Adoption Subsidy Paperwork

I'm not in TX, but when we did ours what I learned was that, in addition to whatever the standard subsidy is and Medicaid, they would only commit to providing for needs the child came with, current needs, and any needs, known or unknown arising out of congential/genetic conditions, the original abuse and neglect, and having been in foster care. That meant making a list of known conditions--dx, findings of SA, whatever, etc. So, for example, they would not commit specifically to RTC if needed, but did commit generally to providing for conditions arising from a genetic predisposition to MI. Medicaid does not cover everything in every state and can change with every legislative session. You want some kind of backup out of state funds if Medicaid stops providing something critical. Private insurance, that is, employer provided insurance, is often woefully inadequate to the medical, mental, and emotional health needs of these kids. I don't think any, for example, provide for weekly therapy for a few years, residential treatment, special schooling for the emotionally disturbed (which can be very difficult to obtain through SPED; depending on the state, if you can't get it covered, you are looking at either paying upwards of $120K per year or pleading guilty to neglect and signing your rights over), etc. Medically fragile would be difficult on employer-provided insurance, too, I think. Yes, these are risks one would take if giving birth. But you're not giving birth. You're going in eyes wide open to a higher degree of risk and you are providing a home for a child that has already been born and already has special needs. And already needs a good home. The point of the assistance is to ensure the children find a permanent home and the legal security of a family to which they belong. The resources needed to do that may well be beyond the reach of even upper middle class folk, let alone us more humble people. Additionally, there is no reason to limit the number of potential homes by those "who can afford" another child...many loving homes cannot afford another child without help. I'd agree, then maybe they shouldn't make more children, but opening a home to a child already here is not the same thing. Better to place the child in those homes and provide the needed help than to leave the child with no permanency. Not only is it better for that child for whom we have compassion, it is better for our society to have children growing up in a mentally and emotionally healthier way. There is no shame in giving a child a good home but there is in denying a child a good home because of pride.