Is Paying Someone's Expenses Coercive Adoption Practice?

Felicita1

Yes, it is one of the most blatant forms of coercion. How can a mother make a non-pressured, non-coerced decision after the birth of her baby if she's financially and morally indebted to the people who want her baby? Even if the "contract" says that she does not have to pay them back, she knows that they have paid money in anticipation of obtaining a baby in return, and anyone would feel morally obligated to either (1) pay them back which she likely cannot afford as if she could afford it she likely would not be considering adoption, or (2) give them "their" baby because to do otherwise is "theft."

One of the many reasons why pre-birth matching and contact of any kind is inherently coercive. Plus the people waiting for a baby are highly stressed because 'she could change her mind."

So why not let the mother give birth and recover from birth, with a "new mother service" available to provide her with everything she needs including counseling. Then once she has recovered from birth and if she still wants to surrender her baby, she signs the papers, a 1 month revocation period begins, and only once the surrender is *permanent* after that one month, she selects adoptive parents. That way, NO coercion can occur -- they cannot affect her decision in any way. Plus they know that her consent and decision is permanent and that she was given ample resources and help to keep her baby so financial coercion via poverty has not occurred.

A pipe-dream? They have a similar system in Australia, so why not here? Oh, yeah, we punish single moms here by legislating them into poverty because we as a society still don't condone "illegitimate births," and much money can be made from adoption, so why help them when you can harvest them?

Kim

I think this is coercive to BOTH the first parents and the PAPs.

I think it's coercive to the first parents for the reasons mentioned by the previous posters -- sense of obligation to give the baby to the PAPs, creating a sense in the expectant mother that she really can't make it on her own if she must rely on others to pay her expenses. (they've covered them well, so I won't rehash)

However, I also think it's coercive to the PAPs. I honestly don't know *any* PAP who goes into adoption saying "I want a baby. I don't care whose and I don't care how." But when you've got so much riding on the outcome of someone's decision -- emotionally, financially -- it would be difficult to remain objective. I can imagine that once you start paying expenses to a specific expectant parent, you're invested in her decision â€” fast and deep.

I also think that PAPs get coerced into "offering" to pay the expenses. When we were looking into adoption we investigated foster care, domestic infant and international. We spoke to two domestic infant placement agencies when we were looking. Although both of them told us that any money we "volunteered to give" would be considered a gift (non-refundable), it really wasn't optional. If you weren't willing to pay at least *some* expenses, you should expect to wait a LONG time to be matched. And they ply you with hard-luck stories of "potential birthmothers" who have lost their jobs (or can't work) due to their pregnancies, etc. How could you let the mother of "your baby" suffer when she's going through this pregnancy "for you"? (I know I used a bunch of hated terms, and they're not my words which is why I put them in quotes)

Perhaps these were just two unethical agencies, but... This is one of the main reasons we decided domestic infant was not for us. They can call it a "voluntary gift" as much as they wanted, but it was clear that it was neither voluntary, nor a gift. It just felt very strong-armed...on both sides of the fence.

BOTZ

Yes it is.

Why? Because it 'entitles' the payer to the payee's child. Not actually, but as we all have heard (if we have been paying attention) SOME mothers say they felt 'obligated' to hand over the baby, even though they had changed their mind about wanting to, that's coercion. And, as we all have heard (if we have been paying attention) SOME mothers state that the agencies have gone so far as to tell them IT ALL HAD TO BE PAID BACK if they changed their mind, that's coercion.

As much as SOME PAPs and APs would like to think of it as a 'gift' -- and call it such -- if there are strings attached, that's no gift.

Pre-birth matching inherently creates a relationship of expectation and obligation -- paid expenses or not. Paying the mother's expenses just adds to that pressure. No mother should ever, EVER even be made aware of PAPs who "want" or "need" or "deserve" a child -- let alone specific ones. If a mother TRULY feels (at any time) that adoption will be the best choice for her child, an "adoption plan" can still be made. But, to be ethical, it MUST be without any involvement or knowledge of any PAPs and it MUST be fully revocable, at any time (until finalization) and for any reason, and it MUST not involve any signing of documents whatsoever until the mother has given birth, recovered physically from giving birth, flushed any and all birth/pain related medications from her system, and had all the time she wants/needs (if she wants and needs it) to see, hold, bond with, nurse, care for and love her baby.

ONLY after all of that -- without any presence or involvement of PAPs -- can I, personally, feel that an adoption is done by the mother's choice, and without coercion.

Yes, coercion has varying forms and intensities. ALL of them are WRONG when it comes to adoption. ALL OF THEM!

Nurse Autumn Intactivist NFP

I have a very short answer:

YES!

Freckle Face

Yes, I believe it is coercive. I am completely against.

Gershom

Hey! wierd, i just blogged about this last night! Heres my post:

So, I just read this article about a woman who scammed some potential adoptive parents out of what appears to be $800 + depending on the occasions of offense. This isnâ€™t the first time she has done this, in fact she has already served time for doing it, and offended this last time, shortly after her release of the first offense.

In no way am I advocating that what she did was right. I think she was wrong to do this. What Iâ€™m wondering however is why there arenâ€™t laws preventing paying anyones expenses pre-adoption. I donâ€™t think that PAPâ€™s should be allowed to pay any expecting parents expenses pre-delivery. This shoots out warning lights to me, all kinds of red flags are popping up in my mind when I read stories about this happening.

Iâ€™m surprised this doesnâ€™t happen more actually. Adoptions cannot be consented to pre-pregnancy in this country ( yet! ), and I see this as a manipulating tactic to try and secure the decision to surrender. I donâ€™t think allowing the paying of expenses pre-birth is ethical, and I think its coercive to the expecting parents, usually mother.

I am a huge advocate to not making an adoption plan while pregnant. I think that expecting parents should give parenting a try before they decide they wonâ€™t be good at it and relationships built in the interests of surrendering the expected child will only decrease the childâ€™s â€œchanceâ€ at being raised by his or her natural parents. Which is why I donâ€™t believe in these â€œpaying any pre-birth expensesâ€ laws. Imagine you are pregnant, and poor, and donâ€™t know if youâ€™ll be able to pay for your child, so you consider adoption, they help you with your bills, and then you have your child. You want to parent, but look at the relationship you have built with the PAPâ€™s and the agency and look at all of the money they have invested in your pregnancy with the understanding that you were considering adoption. Thats subtle coercion.

Agencies know this, that is why they will house and pay for mothers expenses. They know that most surrenders these days come from mothers in a financial crisis. That they wonâ€™t have the money to pay it back and will be even more financially burdened than they were before they walked into that agency, pregnant, and scared. Paying these expecting parents expenses almost seals the deal.

Vampires I tell ya, there are over 3000 of them networking in the United States alone. Most have cute little names affiliating themselves with love, angels, hearts, even tedi bears but behind the cute names are years and millions of dollars that have gone into figuring out how to secure an adoption to make a few thousand dollars off of it. Its no secret that the adoption industry rakes in multiple billions annually. Non profits are making quite a profit. Pre-paid living expenses, pre-birth relationships with potential adoptive parents and agencies are doing a disservice to the preservation of family, to the right of the child to be raised by his or her natural parent/s.

The UNICEF has a great â€œRights overviewâ€ on the Convention of the Rights of the Child and this is a quote from it:

"Article 7 (Registration, name, nationality, care): All children have the right to a legally registered name, officially recognised by the government. Children have the right to a nationality (to belong to a country). Children also have the right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by their parents.
Article 8 (Preservation of identity): Children have the right to an identity â€“ an official record of who they are. Governments should respect childrenâ€™s right to a name, a nationality and family ties.
Article 9 (Separation from parents): Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child."

In conclusion to that, Iâ€™d like to note how far away the US adoption industry is running from the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Iâ€™d also like to ask anyone who reads this, what does that say about adoption in reference to the best interests of the child?

opedial

I think when any payment exchanges hands, for anything, then it is coercive but also sets the a-parents up for a whole lot of hurt should the parent change her mind, or which she has the right to do.

When we adopted our three children (from foster care) I certainly sent gift baskets after the fact to the foster mothers, and am meeting the other mother in December, to get family history, heritage etc. but that is it.

If someone approached me about a baby (we aren't adopting again, and absolutely lvoe my children, but sometimes I do grieve never getting an opportunity to parent a newborn), and forwahtever reason we decided to go for it, I would not in a million years pay for expenses (live in Canada so they are paid anyway) but would never exchange money because it would feel like I was buying said child.

BPD Wife

YES!

casttostrangers

Yep

Independ"ant"

Yes its coercive and it happens alot.

In Guate..the thing to do was to give gifts to the attorney's.

Gershom: I read your post and I believe it sums up how the US caters to the special interest groups with lobbyists paying off politicians. FUBAR. Our legal system is certainly not in agreement with Unicef who puts the child's best interest ahead of any group.

monkeykitty83

I think that when the assumed end result is that the person who paid will adopt the baby of the person who was paid for, it is coercive, yes.

I don't think it's necessarily INTENTIONALLY coercive-- I would think that most prospective adoptive parents see it as doing something kind and helpful for the expectant mother. I'm not saying they're purposely doing something unethical, because in the majority of cases they have the best of intentions.

However, I think it definitely puts the expectant mother in a situation where she'd have a very difficult time if she decided to parent. She may feel she owes something to the people who paid her living expenses. She may worry if she decides to keep her baby, they'll accuse her of fraud (it isn't fraud-- you can't sell infants legally, and living expenses are considered a gift in the eyes of the law, not payment for services rendered-- but she may not know that.) Ultimately, having her living expenses paid may influence her to place her baby, when she can and should parent.

I'm not a supporter of pre-birth adoptive matches, but if one has already happened, or if the mother is considering placing with someone she knows... if prospective adoptive parents really want to help the expectant mother in this way, they should help her get welfare and Medicaid, help her sign up for WIC, and if necessary help her get into state-subsidized housing. That way her needs are provided for, but she doesn't have a sense of "owing" the prospective adoptive parents-- her needs were provided for by the state. That way no sense of indebtedness is clouding her choice.

Serenity71

By our law (Australian) it is considered unethical and it opens the doors to coercive. I signed legal documents stating NO money was exchanged in the process of the adoption. That's how strongly that idea of money being involved on any level is opposed to in our legal system in the high courts. (I only paid for the court proceeding costs, and our own assessments.)

I think having profits involved can open the way for unethical practices to happen in adoption.

red&sassy

Absolutely. Don't forget, many times the lawyer represents both parties during the adoption. Talk about lack of ethics.....

Indian-vision

We were told by our agency and our lawyer to pay no expenses except the expectant mothers hospital fees. Buy no gifts.Speak to the expectant mother unless a meeting of mutual consent is set up for a specific reason. Not be at the hospital during the time of delievery. The agency rep was not there during delivery or after. They came 1 day later after she (birth mother) phoned them.

All of the above was advised as coercive and could be contested at a later date.

We never did any of those

The prospective birth mother was not going to be asked to sign any papers in the hospital as she could be under influence of medicines. She would be given a few days with the baby. She could take the baby home.She could nurse her baby and was taken to her. She refused. In her society it was not acceptable to place a child for adoption and she did not want to bring the baby home.
We were categorcally told that she could change her mind for a certain period so don't involve your family and throw a party till she is certain of her decision.

. Our adoption was ethical and legal.

littleJaina

This isn't really such an easy question. I can see how accepting large monetary gifts from the PAPs may make some mothers feel like they "owe" them a baby. Really, that shouldn't stop any mother who wants to raise her child, but it can place an heavy burden on a mother's heart if she backs out of the adotpion.

On the other hand, there are sometimes situations in pregnancy that result in either increased expenses or decreased income. In these situations, not having the money available might affect the health of the baby, or even make a mother consider other, more drastic, measures due to financial hardship. That is certainly not something that we as a society should encourage.

Perhaps it would be better if agencies simply managed a central fund. I suppose this could only be done by non-profit agencies, as I'm not sure about the logistics of doing it in a for profit agency. Every adoption with them would require a certain amount of money to go into the "gift fund" and this money then could be used to pay reasonable expenses for the adoptive mothers. Of course, this means some PAPs would be paying more than the expenses actually were for their child, and others less. (For instance, parents who adopted a child born to a mother who had to stop working from pregnancy complications in her 7th month would end up paying much less than the actual living expenses would have been. But parents who adopted a child from a mother went into labor at work would end up paying more.)

If it is paid into a fund, it will (hopefully) significantly reduce the coercive "obligation" factor. It's FAR easier to say "oh well" when you can't put a face to the money you received. It was just general "company money" to be used for women in "crisis pregnancies". (In fact, it should even be labled as such. "You want to adopt from our agency. Fine. You must make an upfront donation of $2500 to the trust set up to assist with crisis pregnancies")

I know that doesn't remove all the problems, but I think it would be a much better balance than what is achieved with one on one expense paying. Of course, it would be wonderful if all pregnant women an mothers were able to magically be financially secure, but that's just not going to happen. Australia might be able to do it, but they are far more socialistic than the US and have many other programs to. The US just doesn't work that way. If you want that, you're talking about far more than just a shift in adoption rules. You're talking about a major paradigm shift in the culture of the country, and that just isn't going to happen over night.

what the french toast?

i think that if it is medical then its okay, but birth parents should never just ask for money flat out... if the adoptive parent sees that the birh parents are in need and offeres money or help i think thats okay. i mean they are giving then the gift of a child...

cmc

Not always, it depends how it is done. Our agency was very clear with us that any money we gave was a gift, and the natural mom was not obligated to anything, and could change her mind. I think they were very ethical, although I realize this is not always the case. In our case the amount of money we gave was not significant. Our daughter's mom was employed, had a home etc, so it was only to help with minimal expenses. I don't think it was a factor in her decision to go through with the adoption.

I don't think paying expenses should be illegal, but it should be restricted to reasonable things (not just cash) and it shouldn't be excessive. Also I think it should all be reported in the adoption paperwork that goes to the courts. One shortcoming that I can see in our case is that the amount listed on the adoption paperwork was as reported by us. There were no checks and balances to make sure what we reported was accurate (it was). There should be more formal record keeping to keep people honest. Also probably some basic disclosure you sign (and the natural mom signs) that says everyone realizes the money is a gift and does not obligate the natural mom to relinquish.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: