parent age & placement

State (CPS) Agencies seem to be pickier. With the number of children out there, you would think they would be more flexible. The general rule of thumb is when the kid is 20, the parent sould be 60 or less.

My DW and I have the same age differential as you and your DH.

I was 39 (DW 49) when our first was placed with us. I was 43 (DW 53) when our second was placed with us. We are looking for a third.

Our Agency (Private) is not having issue with us. I know some would. I have heard of some that are totally against anyone over 40.

The other thing working against you is the prospective child's age. There are few in State custody that are under the age of 3. When they are, most are in Foster care with plan for being reunited with thier family. Not many infants and toddlers are adopted out of State Custody (Rare - Not impossible). So make sure your are realistic in your expectations.

What a shame that some state depts are so stupidly picky!!!! Shame on them!!!! My sister (just turned 57, mother and grandmother), and her dh (56 and father/grandfather), were just placed with two little ones----one under 12months, the other just under 2yrs. They are still foster placements....but if they were to become adoptable (which is always a possiblity)....they would be approved to adopt them. The state system is sooo antiquated.....you'd think they'd learn!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.... Sincerely, Linny

I think that it depends on the state and county you live in as to if your age matters. We are "older" I'm 38 and my DH is 48, but we "look" younger. We had a foster to adopt placement of a 12 month old boy, he is now placed with his paternal grandpaernts who are older then us. We get lots of foster calls for children birth to 4. We live in such a large metropolitan county that they don't worry about how old you are just if you have room for another child. We are taking a break from foster care until the school year is over, as I am a teacher. We are trying to for a straight adoption placement for under 3 or a siblng group of 2. If you are flexable in age, race or issuses you are willing to deal with you will have a better chance of finding a child that will thrive in your home. We are willing to take medically fragille children. Good luck and I think your cw is more uncomfortable with your age then the cw's that will be calling about placements. :cheer: :fish:

I've seen the 40 year max age differential quoted before as well. On the other hand, they seem to have no concerns about placing young children with grandparents even though the age differentials could be 50 years or more. Oddly enough, some of the constraints they place seem almost deliberately designed to make kids languish in foster care. If, for example, they're looking for parents under 40 with extensive experience caring for special needs teens, they're probably going to be waiting quite a while.

I was placed with my son straight from the hospital when I was 55. He is now 19 months and adoption will be finalized next month. I am also single. I think age is an arbitrary distinction if there are babies that need homes. A woman I work with who is about 15 years younger than me adopted her infant son six years ago, but she has some pretty consistent medical problems and her husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer. I hardly ever even catch a cold and am in great shape. My mother who is in her eighties works out in a weight training class 3x a week, and is not on a single prescription medication (or OTC for that matter). Point is, if age is going to be a criterion, why not health?

Two thoughts: 1) Some types of prostate cancer are so slow-growing that it's more common to die with it than from it. The only treatment is just monitoring it, so that may not be a significant health concern. 2) Health is part of the criteria. Our state requires only a statement of good health from the adoptive parents (some conditions require an exam), other states require an exam and a physician sign-off. Regardless, your point is well taken - health is more important than age. I think age is a valid consideration in the sense that someone who's 60 has a much higher risk of not seeing a new baby's 20th birthday, all other things being equal. I think it's also somewhat valid to consider a big age gap as a factor regardless of health because of typical levels of activity, interests, and the inevitable "generation gap" in attitudes about all sorts of things. However, setting arbitrary cut-offs is, in my opinion, just not a good idea. I know people who are quite young chronologically, but not as youthful as people twice their age in terms of health, fitness, or attitude.