Advertisements
Advertisements
According to one magazine I read, only 29% of adoptive parents experience a failed match before a successful adoption. While that sounds way too high to me, it also indicates the odds are in our favor of not having a failed match, but it seems like almost everyone on this board has had at least one. I'd like to hear from people who haven't, to find out what their situation was like and why they think the match didn't fail. I'd also like to hear from those of you that did have failed matches and why you think that match did fail. Thanks.
DeafSiren
We can try as hard as we can to protect ourselves, lower the risk, be safe, but the truth is--there is no guarantee. Just as with parents who give birth, there is no promise that your child will be happy, healthy, etc. Nothing is certain no matter how your family is formed. That's my feeling, anyway.
This is so perfect. I just don't think there is any way to "prevent" failed matches, and personally don't know if I would want to. It is sad to have a child be placed in aparents arms then taken away a day later, I will admit. But it's even sadder for the birthmom to live with years and years of complete and utter regret. I think that the birthmom DOES have the first say in her child (in most cases, except where abuse, drugs, etc take place). I think that a lot of agencies throw together aparents and expectant parents without a word of couseling, or maybe a teeeny bit, so noone knows what to expect. Expectant Parents don't know the immense amount of pain/grief/suffering and attachment they will have until after the baby is born.
So? My opinion on how to keep failed matches down? COUNSELING FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED!!!!!! Tell the expectant parents that they CAN parent if they want and what is available, counsel them to parent FIRST, then adoption. Don't judge a birthmom by when to match them by where she is at in her pregnancy, but by where she is in her counseling. Tell the parents of the immense grief and suffering that will happen...have unbiased support for them every step of the way.
I also think that birthmom expenses should NOT be given directly from aparents. I think each agency should have a fee with the expenses of all parents considered and the aparents pay a set fee that is due at placement. This way, if the match fails the aparents are not out thousands and thousands. I do not think that aparent should just be "out" the money. That is ridiculous. I might even say the birthmom should be liable for some of it, if she isn't, why are the aparents expected to pay it? I do NOT believe expenses should EVER be over 5,000. MAX. I think it is outrageous that expenses would be 20,000 (and i have SEEN this at agencies!!). I think that they need to redo the system regarding the laws with paying birthmom expenses. It gets ridiculous. The agency charges enough to cover average expenses so it should be thier responsibility, not the aparents. Whew...i feel better!! Sorry for the rant, i needed to vent!! Sorr about hijacking your threads! :)
Natalie
Advertisements
Honestly, if you consider a failed match as described above (any match that doesn't work out), I really think it would be much higher than 29%. Even if you say a failed match consists of the pbmom deciding to parent after the baby is born, I still question if that percentage is as LOW as 29%. Our agency says that half of all the matches they have fail (and this is with considerable amounts of counseling and guidance for all involved), so that is a 50% failure rate. I just don't know if there is anything that increases your chances of not having a failed match. We were matched with pbparents after the baby was born and were set to bring her home...until some info that the bparents hadn't been very honest about prior to the match came into light and we backed out of the situation. Seemed like a "sure thing", they ended up having to work with another family to place her, but it was still a failed match for us.
HBV
-when the right match comes along, you will know it and you will find yourself capable of a lot more than you think you can handle right now.
You are so right. Our first match failed but my heart knew she would not place so I really was not hurt when she decided to parent. With our DD I knew in my heart that she would place, and she did. I never had a doubt, I knew that she was meant to be mine and she is.
Anna
icunurse
Honestly, if you consider a failed match as described above (any match that doesn't work out), I really think it would be much higher than 29%. Even if you say a failed match consists of the pbmom deciding to parent after the baby is born, I still question if that percentage is as LOW as 29%. Our agency says that half of all the matches they have fail (and this is with considerable amounts of counseling and guidance for all involved), so that is a 50% failure rate.
I think this is closer to th real number. I had heard the rate of disruptions (where the baby is at home) s about 8%. Now some agencies only do matches very late in the pg after months of counseling and some of those have VERY low failed match rates. I know one agency here that has a maternity home where the girls get tons of counseling and support. If at anytime they even THINK they MIGHT want to parent they are moved to the other wing of the home where they are surrounded byt people who will help them parent. The ones who stay in the wing for women who are going to place are only allowed to choose profiles in the last eight weeks. That being said I suspect that very early mathes are more likely to fail as well as verym last minute ones where in both cases the parents have not really had a chance to think about it and look at many other options.
lisa
I agree with the number, our agency says that only one out of every four women decide to place that come in there. But, that is before they are matched and have been in counseling. This is why they wait so long in thier counseling until they "match" a couple to a expectant parent.
Natalie
Advertisements
The top two, A1 most important?
Find an ethical agency. EDITED TO REMOVE RETAIL WEBSITE.
Work with an expectant couple who are both comitted to adoption.
As mentioned, lots of counseling is important, specifically options counseling. You want an agency who will unearth every possible means for this couple to raise their child. This will be done by an ethical agency long before any discussion of adoption is ever made.
Because of this, they tend to have higher fees, they put a lot of time and energy into helping pregant couples parent rather than plan an adoption, but this means that far fewer are likely to change their minds after the birth, because they already know what their options are.
Do not accept any kind of at risk placement. Or only accept a level/kind of risk you're willing and able to tolerate.
Be honest, open, and up front at all times in the adoption situation.
Look at birthparents as an important part of the family and an asset. Those open to open adoption usually adopt faster, with fewer disruptions. Those who truly admire, care for, and respect the birthparents and truly want (not accept, want) an open adoption because of that relationship adopt faster still.
Make sure each party has their own legal representation. Make sure the attorney is supportive of the parents parenting and is not subtling coercing them.
Lastly, if anywhere down the road you have the slightest hint that the birthparents want the baby back, just give the baby back. An early disruption is much less traumatic for everyone involved than a later one.
Runyan2002
This is so perfect. I just don't think there is any way to "prevent" failed matches, and personally don't know if I would want to. It is sad to have a child be placed in aparents arms then taken away a day later, I will admit. But it's even sadder for the birthmom to live with years and years of complete and utter regret. I think that the birthmom DOES have the first say in her child (in most cases, except where abuse, drugs, etc take place). I think that a lot of agencies throw together aparents and expectant parents without a word of couseling, or maybe a teeeny bit, so noone knows what to expect. Expectant Parents don't know the immense amount of pain/grief/suffering and attachment they will have until after the baby is born.
So? My opinion on how to keep failed matches down? COUNSELING FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED!!!!!! Tell the expectant parents that they CAN parent if they want and what is available, counsel them to parent FIRST, then adoption. Don't judge a birthmom by when to match them by where she is at in her pregnancy, but by where she is in her counseling. Tell the parents of the immense grief and suffering that will happen...have unbiased support for them every step of the way.
I also think that birthmom expenses should NOT be given directly from aparents. I think each agency should have a fee with the expenses of all parents considered and the aparents pay a set fee that is due at placement. This way, if the match fails the aparents are not out thousands and thousands. I do not think that aparent should just be "out" the money. That is ridiculous. I might even say the birthmom should be liable for some of it, if she isn't, why are the aparents expected to pay it? I do NOT believe expenses should EVER be over 5,000. MAX. I think it is outrageous that expenses would be 20,000 (and i have SEEN this at agencies!!). I think that they need to redo the system regarding the laws with paying birthmom expenses. It gets ridiculous. The agency charges enough to cover average expenses so it should be thier responsibility, not the aparents. Whew...i feel better!! Sorry for the rant, i needed to vent!! Sorr about hijacking your threads! :)
Natalie
I totally agree with this - I'd much rather have a fail match than have my child's birthmother regret her decision all her life.
About living expenses, I just wish there were some laws where, if the birthmom decides to parent, she would owe the money back. I think you were right to mention this, because it's my main worry about having a fail match personally.
I agree that it stinks to pay living expenses and then have her change her mind and you lose the funds. However, a lot of birth moms are placing their children because they feel they cannot provide for them they way they want to. (Whether this is physically, emotionally, or financially.) I do not ever want a woman to feel she has to place the child when she does not want to because she cannot come up with $3000 to pay back the living expenses. Ultimately I want her to make the best decision for her. I think the amount they receive prior to birth should be restricted somewhat and I think the agencies should cover some of this. However, I don't ever want a birth mom or potential birth mom to feel she has to place because she received some money.
1 Liked
 likes this.
I agree with what you are all saying. I think it is a fine line either way and it is really up to an agency to step it up on this one. I don't want a birthmom to have to pay all back and place her baby because she doesn't have the money, but on the same hand I am not sure why adoptive parents have to pay either. Most of us don't have a lot of money laying around either (i mean we have to pay the THOUSANDS of dollars to adopt). So i'm not sure what the answer would be. But I'm not sure that aparents should even be asked to pay this money, rent, food, etc. People say that you would pay these if you had a baby, but not really, we are still paying for OUR maternity leave....I don't know WHAT the answer is really... I think maybe that the agency should take all this into account when deciding their fees they charge adoptive parents and aparents just pay a certain set fee. In no way do I think the aparents should pay for the birth medical expenses if the bparents decide to parent. I don't think this is right. BUT i'm sure there are others who will strongly disagree here also with that. I think medical should always be paid with they place, and MAYBE some of thier rent to be paid if they can't work, but 10,000 for expenses is just nuts....
Of course this is all my little opinion and means little...I think it is all personal opinion, comfort level, and financial means. I personally chose an agency that has set, income based fees, that are paid at placement (except for the homestudy fees). I think it's very important that you take a lot of time and choose the right agency for you and your family. RESEARCH!!!
My two cents...
Natalie
Advertisements
I definitely agree, as my agency asks us our comfort level with living expenses, and won't match us with anyone above that - that, plus they won't let you pay living expenses for more than 3 months, to cover the time when the birthmother can't work because of the pregnancy (although I see how it could be more with a high risk pregnancy).
I definitely see the risk of the birthmother placing just because she can't pay the $3000 back, but frankly, I just don't find it fair for other people to pay her living expenses if she keeps the baby in the end. I guess it's another reason why I think that when the birthmother has doubts (which I totally understand), there should be no match, ie no living expenses paid, before the birth. And even then, if she couldn't save those $3000 while someone else paid for her living expenses, I'm not sure she could afford the minimum necessities a baby requires, and maybe then it wouldn't be best if she parented the child. Just my opinion though.
In nearly every state I know of expenses are 1) not allowed 2) allowed but limited and 3) considered a gift so there is nowhere where you can recoup from the birth family. I think they are a very slippery slope. I am not for outlawing them entirely as some good people who are in real trouble need them and the help available from the state is just not enough or unavailable BUT on the other hand I think it can be coercive AND that is assuming the recipent has goodm intentions. Too often people recieving high expenses don't have good intentions but becaue they are a gift there is no legal recourse. i would rather find local resources to solve the immediate problem and THEN allow the expectent parents to make decision not based on the immediate crisis. I just don't think that is right.
lisa
This has turned to an interesting discussion. Does anyone know, historically, when and how aparents paying for pbparents' living expenses started? I suspect (but I really don't know) that it started with independent/private adoptions and/or possibly unscrupulous lawyers telling aparents "if you fork out more money, you'll get a baby sooner" or something like that. Sort of bribing pbirthparents into placing . . . possibly??
Don't get all excited--I'm not saying all independent/private adoptions or lawyers are bad or unscrupulous, etc. I'm just saying it is possible that the practice of paying bparent expenses started with those kinds of people. Then, it was found to be very helpful for pbirthparents, and aparents were willing in order to improve the health and situation of the mother (thus maybe prevent problems with the unborn child), and it just continued onward and eventually spread to agencies. Generally, I would hope, agencies (and facilitators, etc.) are assessing if the pbparents have a genuine need before awarding living expenses and also giving what they actually need and not just a set amount. I know there are scammers out there, but I truly hope that they are in the minority.
I agree, that it would be so much nicer to have some kind of standard--at least a nationwide maximum or basic standard and the individual states could cater it to themselves as much as they wanted. It's murky and complex legal ground--and fascinating to me.
L.
I might even go further and agree that they just not be allowed. I think that agencies should help pregnant women out. Adoption or not. They are the ones that need to get with it. When did adoption become such a business empire and not a charity? Because, in reality, it is not some "goods" you are "purchasing" but a child. I personally would like to see all agencies have a SET income based fee. Never going over 25,000. Caucasian or not. There is a BIG national agency that quotes 45,000 for caucasian. 45,000!?!? Yeah right. I understand about costing of advertising and all that, and there could be some fluctuation. But there has to be a way that the most of us can afford it with minimal risk. 18,000 - 25,000 is a LOT but considering that you wouldn't be out anything if the parent changes her mind, you don't pay extra living expenses, and it is due at PLACEMENT I think most of us would be thrilled. I know I was (that is why we are using the agency we are using). I think that if agencies were the ones that could be losing out money, they would be much tighter on thier restrictions of handing it out, not saying all are like this, but there is a LOT out there that do. I like the idea of going in front of a judge to get expenses ok'ed.....
Anyways, just a thought. I'm sorry if we are hijacking the thread!!
Natalie
This is very interesting and I am looking forward to hearing what other's opinions are on this!!
Advertisements
Expenses did become a common part of adoption when independent adoptions became possible. Initially it was not about incentive it was purely practical, without and agency there was not agency support and our governement provides precious little support to expectent parents in crisis so adoptive parents had to step in. I can't say that all expense should be illegal because there are not enough resources for expectant parents outside of agencies and the whole reason that independent adoption became so common was the glacial speed with which agenices responded to the changing needs of expectant and adoptive parents. I do believe that they should be limited and there should be strict oversight. You know in some state it is a complete free for all with no limit on expenses and I know of at least two law firms who relocate expectant families to those states in order to charge the high expenses. I am talking tens of thousands of dollars. There is a big difference in medical expenses and a few reasonable living expenses and "life styles of the rich and famous" with beach front luxury apartments.
lisa
About living expenses, I just wish there were some laws where, if the birthmom decides to parent, she would owe the money back. I think you were right to mention this, because it's my main worry about having a fail match personally.[/QUOTE]
You don't see this as being just the teensiest bit coercive?
After all, if the expectant parent (birthmother's are women who have actually relinquished a child for adoption, BTW) could afford those expenses, likely she would not have been considering adoption in the first place, and if via an ethical agency, the agency would not have supported payment of expenses.
Then the birthparent is put in the position of paying back money (that she is legally not obligated to repay in any state for precisely this reason) because she chose to parent her child. Don't you think that many women would then decide they had to place against their wishes? I can tell you, historically, women who are in this position (or believe they are) say the answer is yes.
A better answer for all involved is welfare reform that actually helps a family "graduate" from welfare fully able to be fully self-supporting, and provides for a pregnant woman to have safe housing, full medical care, and healthy food during her pregnancy. Some agencies charge higher fees and then support the mother themselves, so the money is not coming from the adoptive parents directly.