Adoption Agencies and the Economy...during the recession

While we are talking about marketing adoption...a few weeks ago I came across a story about an agency that was reporting there were more children available than there were waiting parents, and the turn-about was credited to the economy. Then I came across a story about how more women are choosing adoption rather than raising them on their own, in this economy, which validates the first story. (There is also an uptick in abortions in hard times, but that's another issue. As is the increase in sales of condoms during recessions. We might not want to reproduce, but testosterone apparently suffers no downtown.) From USA Today:

"The economy has made them take a second look at adoption," says Scott Mars of American Adoptions, a private agency in Overland Park, Kan. In the past year, he's seen a 10% to 12% increase in women inquiring about placing a child for adoption and a 7% to 10% increase in actual placements, as strong demand for healthy infants continues to outstrip the supply.

"We've seen a dramatic increase in girls calling us from the hospital," says Joseph Sica of Adoption By Shepherd Care, an agency in Hollywood, Fla. He says they expect to get help to raise their children, so they wait, but after they give birth and no help arrives, they call. He had 14 such adoptions in 2008, up from 11 in 2007 and four in 2006. "Finances are one of the major reasons women feel compelled to place their children for adoption," says Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a research group.

 Elsewhere I read that Adoption Associates, an agency in Jenison, Michigan had trouble paying its bills and asked families to cough up an extra $2,500 per family if they wished the agency to not go under. Since agencies are prohibited by law from soliciting funds while an adoption is pending, the state took its license away, but the agency has since gotten it back. From Woodtv.com in Grand Rapids:

 Amy Rivera is one parent who is skeptical. She says days before she was to bring her daughter  home, the agency told her she had to cough up $6,000 more dollars.

"At that point, you do anything to bring your baby home," she said. Rivera credits the agency for connecting her with her little girl but the adoption process left her cold.

"I don't feel they were straightforward with the process, what the cost would be, how much we'd have to invest. I feel like we were deceived when it came to how much we paid, overall." Private adoptions can cost anywhere between $16,000 - $32,000. Adoption Asssociates says 90 percent of their families agreed to pay the fees.

The comments below the story are not kind about the agency. I happen to know that part of Michigan, and it is a poor area indeed, and not at all heavily populated. I'll hazard an informed guess here, and suggest that their clientele of adoptive parents come from all over the state, and especially more affluent areas, making this yet another examples of how poor women are the carriers of babies for the wealthy, the moderately well off, or simply, the better off then the natural/birth/first mother.

What do I think? I'm sad about this turn of events because no matter how sugar-coated is the "happy" transfer of the baby from natural mother to adoptive (to the adults involved), many of those mothers, the natural mothers, will end up sad and dealing with the downs and downs of giving up a child, no matter how they understand the circumstances of the time led to that choice. Some of them one day will end up writing out their stories at blogs like this one.

Since it is poor women we are talking about, certainly many of them will feel relief at not having to provide and care for a child they feel they cannot. But that does not mean they will not grieve for the lost child. President Obama has said in the past that he wanted women to be able to raise their children, and I fervently hope that he is able to deliver that promise one day when we get through this recession and health-care commotion and conflagration.

We are sometimes asked by those who comment if we are for or against all adoptions. I never answer the question directly because there is no one answer. For some children, some sort of  "adoption" is necessary, and will always be.

But are we unilaterally against all closed adoptions, from anywhere, any place? You bet we are. Are we opposed to the attitude that some Christian agencies and religious organizations support, that by adopting from heathen countries, they are saving the children and bringing them to the true faith?* You bet we are. Do we think that mothers ought to be given more aid so ever more of them keep their babies? You bet we do. Do we think that giving up a child is a life-changing event, not in the best long-term psychological interests of the mother? You bet we do. Are we against the attitude that poor children from poor counties are universally better off being adopted by rich Americans? You bet we are.--lorraine
__________________
If you want to have your hair curl in righteous outrage, see Osolomama's excellent post on the Christian push to adoption: Adoption: When Satan Doesn't Want You To.