Have you ever??

I would think that is fine. The money is there to help support the kids. If say this were a divorce situation, I'm sure you'd have no problem adding Child support payments as income. They expect you to add any child support, alimony etc. payments in your taxes or if you try and ask for services from the state...so why not use it to help get you a better loan rate...to help provide a better roof over your childs head.

What if the child is removed--that possibility always exists. The mortgage company is not concerned about that? Child support is stable in that the child eligible until age 18, correct? Hope it works out-Victorian houses are so beautiful!

Since she says adoption subsidy, I'm thinking she means that this child is legally hers, forever. If so, I can't see a problem using it as "income" - yes, the money if for the child - and that includes providing them with a place to live. I sincerely think people need to get past that little hurdle of "the money is for the kids" and remember that everything we do - mortgage, utilities, maintenance on our vehicles, insurance on our home - is a PART of that. It is not money "just" for food, clothes and toys that go directly to the child, personally.

thanks for your replies, I feel better now. Stevenstwin: that is what my DH is always telling me, it's not just for food and toys, it is for everything.

This is totally off subject (kind of) but my foster care stipend was considered as "income" to qualify me for a mortgage and the house I currently rent.... When I reapply for my mortgage I plan to also include my adoption subsidy as "income".....

Doesn't this confirm what is already being questioned? Adoption has become a dirty business and is now a viable business. It is like baby trafficking done American style. On the books, legal and yet packing the same punch as international baby trafficking.

chynnal, I don't understand what you are saying. What does this have to do with including a subsidy as part of an income. To the OP, income is income and that subsidy is to provide a home for your child too. Nothing wrong with claiming it as income. EZ

Would you receive a subsidy if this were your biological child? The answer is no. So why then do we pay people to adopt? I am honestly not criticizing any PEOPLE on here. I believe from all that I have read that most on here are very good people supporting & loving people. But, understand that I am coming from the flip side of adoption. I have recently become a proactive advocate of reform. All I am saying is that when you PAY someone for taking a child/children those, of which there are many, that aren't good people abuse the system. Unfortunately, reforms would have to be put in place where the % of abusers were no longer able to abuse as there would be no gain. This would clearly mean that someone like you, whom is a good person, would suffer the reform results. I don't know how much you have delved into Foster-Care & Adoption not only in this country, but in countries like China, Romania, Thailand, etc. But, I have witnessed it in person. Babies have become a dirty business and it attracts dirty people, unfortunately. If you don't get a subsidy for a natural child then why would you receive for an adopted child. I just don't understand it.

If I am understanding correctly the OP is getting a subsidy because she adopted through fostercare, a child who was hard to place and had some medical or emotional needs that require extra attention and $$$ to care for and treat. The subsidy amount is based on the needs and expenses of that particular child, because of those special needs and is decided by the courts. It's one thing to give birth to a child with special needs and deal with what life gave you. It's another thing to willingly accept someone elses child into your family that has special needs. Just as "child support" in a divorce situation would be added into their total earnings for that year a subsidy for adoptive parents of special needs children are also included in their yearly earnings.

The difference to my mind is that the adoptive parents of children from Foster Care (there is no adoption subsidy for any other type of adoption), are inheriting a variety of issues that they had zero control over and zero responsibility for (such as abuse, neglect, drug exposure, etc - the list is quite long). For a natural born child, the parents have a large measure of responsibility and control, from conception onward, over that child's development and experiences that they did not have for an adopted child. The impacts of events such as sexual abuse, neglect, drug/alcohol exposure, separation from parents, years in foster care, etc, are all profound, and a great deal of investment (emotional, physical, financial, etc) is required to take them on. While training and education are provided and are helpful, the provision of health care (medicaid) and financial assistance is very important. I can say that, from my own experience with adopting a family of 4 kids from foster care, the assistance does not nearly cover all of the financial burdens that we have had in order to help our children - for example, we've had all 4 in counseling for years (not all of it covered), multiple hospitalizations for emotional issues/traumas for 3 out of my 4 kids, counseling for my husband and I as a couple (as dealing with traumatised kids can -surprise- be very difficult & traumatizing to the Aparents!). Not one of mine or my husbands extended families have incurred anywhere near the medical expenses that we have borne, even with the financial help. (and yes, some of them do have children with their own emotional issues, one with a severe trauma).

Children adopted from foster care, sadly come with a plethora of damage that requires more therapies, medical and physcological care than a natural born child who has not experiences such horrific living at the hands of their bioparents as these adopted ones. Families who adopt such could never afford such treatments without some type of subsidy. Let's be realistic here, not every family is wealthy enough to afford such expenses and it isn't like there are lines of wealthy people waiting to adopt from foster care. Adoption subsidy is NOT paying someone to adopt these children. It is a subsidy to help get these children the care and treatment that they need. Most families that do adopt from foster care and recieve subsidy can attest that the subsidy doesn't even come close to what the actual costs are. Subsidy helps but it isn't as though it could be considered "pay". to insinuate that is truly laughable. It barely covers the need and no one is getting rich off adoption subsidy. Sometimes my jaw hits the floor when I hear people suggest that money people recieved for foster care or adoption subsidy is such large amount or like some kind of income. We all know how much it costs to raise a child and these monies don't even come close. EZ

So if you claim the Subsidy as income to get a loan or mortage or whatever, don't you have to claim it on your taxes as income? If not how do you justify claiming it as income for one but not the other? We were told NEVER to include the subsidies received as income, for two reasons: 1) they are tax free and 2)because if we were ever audited for taxes, loans, or sued this money could be seized.

I don't really see how using your subsidy to meet your family's (including adopted child) needs is at all unethical. All over our country fathers and mother's pay their ex-spouses to take care of the kids... that's not unethical, in fact quite the opposite, how outstanding that a system is in place to make sure children who's parent's divorce are well cared for. How is it different if we are raising a child who would otherwise be not just without one parent but without two parents?

In our area your child has to have educational or developmental issues in order to qualify for subsidies... which may have been caused by the situation of what they were biologically born into or even trama from the situation of being taken from the home... So, yeah, I don't see subsidies as a reason to adopt, or families who get subsidies as money hungry, etc (as other writers wrote) so much as blessed to have extra help with taking care of the child. And, realistically... for as many wealthy tax breaks and poverty stricken welfare folks, why shouldn't someone who has a child with difficulties be able to get assistance?!