Ethics

It's been a few years since I've been heavily active in the industry, so my information may be antiquated -- but as I understand it, agencies are supposed to hold those fees in an escrow account and pay out of pocket for expenses, only charging the escrow account when the placement takes place. The exception being 'non-refundable' fees. Also, agencies are licensed by the state and are required to follow certain guidelines to keep their license in good standing. There are whole hosts of non-agency professionals out there that don't follow the same rules. Facilitators and attorneys don't require a license to place children. As far as suing -- I think it will come down to the documents they signed and agreed to as well as when the information became known to the agency/professional. I think it's fine for an adoptive parent to walk away from a situation they are unable to cope with. But those fees should transfer to a new situation when it arises -- rather than be lost to them for good. When the professional DOES place the child, they will likely bill them for the expenses, as well.Tough situation, all around. It's stories like these that get newspaper headlines, rather than all of the wonderful stories we're able to see on a daily basis.

The escrow account you described is still happening in some agencies, but not all. I see the wisdom in an account like that. From my understanding, the family had originally agreed that the fees they had paid were nonrefundable. I thought it was interesting because it technically was a failed match, but not on the end that it normally is where a birth parent changes their mind.

Wow, that's rough. I feel like they should lose what they already paid in. Employees of the adoption agencies and medical staff have already been paid up until that point. Even if the funds are in an escrow account, that's what they were intended for, and I think they should be used for such. Had they paid for infertility treatments or some other means, the funds would have been used up. I kind of feel like that's what they get for refusing the child. When my parents adopted me and my older sister, they did not specify a gender. With my little sister they did. My dad was a junior, and he wanted a son to carry on the family name. They painted the nursery blue and put the name on everything. The birth mother had two ultrasounds, and it showed a boy both times. SURPRISE! She was a girl. They were given the option not to take her. They could have waited for a boy. My parents felt like the baby had already lost one set of parents, they wouldn't let her feel rejected again.All that to say, if you're in, you're in. Man up.

I love the honesty. This situation really rubbed me the wrong way because it felt like they were picking and choosing a designer child. Gross.

You know, if you think about it in the context of rejecting a special needs child because they wanted a healthy child -- the same applies to biological parents. They have the option to choose to parent or they can, if they are uncomfortable with their child's needs, place the child for adoption.In those situations -- the biological parents would, theoretically, be out any monies spent during pregnancy and pre-placement. Although, one who may be less than ethical, may try to pass on some of those expenses as "Birthmother expenses" and offer those funds as reimbursement to the placing family for funds loss. That's SUPER sketchy though and I'd bet, if held to the litmus test, would be illegal -- although the only difference would be the time when those fees were paid by the adopting parents vs. adopting parents paying during pregnancy. I tell ya, there is right and wrong here -- I would bet it would depend on which side of the situation you are on. I would imagine they've got family encouraging the suit -- and we all know at least ONE attorney felt there was legal precedent.