There is a major problem in this country. Thousands of children are born every year into homes with no hope of supporting them. These children ultimately become a burden both upon the parent(s) who bore them, and hard-working American taxpayers. Worse still, many lose their opportunity and right to become successful adults, because they cannot be raised in an environment where they develop the appropriate social skills, emotional stability, and age-appropriate focus on their education to eventually become responsible members of society. Instead, they are forced to deal with parents who are dependent on others, including the children themselves, emotionally and financially.
On average, federal funds constituted 69% of the approximately $10,000 spent on every low-income child by taxpayers in the year 1994. Every $10,000 taken away from taxpayers for a low-income child is $10,000 that could be used, in the event of lower taxes and a less burdened welfare system, by the Americans who rightfully earned it to put their own children through college, or to save for retirement.
Allowing children to stay in homes where they don't belong, because they "belong with their natural parents", is a moot argument if those parents can't care for their children independently. I passionately believe that every child born in the United States has a right to a childhood, to be well-fed, well-educated, and emotionally stable, as well as to learn how to be a responsible adult. All children have the right to grow up in an independent household, so they too can have dignity, self-respect, and the ability to learn how to live independently and honestly as an adult.
What is the answer here? A good start would be to get these children out early, and to start fixing the existing system with an appropriate child welfare reform.
Did you know that in 2002, a national survey commissioned by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption showed that nearly 40% of American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child?
Yet, there were an estimated 523,000 children in foster care as of September, 2003. What happens to a child in foster care? It often takes such a long time for them to be “approved” for adoption that they become irreparably emotionally damaged in the process, thereby “unadoptable” and dependent on the system. These poor children who are trapped in the sinking sand of foster care don’t have a chance; the few tough enough and intelligent enough to create their own opportunities against all odds are commendable and amazing individuals. We need to work for those who can’t speak for themselves; provide them an avenue for permanent residence and stability before it’s too late due to the irresponsibility of the parent(s), bureaucracies, and inefficiency of the current child welfare system.
These “unadoptable” children are handled by public agency adoption, or “welfare adoption”, which costs approximately $0-$2,500. Obviously, public agencies usually don’t handle infants. They generally deal with special needs children, or those from abusive parents/homes that have been in and out of foster care multiple times. Cases of welfare adoption have been rising. From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, the median percentage of welfare adoptions was 16%. In comparison, in 2001 the median case was 33%. This demonstrates a marked increase in the number of children who benefit from being permanently placed with an adoptive couple.
The one essential thing to know about welfare adoption is that it’s often too late. The children can come from homes that have been given too many chances, and as a result have experienced being shuttled in and out of foster care. To adopt a child from a public agency is to know you are taking in a child who will probably need severe emotional counseling, but it will be worth it. Adoptive parents from this system are saving children from years of anxiety, instability, and unbelievable stress that no minor should experience.
On the other hand, private adoption agencies almost exclusively handle infants, and costs range from $4,000-$30,000. They are currently living down a murky past and reputation riddled with erroneous practices. Completely closed private adoptions leave both adoptees and biological parents with questions far into the future; medical records are unavailable, families histories lost, and questions left unanswered. This creates an emotionally charged situation that is unhealthy for everyone involved, including the adoptees’ “new” family.
The problem is that a completely open adoption system also creates a problem: there is no protection for a child who comes from a background that he or she needs to be protected from, and no privacy from natural parents who wish for it. This may provide incentive for open adoption for obsessive personalities to later harass children and adopted families in an unhealthy and even dangerous way, and could also create disincentive for a potential birth mother for adoption. This does not even touch upon the potential and existing effect that physically, emotionally, and drug-abusive natural parents have on children in open adoption systems.
There has to be a compromise here. In my opinion, the best compromise would be an “open adoption system” only by mutual agreement and disclosure at a legal age of consent. A survey of 1,274 adoptive parents by Cornell University in New York State, a closed record state, during the years 1994-1995, showed that most adopted parents were in favor of access to birth certificates only after an adopted child turns 21, but many also thought access should be granted at the age of 18. I would suggest setting the age of consent at one of these two ages, my preference being 21 if only to protect the child through the majority of the college years.
In 2001, 127,630 children were permanently adopted in the United States. This number has been relatively stagnant since 1992, reflecting the lack of availability of “desirable” or “adoptable” children in the US, and many couples have sought intercountry adoption as an alternative. In 2001, approximately 19,000 visas were issued for intercountry adoptions in the United States.
My point is, as demonstrated by the 40% of Americans who have considered adoption; there are literally millions who would consider adopting babies domestically if the process became more efficient. It also needs to become more humane and less psychologically impacting for domestic birth mothers.
Relinquishing a child may be one of the most difficult and traumatic events a woman can experience. As many point out; a woman may not realize its effects on her psyche it until many years later. In one survey conducted on women who relinquished their children between 1965 and 1972 (see link at the bottom), 97% of birth mothers reported symptoms of depression, and 92% feelings of remorse. 85% reported, “I was either misled or not informed of the effects that relinquishment would have on me. (Extremely true).”
In a group discussion women described experiencing: shame, loss, feeling that seeing the child/believing they would see the child again would diminish the trauma, loss of self, disassociation from the experience, emptiness, and feelings of abandonment by parents.
There is no shame to be felt in relinquishing a child to adoption. Appropriate, perhaps, to feel sad, or overwhelmed. In this day and age, where single mothers have become martyrs practically held on pedestals for society, I find it appalling that anyone would argue against adoption as a valid alternative to raising a child on government funding.
All empathetic Americans, including myself, can forgive a woman for a mistake. Unwanted pregnancies can happen; even when using appropriate birth control in a loving relationship. I understand this; that’s why we as women can chose adoption or abortion. What I have difficulty with is women who choose not to learn from their mistakes, but instead present them to the world with pride, or continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, seemingly with no shame or learning curve whatsoever.
A woman who goes through the process of relinquishment, and experiences the pain and longing, should help prevent others from experiencing the same process. I encourage those who have experienced the birth mother side of adoption to encourage young people, and those without the financial means to support themselves or a child, to think before they act, consider the consequences, and to be safe. If one chooses to have sex and doesn’t want to get pregnant (single or married); it’s important use the appropriate protection in multiple ways. No birth control method or STD prevention is 100% (except abstinence), so please, use both a condom and the pill.
References:
Foster Care Numbers and Trends
Adoption Numbers and Trends
Birthmother Research Project
"It's Time to Speak For Ourselves" - A Study of NYS Adoptive Parents
Study Shows Vast Majority of Americans Support Adoption
Why Children Aren't Adopted
Cost of Adopting
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I'm not sure how I feel about the whole open-adoption vs. closed adoption thing.
On the one hand, I've never given a child up for adoption, so I can only imagine the pain that birth mothers go through after having to go through with it. I'm sure that open adoption helps them monitor their baby's health (in my opinion, there is little worse than finding out you've given a child up for adoption for a better life, only to find out the adoptive parents killed the child through abuse - some better life) and allows some form of a relationship which can be important. Additionally, medical reasons that might come up, requiring knowledge of a family history, can be more easily found, and adopted children can find answers that they sometimes need.
But, on the other hand, if I were to adopt a child, I don't know that I would want the birth parents in there. I can foresee a slew of problems resulting from that, especially when under certain circumstances.
I recently withdrew my application for adoption from CPS after finding out that the parents of the child would be involved and granted visitation rights until the child was 18. The children adopted through CPS were already taken from a bad home because of abuse or neglect, but they expected me to let those mothers into my home for mandatory visitation. I don't think so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
I share the fear of abusive adoptive parents. Those poor children are trying to live as normal a life as possible & don't deserve abuse after everything they've been through. Adopting a child is supposed to make their life better, not send them further down the path of despair. Children are not brought into this world to be slaves or punching bags ...
In my opinion, making adoption easier would have one flaw: helping people get children when they have no business being a care giver. I also don't think that an "open adoption" should extend to mandatory visitation. Isn't the whole point of CPS to get the child away from the person harming them?
LOL. That's what I would have thought.
I mean, I understand the importance of trying to keep a family together when possible. But there has to be a limit somewhere.
How can adoptive parents ever really feel like parents when birth parents are court-issued visits to retain a semblance of parenthood? How can adopted children feel at home with a new family if they are forced to endure constant reminders?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
And i was happily mistaken...
Yes, you did some research..good job on digging up the Birthparent Project..and yes, that Cornell study is a great piece of number cruching for the benefits of open adoption... and sincerely, I do thank you on accuratly reporting on the long term ramifications of surrendering...kudos.
Now of course, I will add one thing.
Parents aren't simply interchangable. And that's where..if i may be so bold as to direct.. where your next act of research should be. Cause it might give you a better accurate feeling of why open records is important....You see.. even being less equiped financially, a parent to a child holds things more than just ones DNA, medical history and such... see if you find something on genetic mirroring. Read some of the adoptee blogs and see what they say for having been adopted.
And that is where the benefit of open adoption comes in...not for eithetr parent but for the child.. and even with open adoption being "better" fior a child than a closed system, even then it is really still an experiment. The oldest adult adoptee from an open relationship since birth is 23 now.. so really we still do not know what the "kids" will say from open adoptions...
But we can listen to the adoptees now...I really recommend them...they speak for all these kids for which you speak...
Listen to the Adoptee and doner-people too!
FauxClaud
aka Claudia Corrigan D'Arcy
OriginsUSA...Musings of the Lame..FixAdoption
I agree parents are not interchangeble.
That is why, in the interest of the health of the child, I support early adoption and a policy of closed records until an appropriate and capable age of consent for said child.
I've read a lot of blogs, from all three "sides". I have a lot of empathy for your situation, and I'm sorry for the venom you witnessed earlier. As you see, it's a passionate subject for myself as well. Unfortunately, I just can't justify pulling children through foster care in the interest of "keeping families together" and "children with their natural parents" because in my personal experience and research, I've seen and found that almost all adoptable or dependent children adopted at very young ages live healthier lives than those relinquished late or not at all. The average child costs $290,000 to raise to the age of 17, after all.
There are many kids from the foster system with essentially "open adoptions" that would follow a similar model to what you suggest. I recommend you also do a little research into their experiences as well.
See now...and don't laugh.. i essentially agree with you there. When we are talking about foster adopt situations..so children removed from homes based on abuse, neglect, etc.. then yes..permanancy is important..and less placements the better.
But there is a huge difference between child protection removal and so called volunary infant relinquishment... and my personal "niche" so to speak..is battling the aproximatly 15000 surrenders a year of infants who never do see a CDS case worker.. who never will see a foster home, who go right from "womb fresh" to their adoptive homes because more means better. Getting these babies out of the market will get the kids who really need homes a much better chance of actually getting them.
Natural family preservation does not mean return kids back to get abused, or returned no matter what.. it means helping the mother along with the child, not just TO her child.
And that does mean prevention of the crisis pregnancy to begin with.. so yes, sex is a great responibilty..but just as we are taught an abortion is not a method of birth control..either should adoption be..and while parenting has life changing consequences..so should adoption be seen as thus. Because it is the truth..because you can't cheat life..because you can have a kid and then pretend you didn't..we just aren't wired for that.
Ah, I digress.. anyway, the point is that the great majority of the 15000 infants that feed the adoption indusrty every year.. they really aren't endangered at all.. no CPS cases..
I know women who were in college, with good jobs, had lives..hardworking etc.. and they are the ones that the agencies and lawyers want.. they want those babies..
And the sad thing is.. those babies needed thier mommas.
Oh, and I am not suggesting open adoption..that's been done.. we got that ..people live it everyday. And again.. maintain family contact with people who hurt you is different than a carefully crafted and maintained relaytionship since birth..not that I am a fan of open adoptions..just open records..which is really just legal access to ones OBC.
And now I just have to get off this! I have 2 interviews tomorrow...
FauxClaud
aka Claudia Corrigan D'Arcy
OriginsUSA...Musings of the Lame..FixAdoption
Can you provide a precise source for the 15,000 number so I can be more informed in my response?
Thanks.
P.S. Good luck on your interviews... deep breath... you'll do great.
15K is estimated..unfortunatly almost all adoption numbers are estimated...because? this is lovely..no one tracks it.
But it is from the 2006 November. New York NY: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
Document Type: White Paper / Safeguarding the Rights and Well-Being of Birthparents in the Adoption Process
which you can read here: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/publications/2006_11_Birthparent_Study_...
More adoptions take place each year than is commonly perceived or reported. The Institute estimates more than 135,000 annually, of which about 13,000 to 14,000 involve babies who are voluntarily relinquished domestically. Of non-stepparent adoptions each year, approximately 59 percent are from the child welfare system, 26 percent from abroad, and 15 percent of domestic infants
I do belive that we have a 13 tp 14K number in there.. estimatred of course!.. page 4...so yeah, the 15K is probably a lazy and slightly gross rounding up... but since the report we have all been pretty comfortable throwing it about...if nothing else we know that the NCFA and our very politicians thayt cry for the 90-10 inititive cry for adoption rates to go up...so it is not impossible.
FauxClaud
aka Claudia Corrigan D'Arcy
OriginsUSA...Musings of the Lame..FixAdoption
It is very important for children to be raised by loving parents who can provide for them.
For whatever reason, some parents cannot. I wholly support adoption (especially as an alternative to abortion, but that's nother matter), and believe that there are MANY willing couples looking to adopt a child.
There will be some bad apples, looking to get a free ride as foster parents, but I believe them to be a minority. They get in the press for the horrible things that they do, but remember that the news reports the unusual... not the commonplace.
I'm sorry, being poor (a "burden on the hard-working taxpayers") is not a reason to have your children taken away.
The average child costs $290,000 to raise to the age of 17.
That's about as much as it took to get my arm repaired...I cost WAY more than that.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Obviously you don't count as the average child...
Eh, you voted me god.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
There was a vote? Why wasn't I told? I could have been a contender!
Wait a minute here people...
If anybody is going to be "god" in this blog... then I'm going to be the "goddess". Come on now, I at least have the right to rule over my own blog.
that reminds me of an email I got the other day.
Bill of NON-Rights.
was pretty funny. had stuff like "You do NOT have a right to not be offended. People have the same freedom of speech as you do. deal with it."
Forward it to me: nicktaden@msn.com
Also, Katie, you may be goddess, but you can't be my wife/husband or have my seed. It's been promised to others.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
i'll try to remember to do so when I get home.
I have martial arts tonight after work so it might not be until late.
Also forward to me...
wickswkm@clarkson.edu
Thank you!
And you two can duel it out... but because it's my blog, I am the ruler of this household.
I agree with your sentiment that parents who do not either (a) want their child or (b) don't think that they can raise him/her, but you suggest in your blog that government intervention should be involved, and there is where I disagree with you. The amount of government intervention in the home should be kept to a minimum.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
I agree with you. But most people don't.
So I seek to compromise with people. Because in reality, I'd evaluate the financial status of every pregnant woman (or couple) and then remove a child if they don't meet financial standards and a psychological profile. Point blank.
One of the dangers there is that while a person may be compassionate enough to do that altruistically, a program or government entity will quickly develop into a bloated and corrupt organization.
Getting a license to have a kid, or having to prove financial status to keep a kid is something that we REALLY need to stay away from.
The government isn't a good steward of money, i'm sure not going to trust them with my children.
Thank goodness you responded. I was waiting for my responder... so I could leave my appropriate response to the response.
I don't actually believe what I just wrote. I was looking for a reaction. But if you'd seen what I've seen of domestic violence shelters and foster care homes; you'd sometimes really wonder about the value of giving licenses for children and forced sterilizations.
I really believe that if you give people a hand up, not a hand out, they will surprise you. Offering them dignity and respect, the chance to earn something for themselves and the benefit of the doubt is the greatest gift; charity is not.
Thank goodness you responded. I was waiting for my responder... so I could leave my appropriate response to the response.
that made my eyes go crossed, I'm sending you the bill. *grin*
I do agree that a hand up not a hand out is the key.
It doesn't matter what your current financial status is. My famiy was bankrupt once, we had to live with my grandparents for a while. We had no home.
But, they're still my family and what I had was poverty of money, not of love.
I do agree that there are those who milk the system to get what they want. I know of people who foster care and adopt drug addicted babies, for the monthly money they get from the government. They have enough now that they don't work. and they work the system well enough to not get in trouble.
My dad was an orphan. His mother died when he was young and his father left. He was raised by an aunt and later by his sister and brother in law.
we each have hardships. but no matter where we start, we live in a good and free country in which we can work hard and achieve success.
Glenn Beck is a great example. mother died when he was a kid, father I guess was a prick. turned to drugs and alcohol. wasted his life away.
one day, he changed and started to sacrifice for a better life.
now he's a famous talk radio guy and has enough wealth that he's hired everyone that works on his show (hiring them away from the studio they worked for) so that he could give them each raises above the industry standard (some had thier pay go up 70%), plus he pays for all of their health insurance in full. And he matches their donations to charities.
Anyone, no matter where you start, can achieve greatness, and often times that greatness doesn't involve money.
I encourage all good people to adopt. Raise up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is older he will not depart from it. (kind of biblical. heh)
You show more understanding here than in the financially responsile sex blog. The position you support is still a little vague.
There are two ways to implement this child removal policy. First would be curve based with a certain number of the least capable parents losing their children, the other would be a set standard in terms of money, or IQ/sanity. Which is your proposal?
Both would require the Constitution be amended. Equal protection IS extended to poor and stupid people under the laws of the US.
Stealing a child is one of the most horrible things you could do to the parents involved. Have you considered that treating people this harshly would have repercussions? Mothers fearing you facism might choose to birth their children outside of hospitals. Since the birth place would be less sanitary and the midwives, by necessity, not trained there would be a higher incidence of complications and fatalities (very similar to the situation with illegal abortions). Once you take someones child violence would seem to be an obvious reaction many would resort to. Thus your victimized parents would swell the prison population.
Another aspect to consider is the foster care rate 500,000+ children are currently in the system. Over half of those exit the system each year. The majority of these are not adopted, they are returned to their parents or grandparents. Your proposal would increase the number entering the system, while reducing the number returned to their families. How would you deal with this?
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I have a few things to comment on. One, not all children want to be adopted, not after a certain age, I don't anymore but maybe that's because in seven months I'll be out of the system anyway. I agree that adopting early is a good idea for the most part you shouldn't rule out the older 'kids' either, I would have loved to be adopted when highschool first started, during 8th grade and it was only really last year when I had people wanting to adopt me that I realized I didn't want it anymore. What ever legislation you try to bring into play make sure you allow the kids to chose, and try not to back out after you commit. My eighth grade year I was almost adopted but because of my past that couple backed out of it and left me in the system to go on to another, worse foster home.
Some parents do get better, I've seen it happen to other kids. Mothers and fathers do perform 180's when they realize that their kids are really gone but if you do early adoption that might not happen. The courts usually give a time frame for reunification, my mother had a period of a year and the courts were going to send me back to her, but I said no. I knew her and I was right, she's skipped the state now.
And foster care licensing, they have to figure out a way to go about it better. The worst foster home I lived it met everything they asked for to a letter and the foster mother? Yeah she made sure all the girls knew exactly what waited for them. Foster kids, girls especially need that hand up, to help them realize that there is more for them. A lot of the girl's I've lived with are really smart, they are loving wonderful people but they shut themselves down and decided to settle for what they are told. The Government in California is trying to fix that, I don't know if other states are doing the same, but here in the North State we have the ILP program, Independant Living Plan, and those works take us to workshops that help us learn about taking care of ourselves, they let us know about scholarships, jobs and sometimes help foster kids get their own apartments with money going straight to them to help with living expenses. They get you ready for what happens after the system.
A lot of the foster kids are second generation, meaning their parents were in the system, at least one, at one time or another. Its a cycle, if we help the kids out while they are still young, even if its not with adoption, then the numbers might go down.
I am so glad you decided to comment here. I was thinking about you a lot while writing this, and wondering what you'd think of all this.
Reform is necessary. That is obvious. Take a look at my other blog here:
http://progressiveu.org/142605-stop-discrimination-against-the-poor
It has some interesting statistics on welfare, particularly second-generation dependency and teenage pregnancies.
i don't want any comprimese between the public and the private. let those kid starve to death for all i care. no comprisme whatsoever. let the private business handle and the federal government get out of it. i don't want my tax dollars going to some public adoption clinic because their parents are lazy. these kid derserve what they got because their parent are not responsible. so no public money, only private charties.
no where in the consitution that said that poor kids had the right to a socially stable family. let them eat dirt for all i care. what amaze me here is that you are showing compassion for the bastard and want my tax dollar money to go to the undeserved bastard because their parent are irresponsible. let the private market take care of them, they will figure out a way to deal with it.
no, comprimise whatsoever. do public funding for adoption. let those kid starve. no consitutional rights, no funding.
You can't be serious.
Screw the children of the poor, and strip them of their rights, because their parents made mistakes?
I suppose next you'll be screaming "Deport them! Deport them all!" because after all, that's what America is all about, right? Who needs individual freedom and personal responsibility when you can make the children eat dirt because their parents are irresponsible.
I can see it now, the American Dream, motherhood. And when that little girl looks into her mother's eyes and says Momma, what am I gonna be when I grow up, she can be told "You're going to eat dirt because I bounced 17 checks during my 21st year, and have been deemed socially irresponsible.
Because we all have the same definition of social irresponsibility. I, for example, think this comment is a poster-child for social irresponsibility - but others might disagree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
I agree.
Social responsibility is a two-way street, and while it starts with the individual, it ends with society as a whole.
That's a good philosophy. Blame the kids for the fact that they were born into the wrong household.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
You really believe what you just said? lgrf4evr I have turned what happened to me and my parents mistakes for the better, I will be part of the work force, part of those tax payers, just because my childhood was rough doesn't mean I shouldn't count and that I shouldn't have been given help.
If people followed your ideas then at least hundreds of kids would be left in homes that are abusive, meaning the number of childhood deaths would be much higher. Could you really sleep at night if you took away any sort of escape, any sort of helping hand away from millions of people?
Your other blog and I agree with the idea of private charties for the most part, the only issues this would bring up for children would be would they have the righ to remove them from a home that is harmful and dangerous? Government branches do have this right, somewhere in our legislation, but private companies/charties might not. Before you push too much for this make sure that there is in fact a way for children to be removed from abusive homes and for parents, if they truly want their kids, to earn them back.
I absolutely agree with you.
I think that we should simply improve the public adoption agency, to make adoption easier, and consider the merits of outlawing private adoption agencies (because they have a history of abusing the system regularly).
I would also want to improve foster care... so that foster care "bouncing" did not become "permanent" homes for kids. That's really not appropriate, or any way to have a childhood. Parents who can't prove an ability to be responsible for their child or themselves, financially, mentally, whatever, by the time a child is a certain age or when that child has been removed a particular number of times/ period of times, they get no more chances.
We need to be cruel to be kind sometimes. Kind to the children; they are the innocents here.