# Why doesn't the government fully subsidize adoptions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 7, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585 "2009-08-07T00:49:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/61 "2009-08-07T16:51:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Should the government subsidize it? Dunno - how much do you consider the government subsidizes giving birth? Not sure what the point of this question is, but the government is not paying one cent towards my child’s birth. I have insurance, and I’m covered. Now, if I were on public assistance, the government would cover it, but I would say the majority of births are not bankrolled by the government. I’m not sure what the rationale would be of the government bankrolling private adoptions, considering that they already subsidize public ones. I realize that not everyone can take advantage of public adoptions, but I’m not sure why it would follow that the government should therefore fund private adoptions. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Rand Rover, but I think he’s right in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/62 "2009-08-07T23:11:51Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Not sure what the point of this question is, but the government is not paying one cent towards my child’s birth. Of course, the government afforded your employer (assuming you have employment-based healthcare) a nice fat tax deduction for providing you health insurance, and, of course, the hospital your child is being born at (assuming you’re not into that hippie bullshit of a natural birth) most assuredly receives some form of government funding for either performing research or mere existence, edit: or a subsidy in the form of tax-exempt status because they’re a non-prof, or about 1000 other ways in which the government provided the framework for you to have your child. this is like saying “the government paid not one cent for my vacation” as you hurl your RV down I-80. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/63 "2009-08-07T23:39:59Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Of course, the government afforded your employer (assuming you have employment-based healthcare) a nice fat tax deduction for providing you health insurance, and, of course, the hospital your child is being born at (assuming you’re not into that hippie bullshit of a natural birth) most assuredly receives some form of government funding for either performing research or mere existence, edit: or a subsidy in the form of tax-exempt status because they’re a non-prof, or about 1000 other ways in which the government provided the framework for you to have your child. The government “provided a framework” for me to have my child? They provide you a framework for posting on the SDMB, but do they pay your membership fee? Come on, you can’t be serious with this. Everyone’s health care is subsidized by the government under that rubric. Tax breaks my employer gets doesn’t mean that the government is paying for my child’s birth. Pretty flimsy there, since I pay for my health care coverage, and it’s not cheap. I don’t think that you can then extrapolate that into a rationale for the government should paying out the nose for private adoptions, considering that they already subsidize public adoptions. Folks have said the adoption fees are tax deductible. That’s as much subsidizing as I get from the government for giving birth if not more, so fair is fair, eh? Unless you’re saying that everything is fair game. Well, I want them to pay for my $6K/year day care expenses for the 2-3 years my kid is in daycare. Why not? I’m a productive worker and in countries like Sweden, daycare is free. I’d also like my kid’s college tuition to be free. Education is a right, isn’t it? And so on… > [@](#): > > this is like saying “the government paid not one cent for my vacation” as you hurl your RV down I-80. Yeah, OK. That’s a perfect analogy. :dubious: My tax dollars paid for that road, and my money pays the tolls on it, so I get to use it.I’m not expecting them to pay for the RV and put gas in it too, which is what people wanting the government to pay for their private adoptions are asking for, if you want to actually make the analogy meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![SSG\_Schwartz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@SSG\_Schwartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSG_Schwartz)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/64 "2009-08-08T00:03:00Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I know nothing about adopting children, but I know something about adopting pets (work with me for a second), and I know that one of the cardinal rules of pet adoptions is that you do not make the pets free. There MUST be a barrier to adoption and it MUST be high enough that people don’t do it on a lark or view the animal as disposable. > > I would think that would be doubly important in the case of children. I read this several times, stepped away from the computer for a few minutes, read this again, and still came to the same conclusion: **THIS IS THE DUMBEST FUCKING THING I HAVE EVER READ ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD!!!** So at least you have that going for you, **jsgoddess**. Are you seriously suggesting that people would adopt **PEOPLE** on a whim? You do realize that there are home inspections that must be conducted for adoptions, background checks, court appearances, credit checks and other things when a person decides to adopt? The reason for charging for pets, as you suggest, is that people could adopt a pet for their children when the children are not prepared for a pet and the animal will become neglected or abused. A friend just gave up a dog he had chained in his back yard for that reason. His 4 and 5 year old were not mature enough to take care of the dog, and he didn’t want it to begin with. To say the same for people is insane. Why do you not think these impulsive people with a dollar in their pockets would not fuck themselves into being parents. To my knowledge, most people can give birth totally free. You don’t see anyone suggesting there be a cost associated with indigent mothers having babies. After all, if there was a financial cost associated with birthing babies, maybe there would be no child abuse. Then if there was no ADC and WIC, maybe people would have to think about having babies, right?:rolleyes: SSG Schwartz ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/65 "2009-08-08T00:04:22Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Everyone’s health care is subsidized by the government under that rubric. yes. that’s the point, notwithstanding the bleating that goes on about “how i’ve paid for whatever i receive”. no one in a society ever, ever, bears the full cost of most transactions they carry out. it’s high time that freakazoid libertarians understand this. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/66 "2009-08-08T00:26:12Z")
> [@SSG\_Schwartz](#): > > I read this several times, stepped away from the computer for a few minutes, read this again, and still came to the same conclusion: > > **THIS IS THE DUMBEST FUCKING THING I HAVE EVER READ ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD!!!** > > So at least you have that going for you, **jsgoddess**. Are you seriously suggesting that people would adopt **PEOPLE** on a whim? You want to go read the news and then come back and tell me they wouldn’t? The rest of your post actually demonstrates my point, not yours. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/67 "2009-08-08T00:28:03Z")
I object on the basis that there are other, more pressing, needs for the money it would cost to set up such a program. Such as general civil legal aid for the poor. That noted, non-related adoptions are more complicated than it sounds. In my state, the following issues come in to play: 1. Some effort must be made to establish paternity. Often there are several possible candidates. 2. When a child is removed from the parent(s), the State is required to make a diligent effort to return the child to the home. That process can take months or years. 3. If it is not possible to return the child to the home, permanent placement with other relatives is considered, and this may take time. 4. The children involved sometimes have issues with mental/physical health, behavior, juvenile crime, drugs, etc. Sometimes it takes months to get a pysch evaluation completed. 5. If permanent placement with relatives isn’t feasible, both natural parents must either consent to adoption or have their parental rights terminated. The standard for termination of parental rights is pretty high. Being a bad parent isn’t enough. Being unsuitable for unsupervised visitation is not enough. It takes abandonment–generally means no contact between parent and child for a set period of time, 1 year or longer for older children I think; or severe abuse/neglect. Each parent is entitled to appointed counsel, and there’s going to be one or more guardian ad litems appointed for the children. Full discovery, trial on the merits, clear and convincing evidence required to terminate. This phase can take months/years–but may be ongoing during some of the other issues mentioned. 6. Only after the parental rights are terminated can the actual adoption proceedings begin–with its own round of pleadings, discovery/investigation, and hearing(s). ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/68 "2009-08-08T00:34:33Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > yes. that’s the point, notwithstanding the bleating that goes on about “how i’ve paid for whatever i receive”. no one in a society ever, ever, bears the full cost of most transactions they carry out. it’s high time that freakazoid libertarians understand this. Thanks for referring to my argument as “bleating.” And for referring to me as a “freakazoid libertarian.” Nothing could be further from the truth, but you are free to make whatever bullshit assumptions you wish. However, the fact that my employer gets a tax break for providing my health insurance is not the same as subsidizing a $60K private adoption. You haven’t proved the equivalence in any meaningful way, though you have made a couple of unjustified ad hominem sallies. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/69 "2009-08-08T00:41:21Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > yes. that’s the point, notwithstanding the bleating that goes on about “how i’ve paid for whatever i receive”. no one in a society ever, ever, bears the full cost of most transactions they carry out. it’s high time that freakazoid libertarians understand this. I agree with your second sentence. However, it’s high time that freakazoid liberal douches realize that just because I’ve driven on public roads doesn’t mean I can’t oppose any government program ever. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/70 "2009-08-08T00:44:25Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I agree with your second sentence. However, it’s high time that freakazoid liberal douches realize that just because I’ve driven on public roads doesn’t mean I can’t oppose any government program ever. Hey, I’m a freakazoid liberal douche and I agree with you on this. How about everyone just keeping their retarded broad brush partisan generalizations to themselves and actually arguing the merits of government subsidizing private adoptions? That would be awesome. Yes, the “you drive on taxpayer funded roads so you can’t oppose any government spending ever” is a tired as hell meme that needs to be shelved for good. It’s not at all effective or applicable in this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/71 "2009-08-08T01:03:23Z")
We’re trying to adopt. In Australia the cost of adopting overseas is in the thousands rather than the tens of thousands. Overseas adoption is the expensive option, local is _zero cost_, and the state basically inherently recognises the all around benefits of an adopted child growing up in a adopting family rather than state based institutions. But they try pretty hard to stick to the idea of Hague convention as well as the letter, and as a result there are many less overseas adoptions coming through, the waitlist as a result is over 5 years now. In practise the amount of local children available for adoption with no major health issues is about 20 a year, and the approval process is fairly arduous. It would be even lower but apparently a major source of local adoptions is overseas students getting pregnant and having to worry about being killed if they took the child home, and with religious beliefs against abortion. As a health professional I was a bit surprised by what they didnt check particularly thoroughly but you’d still have to be fairly motivated to be willing to hang in there for all the processes involved. I doubt too many ‘on a whim I want a pet’ types would make it. Edit: Should say there are no private adoption agencies due to concerns about loopholing which sounds like it might be fairly justifiable by the above. Its govt or nothing. Otara ---
**Author:** ![SSG\_Schwartz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@SSG\_Schwartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSG_Schwartz)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/72 "2009-08-08T01:22:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You want to go read the news and then come back and tell me they wouldn’t? > > The rest of your post actually demonstrates my point, not yours. So, again, answer the question of why someone would go to all the trouble of waiting for a child to adopt, the invasions of privacy by the placement agency, and the emotional strain of adoption to decide this is not what they really wanted when all most people have to do is have sex to have an unwanted child? You propose a cost to adoption in order to prevent people from adopting children as a passing fancy. What do you propose to do to keep teens from producing children for the same reason? Or is there some sort of difference? If fully subsidized adoptions were available for people to adopt these kids as a hobby, where do you think the kids come from? Also, I do read the news and I see where grandma and grandpa, or an uncle, or even mom or dad leave the kid asleep in the car on a hot day, because they forgot they had the kid with them. I read about children who are left at home alone so the parents can go to the bar. I guess I don’t see the part in the story this only happens to adopted children, or happens at a greater frequency to adopted children, or even that the more money you pay for birthing or adopting a child shows the child will be raised better. SSG Schwartz ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/73 "2009-08-08T01:56:41Z")
> [@SSG\_Schwartz](#): > > So, again, answer the question of why someone would go to all the trouble of waiting for a child to adopt, the invasions of privacy by the placement agency, and the emotional strain of adoption to decide this is not what they really wanted when all most people have to do is have sex to have an unwanted child? I have zero idea what you think your point is, or why you think talking about bad parents somehow makes bad parenting less likely. Having a baby physically has a ton of costs. I also think that it would be a bad idea for the government to take away all of those costs. No idea if that is relevant to your points since, frankly, you’re just spazzing out and taking something personally that is not even remotely directed at you or anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/74 "2009-08-08T03:09:19Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I have zero idea what you think your point is.. Possibly it is that the idea that the government shouldn’t subsidize adoption because then people would treat it as casually as picking up a cat from the local pound is a little far-fetched. Even if the government picked up all the costs, the process of adoption is far more stressful and prolonged than intercourse. The government shouldn’t subsidize adoption any more than birth, IMO. Less than birth, in fact - I see no reason that poor people (defined here as "people who can’t support themselves) should be enabled to adopt any more than they should be enabled to have birth children. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but it doesn’t need to be encouraged if not doing so is a better option. The government shouldn’t subsidize anything, without rather clear evidence that by doing so they can offset some already large and otherwise unavoidable social cost. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SSG\_Schwartz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@SSG\_Schwartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSG_Schwartz)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/75 "2009-08-08T04:33:03Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I have zero idea what you think your point is, or why you think talking about bad parents somehow makes bad parenting less likely. > > Having a baby physically has a ton of costs. I also think that it would be a bad idea for the government to take away all of those costs. No idea if that is relevant to your points since, frankly, you’re just spazzing out and taking something personally that is not even remotely directed at you or anyone. I am not taking this personally. What I am objecting to is the fact that you suggest that if there is no cost associated with adoption, there will be people likely to adopt a child on a whim. I would like some suggestion as to why you believe anyone would go through the process of adoption, I should say the long and painful process of adoption just to treat a child as disposable. Even without a financial cost, there is an emotional cost. Putting a prohibitive price barrier on adoption will not ensure that better people can be parents. It will only ensure that those willing to adopt need to be well off. There will still be emotional costs. Never knowing when you will have a child, if the mother will change her mind. Having to wait for the home inspection and wonder if what you said to the social worker will hurt your chances. When we tried to adopt, it was a long roller coaster ride, and it failed. I can live with that, but I would like the opportunity to try again. Financially, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As to the costs of giving birth to a baby, there are none. Babies are born in airplanes, taxis, in apartments. For many women, insurance picks up the entire cost of giving birth. There is no financial cost in order to become a mother or a father for most people. What I parse from your OP, however is that those that choose to or have to adopt to add to their family should be subjected to a high dollar amount to ensure their determination to be good parents, or to ensure that they really want to be parents. I don’t get that. SSG Schwartz ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/76 "2009-08-08T04:51:24Z")
> [@SSG\_Schwartz](#): > > I am not taking this personally. What I am objecting to is the fact that you suggest that if there is no cost associated with adoption, there will be people likely to adopt a child on a whim. Yes, I believe such people exist. People exist who have babies biologically on a whim. People exist who kill others on a whim. Jesus, people exist who EAT others on a whim. I didn’t say the cost has to be high, just high enough that it isn’t done on a lark and low enough that the majority of people could reach it given enough desire to. You want to weed out the the people right up front who aren’t serious and dedicated. Having kids is a sacrifice, no matter how those kids come into a person’s life. And like it or not, money is one of the only tangible representations we have of a person’s seriousness. And the idea that having babies biologically is costless is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/77 "2009-08-08T05:58:08Z")
> [@SSG\_Schwartz](#): > > I am not taking this personally. What I am objecting to is the fact that you suggest that if there is no cost associated with adoption, there will be people likely to adopt a child on a whim. I would like some suggestion as to why you believe anyone would go through the process of adoption, I should say the long and painful process of adoption just to treat a child as disposable. Even without a financial cost, there is an emotional cost. Putting a prohibitive price barrier on adoption will not ensure that better people can be parents. It will only ensure that those willing to adopt need to be well off. There will still be emotional costs. Never knowing when you will have a child, if the mother will change her mind. Having to wait for the home inspection and wonder if what you said to the social worker will hurt your chances. When we tried to adopt, it was a long roller coaster ride, and it failed. I can live with that, but I would like the opportunity to try again. Financially, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. > > As to the costs of giving birth to a baby, there are none. Babies are born in airplanes, taxis, in apartments. For many women, insurance picks up the entire cost of giving birth. There is no financial cost in order to become a mother or a father for most people. What I parse from your OP, however is that those that choose to or have to adopt to add to their family should be subjected to a high dollar amount to ensure their determination to be good parents, or to ensure that they really want to be parents. I don’t get that. > > SSG Schwartz My only point in this discussion is this: Some people want to have children, but can’t because they are infertile. If they were fertile, they might be the type to have children on a whim, but since they can’t, they could also be the type who would adopt on a whim, if it woudn’t be for these other costs – which are both financial and time-consuming. My wife and I had a very hard time conceiving, and we considered adoption, and maybe we would have done it if it were easier. So you both have points, and are to a degree talking past each other. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/78 "2009-08-09T18:38:08Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > So you both have points, and are to a degree talking past each other. Agreed. **jsgoddess** and **SSG Schwartz** , I suspect that you might each have decent points, but that you might each be reacting to the other one, (inadvertantly, at least at first), pushing buttons. I can see the point that **jsgoddess** makes about putting up some sort of barrier to prevent folks acting on whims. Unfortunately, since she expressed it only in terms of money, I would guess that she has trod on **SSG Schwartz** ’s toes while missing the point regarding non-monetary expense. Having gone through an adoption process that was nearly free\*–we paid the county fee for changing the birth certificates–I would say that there was still a serious filtering process in the sixteen weeks of classes, the two inches, each, of paperwork, (questionnaires, financial statements, biographies, finding five references, etc.), the multiple interviews and home inspections, etc., and that writing a check would have been far less of a barrier than what we went through. - We had to buy the beds and clothing car seats and all the other incidentals and there was an expense of driving to the county Jobs and Family Services depatment each week for four months–none of which was tax deductible then, if it is now–but we would have had the same expenses for giving birth, changing the classes to medical checkups. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/79 "2009-08-09T18:40:46Z")
As to other comments in this thread: there have been too many nonsensical insults and drive-by postings. If you cannot express yourself without insulting someone–regardless whether it is a poster or a political or economic philosophy-- take it to the **Pit**. \*\* [/Moderating]\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585/80 "2009-08-10T14:47:57Z")
> [@Cubsfan](#): > > This may or may not be a debate but I’ve been trying to figure out why adoptions are so expensive? I know there is alot of legal hurdling and hassling to get it done but the whole process seems to be set-up to prevent anyone but the most well off from adopting a child. > > I have a buddy who recently adopted 2 children from Uzbekistan and it cost him a whopping $60k when all was said and done. This is a ridiculous sum of money and I’ve heard that it can be substantially more. > > My wife and I have recently started entertaining the idea of adopting a child vs. having our own 3rd. We are both stably employeed, make around $150k a year between us, have little debt and have 2 great kids. Our house is very large and we live in a nice neighborhood. Ultimately the huge initial financial outlay will most likely prevent us from giving a needy child a home. Even though we make good money and are not struggling we just don’t have $10’s of K to spend adopting a child. Hell, we don’t have $10’s of K period. This just doesn’t seem right. > > I realize there are some huge tax breaks and programs for families that adopt, but a tax break tomorrow doesn’t make it financially feasible today. > > I think the government should facilitate the entire adoption process. This does several things. It gives a child a healthy home with a shot at a good life and it keeps the child from having to be financially supported by the state when they are in foster care, orphanage or wards of the state. It likely will keep the child off the streets and out of jail and off unemployment when they are older. In the end spending a few K NOW can save $100’s of K over the life of the child. > > My wife and I would almost certainly adopt if the $$ outlay wasn’t so high upfront. The way it is now that likely won’t happen. I have a child adopted from South Korea. As Shodan pointed out, there are a lot of expenses associated with adoption - in addition to what he said, we also contributed to the support of our son while he spent six months in foster care. The South Korean fees support birthmother programs - including education - and ongoing support of the orphanage in South Korea. There is a lot of corruption in international adoption - but it depends a lot on what country you are going to. The biggest issue however is the supply and demand. There are far more people looking to adopt healthy children than healthy children available - even on a worldwide level. International adoption is great - but it has its cons - ripping a child out of their birthculture is not without its developmental and psychological risks, and a lot of countries (like South Korea) limit the number of kids they “export” because of international judgment that “someone else” is solving their social problem (and someone else is). My own pet peeve is that the cost of our adoption was NOTHING compared to the costs of raising our son. Just daycare alone outstripped adoption costs - without going into the costs of diapers, formula, clothing, a larger house, a bigger car, another airplane seat on vacation, baseball fees, piano lessons, an alto sax, clothing, college…frankly, if you can’t make the sacrifices to afford the adoption, you aren’t willing to make the sacrifices to afford the kid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-government-fully-subsidize-adoptions/505585.md?page=5)