In my last post, Adoption Cost: Putting Certain Races “On Sale”, I talked about the practice of some adoption agencies charging different adoption fees based upon the race of the child adopted. In most of these situations, Caucasian babies cost more money to adopt than non-Caucasian babies through the same agency. I provided arguments for and against the practice of putting non-Caucasian babies “on sale” and asked for readers’ opinions. One reader left the following comment:
I always assumed that the purpose was to make the adoption of AA children more “affordable” to AA parents who might not be able to raise $20,000 and still have a college fund. Sort of like health clinics with a “sliding scale” based on income.
advertisementIf you read the “pets for sale” in the newspaper, female puppies almost always cost several hundred more than male puppies. Why? Because the supply exceeds the demand. As soon as an agency has a waiting list of parents-to-be demanding AA or bi-racial infants, the agency will raise their prices across the board for infants and start discounting “older kids” or “handicapped kids” just like the state foster systems do already by providing supplements.
I, personally, do not support the practice of “discounting” non-Caucasian babies because I believe that all children are precious and should not be sent the message that they are of less value just because they are not Caucasian. Also, I think it is a bad idea to encourage parents to adopt a child of a particular race by offering a discount because transracial adoptions have special considerations that need to be evaluated. I think it is great if an adoptive couple chooses to adopt a child transracially, but this should be an informed decision rather than a money-saving one.
I suspect that MamaS’s comment probably represents the adoption agency’s position on providing the racial discount. Lowering the cost enables more people to adopt, which provides more homes to these children. That being said, it seems like it would be fairer to apply the sliding scale to the financial situation of the people adopting rather than to the race of the baby being adopted. Not every African-American couple has trouble paying $20,000 to adopt a baby, and not every Caucasian couple has the means to pay that much. We cannot make assumptions, based solely on race, about what an adoptive couple could afford.
Also, the discount is provided to anyone adopting a non-Caucasian child, regardless of the adoptive couple’s race, so the net effect might be to strong arm a couple of more limited means to adopt a child they might not have chosen otherwise solely to get the price break. While some couples might rise to the occasion, no child should be a “consolation prize” for a couple who could not afford another child.
I agree with MamaS that the supply and demand rationale used with selling puppies is being applied to children, and I have a problem with that. As much as I love dogs, I recognize that dogs are property while human beings are not. This racial discounting feels more like “baby buying” than providing a baby with the best possible home.
Related Blog:
Transracial/Transcultural Adoption blog
Photo credit: Lynda Bernhardt
So true.
I also hate phrases like supply and demand used for babies. Babies are not commodities. That’s why the profit margin should disapear altogether.
It just doesn’t belong in things like people trying to build families the best way they can.
There should be some sort of uniform fee for all children that doesn’t go above a certain amount of money.
Actually, I was reflecting what was told to me by my agency when I adopted. At that time, non-AA parents were not allowed to adopt AA or bi-racial children. (Shows how old I am, right!)
The only way adoption will ever be “Fair” is if there are national guidelines and sliding scales based on the parents’ ability to pay. Until then, anyone without a conscience and with a healthy white infant can say “Why go through an agency and be limited when we can go through a private attorney and find someone who will pay a small fortune?”
Friends of mine who had waited eight years for a DFCS foster-to-adopt recently got a healthy Caucasian newborn boy. The mother got a car, a cellphone, a year’s lease of a furnished townhouse, and a year’s allowance. All that plus legal fees and medical bills paid.
Profit will never disappear as long as children are valued. And I would hate to live in a society where they were not valued!
OMG — What you describe sounds so much like baby-buying.
We adopted through the State of Georgia, which greatly limits what you can provide to an expecting mother. I believe the limitations are toward housing, food, and medical care, and even those expenses have caps.
I agree that we need national guidelines to prevent this kind of thing. Like you, I am glad that children are valued. I just wish we could prevent the kind of situation you just described.
- Faith
Great post:)
Lanette
Thank you!! :0)
- Faith
I agree completely. Clearly a sliding scale for everyone is the appropriate solution; why agencies (and others) cannot figure this out is beyond me. I suppose they think they will not bring in enough money if they take everyone’s financial situation into consideration. But my home agency uses a sliding scale and seems to be doing fine.
Somewhat off topic, but is it weird that I am annoyed with these agency websites I am looking at refering to an expectant mother as a birthmother?
Good blog topic idea!!
Our agency did the same thing. I think it is common in the industry to call an expecting mother a birthmother.
- Faith
It bugs me, thanks to being educated about that on these blogs.
I’m joining this conversation late. I know of at least 1 adoption agency in Tulsa which discounts AA babies. It degrades the beauty of adoption into a commodity, much like human trafficking.
The term birth mom is accurate. She gave birth to the child. Nothing will ever change the fact that she birthed this child. We adopt the child and are therefore adoptive moms. It’s a practical and honest term. It does not diminish the adoptive parent relationship in any way. We are our children’s parents – mom and dad. They also have their birth moms and their birth families.
I remember when we first got into the adoption world, we were blown away when people referred to the birth mom as a ‘hero’. We did NOT see her as a hero. Until we met our son’s birth mom. She is our greatest hero. This 16-yr old girl was able to put her needs and desires (to parent) aside and choose a family she believed would be in the best interest of her child. That unselfish act makes her our hero. Birth mom ARE heroes.