistance doing so you do decide to follow through with the surrender, you don't get to chose the parents. The state will. So it doesn't become a fantasy choosing game of material gain for parental loss.

Just a thought.

Imagine how THIS would effect the "industry"

Answer 9

i really am not aware of alot of "scammers". god forbid, the few times a woman has backed out of an adoption to keep her child, we see the grieving pap's bawling on tv.

i have yet to see anyone show a first mom after relinquishing her baby. i have yet to see news coverage when the first mom finds out that her "open" adoption is no longer "open", which ALMOST ALWAYS HAPPENS.

i would be more interested in seeing laws passed protecting the rights of the coerced, niave, women who entered into an "open" adoption and then got screwed. i think they should have the right to go back and sue for emotional trauma. if the ap's knew that, do you think they might honor their commitments?

let's stop taking other women's babies, when they clearly don't want to do it, but have no other choice. let's give them a place to live and get on their feet.

i think first mom's have paid dearly for their loss. you've just added insult to injury.