Advertisements
I realize there's a policy not to discuss agencies here.....and talking about any agency and their disruptions is not my intent. But, regardless of the adoption entity.......when you mention 'failed adoptions'......that generally means when the adoption has already been finalized.
Maybe you're meaning 'failed placements'...meaning, after you've matched, the bioparents changed their mind and decided not to place?
If that is what you're talking about, you may find that this is not uncommon in any agency/attorney/facilitator, etc.......It has everything to do with the decision of a birthparent.
I'm not taking up for any adoption entity in this topic, because our family did not want to 'match' for several reasons, one of which was the 'risk' involved for matching and then finding out after birth that the birthparents had decided to parent, rather than place.
I would suggest...as I do to many, in order to do away with the risk of this---request to go with 'already born babies' who's birthparents have already signed relinquishments.
While you may think this avenue doesn't allow you to be in the delivery room or knowing a birthparent previous to birth (which does matter to some, I'm told)......it pretty much eliminates the risk of having a biological parent change their mind----especially if you work in a state that has a shorter relinquishment period.
I hope this helps in some way; and I'm sorry for your failed situations.....I know they are painful.
Most Sincerely,
Linny
Advertisements
As Linny said, I think you refer to failed placements.
Adoption is very risky, agencies/facilitators will typically quote you high placement statistic (like "90% of our birthmothers follow through") but my estimate is, based on research on the topic, that 50% is a more realistic number. So two failed placements is perfectly in the range of statistics.
Whether or not a potential birthmother will place depends mostly on her social situation. So that's the indicator we have to look at. It is very important to understand this point (it took me a LONG TIME to get it!). If e.g. she is into drugs, she is known to social services who will take the child away in any case, she has placed in the past, she is already parenting children and is overwhelmed plus her extended family is dysfunctional - then it is very likely she will place.
When we get into an adoption situation, we need to be careful about the financial risks. We can easily lose many thousands of dollars on "birthmother expenses" without getting a baby. (Personally, I do not approve of the ill practice of paying "birthmother expenses", I think in the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no justification for it and if there is, it should go through a court process).
Besides, if agencies/facilitators really had a 90% placement rate, they would eat up the lost "birthmother expenses" themselves (or actually tacitly add the average lost expenses to their fees) but they don't, do they? Ah! Why don't they? Because they know the risks very well, many potential birthmothers don't place so they just dump the costs on us. Ok. Now I've said it. (Linny, don't laugh).
As Linny said, if you want a no risk situation, you only go for situation where baby is born and TPRed (termination of parents rights). If you want very low risk, go for situations where the social situation is prohibitive for the expectant mother keeping her baby. What I am doing is I tell adoption entities that I will pay whatever is required once the baby is born and TPRed. Not before. Most professionals don't agree to this deal but some do. You just have to negotiate,