HTTh: Foster parents incentive to adopt based on $$??

Sally J

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203395.html

 I think this sounds a little strange.  I know that foster parents get a subsidy to help with the cost of caring for foster children (as well they should).  After foster care, some children qualify for an adoption subsidy as well.

Do you think adoptive parents should get the subsidy?  Under what circumstances?

Do you think the adoption subsidy should be the same amount as the foster care subsidy?  Do you think if it is lower it keeps the foster parents from adopting as the article indicates?

(I wonder if the article is discussing foster parents who only have the desire to foster, or if they are speaking about foster parents who foster with the intent to adopt.)

ETA:  Here's another article that goes into the decline in adoption through foster care in more detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901430.html?hpid=moreheadlines

 

 

MyColonyNJ

I did not read the article, but wanted to give some insight from what I know.

In my state, a foster parent does get a stipend.  Like most states, when children are in foster care, the 1st goal is reunification with the parents.  If this can not happen, then it goes through the courts and the child is available for adoption.

Like most states, current foster parents have "first dibs" on adopting the child.  But, some foster parents choose not to adopt.  This can be for many reasons.  Some are older and can not make the long term commitment, some only want to foster, and yes - some are afraid to lose their stipend.

There are certain children that will continue to receive the same or higher stipend after adoption and until 18 yrs old (21 in some cases).

These children are considered "special needs"

now, you would think - OK, special needs, so they shoud still get the stipend.  But, like most states, our state defines special needs in a very unique way.

Here are some examples of a special needs adoption (according to the state)

- actually has a major medical problem that requires a lot of extra care.  I think this is what most people think about when you say special needs. (examples, HIV+, Brain Damage, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Mental Retardation, Wheelchair bound, CP, etc, etc)

- the child has a minor medical condition that does require some sort of extra care.  This can be things like asthma, food allergies, diabetic, minor hearing or vision loss, etc

- the child has an emotional problem (severe or minor) that requires extra care, meds, therapy, etc

Now, those sound like legit "special needs" even though some are minor.  But, in our state the following are also considered special needs and then would qualify for the continued stipend.

I don't make the rules, but here they are:

- Any child that is Africian American, or Bi / Multi racial with one of those races being AA.

- Any sibling group (no matter what race)

- A child over a certain age (not sure on this one though)

I know there are more, but without looking in my books, I am not sure of the rest.

With all of that said.  more than likely - If Lil J ever became available for adoption - he would probably not qualify for any stipend after adoption.  He is mostly caucasian, and none of the "other" stuff is AA.  He does not have any emotional issues, or any medial needs.

He does have excema, which may actually qualify him, but I am not sure.  So, if we were just looking for the money (obviously we are not), we could say that we would not adopt him.  This would make him available for someone else to adopt him.

Do I think in some cases the stipend should continue - sure.  BUt do I think that in a lot of cases it should stop - YES!

Sorry this turned into a book

pepomntpat

I personally think that a child in foster care has been through enough and they deserve a little money since that's about all they will get for the abuses they have suffered. I fully expect to continue receiving a stipend after we adopt our child as he/she will qualify as special needs.  That stipend is not for ME, it is for my CHILD and will be used accordingly.

If we were not getting a stipend, I would not change my mind about adoption.  I do think that it is well deserved by those children, though.

I just think people get all up in arms when they hear anything about cash changing hands. They assume that people are greedy because it is cash. As Fred has said many times, that stipend is not enough to board a dog.  It isn't about greed, but it certainly does offset certain costs and if my child is eligible I will take it.

For those foster parents who will not adopt without the subsidy, you have to consider if they could actually afford to support a child without it.  We have to prove we can financially pay our current bills before we take in children, so we don't need the money. But, kids are expensive.  They grow fast and go through clothes like crazy. You have to pay for daycare or someone has to stay home.  That money makes a big difference to a lot of families.  I don't really blame those foster parents who won't adopt without it and I don't think they are greedy.

Do you also think their Medical Assistance should stop?  In our state they continue to receive Medical up until they are 18 and that costs a whole boat load more than the stipend. We will be using our insurance as primary and the Medical to make up the difference, but that is in no way required by the state. They'd pay the whole thing without question.

Sally J

I think it's good that there are subsidies in place for those circumstances when they are needed (this definition is difficult for me to specify--too  many potential scenarios).  I even think it's okay to give a subsidy to encourage foster care and adoption.  I don't think the subsidy enough for people to abuse the system (in most cases) and be greedy, but it is enough to recognize the parents for taking on the additional responsibility of some of the difficult cases.

I think the issue I have is that the article somehow alludes that people wouldn't adopt simply over money (less money per year, or for a fewer number of years).  It somehow makes it sound like foster parents are greedy and will only care for the child if they get a full subsidy amount.  I agree with Fred that there are likely many more complex things going on and it's oversimplified to say it only has to do with money.

I think I'm coming at this from my personal experience as well...not getting the adoption subsidy for my DD, even though she qualifies did not stop me from adopting her.  That subsidy wasn't the reason I was choosing adoption.  I guess that's why I wondered if they were talking about foster parents who didn't necessarily have the desire to adopt.  In this case there wouldn't be any incentive to stop fostering and adopt if the subsidy is cut/reduced.

GLynn2009

I think the goal should always be to find a permant home for the child as soon as possible. This goal is often quoted but can not happen because of all the red tape.

We are trying very hard to adopt a child that we know from Canada that is in the system. She would be in foster care except her BMs parents took her in until we could get the adoption done. The grandparents are older and do not feel that they can support her until she is of age. She was taken from her BM at birth and the BP rights have been terminated for a year now. I am upset, frustrated, and at the point of tears daily now for three weeks. Our baby will be 2 one week from Friday and she is still not home with us. We have been working with our SW in the US and Canada for a year now and I am still getting the run around. I got a e-mail just this morning saying the US sent our paperwork to Canada but no one has acknowledged that it is in Canada. This is what I keep getting for a answer for a month now!

Everyone says it is in DD best interest to be with us. SO MAKE IT HAPPEN! We filed all the proper Hague paperwork! Give her the VISA so we can start living again. Our lives have been on hold for months now. The grandparents are not physicaly able to keep up with a 2 year old much longer.

The grandparents have said if this adoption does not get taken care of that they will keep DD and keep getting the money they receive ievery month and the free medical that she gets. If we can take her we get nothing, which is fine but we have to pay all expenses to adopt, which is also fine.

DD is consider special needs because she was drug exposes but because she is coming from Canada she will get nothing after we adopt which is fine. I think that more people would adopt if they were educated in the needs of these children and if there was not so much red tape.

Sorry...back on subject.

I have no problem with foster parents receiving money to help with the childs care/needs. I have no problem when a family adopts a child with medical needs to  be given money in support of the child needs. A better system needs to be place to weed out the families that see adoption as something other that offering a loving home to a child.

come*on*baby

in Texas children who receive the adoption subsidy:

- special needs children (any listed in pp's)

- sibling groups

 

Children under the age of 2 (singles with no special needs) do not receive an adoption subsidy if adopted.

 

anonomity

In my state, all adoptive parents are eligible to receive an adoption tax credit, but can only receive the adoption subsidy for a "special needs" child with recurring expenses (generally physical/developmental issues).  And the subsidy must be negotiated and finalized before the adoption takes place; it cannot be "left open" and can only be reduced later if the expenses should change.