An adoptive parent disclosed that she receives $4,000 per month in adoption subsidies for 3 children. These children do not have any physical or intellectual disabilities. They do not have any known medical conditions.
The fact is that states can pay not only foster parents but adoptive parents as much as $4,000 per month for 3 children. Homeless parents are often working one or more jobs and still can’t find affordable, income-based housing. How is this fair ?
Often adoptive parents are the first ones to say that the natural parents need to be able to provide for their kids “on their own”.
How can people not see why and how this is problematic and how morally and ethically wrong this is. Some even justify this as a fair situation. Something is terribly wrong in our society that we do not give full support to struggling families but instead take their children away from them and pay complete strangers to care for them.
I didn’t even know adoption subsidies were a thing.
And to be clear, not EVERY adoption qualifies and it varies by state law. Often, there does have to be some kind of ‘special needs’, though that is a broad category that includes sibling groups, children over 6 years, minorities as well as physical or mental disabilities.
Sadly, many of the original parents who surrender children for adoption do so because they believe not having enough money defines them as not being good enough to parent a child.
Here is one story to highlight the unfairness –
There was a couple who adopted a sibling group. This family makes a 6 figure income. The couple was childless for 14 years. All of the adopted children received Medicaid, the family received a substantial subsidy, and all of the children were eligible to attend a public university of their choosing free for 4 years.
The kids never had to do “without” the basics growing up (though they did not have their biological mom which is always a significant loss). All of the children are now adults.
The husband does very very well in his profession. The couple never actually “needed” a dime of assistance nor did they ever have to pay for healthcare for the children. To their credit, the couple did make trusts for the children.
It is just hard to understand why a sibling group is automatically considered “special needs” . Why is this kind of financial support not “income based”, like every natural parent would be faced with ?
And this is basically political. Universal health care, living wage, other so-called “socialist” policies would address all these issues struggling families face. Hard core capitalist each have their own version of America. No one would ever need to remove children from parents simply for poverty. Not doing this creates an insanely expensive, ineffective child welfare system, and a lot of suffering. And again, this is a voting issue.