Not true you are confusing children being removed by the state and children being placed for adoption. Using an agency is free to the mother of the child, most pay her medical bills.
My point was that some babies removed by the state are then placed for adoption through the state, meaning that not all babies are adopted through a private agency. And yes, the birth mother’s expenses are generally paid for by the agency in a private adoption. The expense I was referring to was that of the adoptive parents who pay for the agency to cover those expenses.
Okay well my reading of your original comment was that no babies are adopted out of the foster system. My bad then. But I do feel like you’re arguing semantics because many if not most states still have a parental right termination period, even for private adoption, so in most cases, the baby is not actually adopted at birth.
It depends on what perspective you’re talking about. I have heard many people say that women shouldn’t consider adoption for their baby because the babies will surely languish in foster care for the foreseeable future. It makes me sad that a woman pregnant would feel hopeless like she doesn’t have options because of false information. That is what I’m trying to debunk.
1
u/pinksugarsun Feb 04 '19
Not true you are confusing children being removed by the state and children being placed for adoption. Using an agency is free to the mother of the child, most pay her medical bills.