Is this a thing now? Adoption crowdfunding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know a family with 5 kids. Dad works very hard. Mom stays at home.

They get free kids' subsidized lunches, free medical care, subsidized childcare and I think they maybe food stamps.

I have one kid and we pay for everything full price.

You can feel free to have more kids, stay at home, and live on food stamps.

[Anonymous]

All of these posts are the reasons why we gave up when we couldn't have a biological child. We decided to put the money we did have towards retirement and medical care for ourselves, rather than take a chance at going bankrupt to adopt, do foster care, or do ivf and still not end up with a child.

Once I am completely ok without having a child, I might try to do foster care.

[Anonymous]

IMO the issue isn’t about being able to cover the 30k + adoption fee. It’s the system itself, where money is given in exchange for a baby. Lots of children are exploited for profit, particularly in international adoptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are being absolutely ridiculous. First of all, you are describing an upper middle class lifestyle, but that is not require to raise a child happily and successfully. Secondly, you would have to pay the money to adopt up-front in addition to the other costs of raising the child. So maybe you can afford those other costs, but not an additional 30k on top of that. Thirdly, you have 18 years to save for college, daycare is a short term pay as you go arrangement, cars are years away and not necessary, and people have healthcare to pay health costs. You clearly know nothing about what you are talking about.

You clearly know nothing what you're talking about. Even with great medical insurance middle class families go bankrupt when a serious illness happens. Imagine paying co-pays and deductibles all the child's life if he/she have serious health issues or all kinds of therapy a child with trauma will have. Or are you counting on your church to provide counseling?

The cost of raising a child according to Department of Agriculture is $233,610 in this country. So if you can't afford $30K, please don't adopt.

By that logic, middle class families shouldn’t have kids because they might get bankrupted by medical expenses? Do you see what a ridiculous argument you are making? Most people having their first baby do not have an extra $30k lying around at birth. If you think they do, you are living in some kind of crazy upper middle class/rich bubble and aren’t qualified to speak on behalf of the average person.

[Anonymous]

As a single adoptive mom who did save and save and save for my baby, I do wish folks who simply give birth would add up all the expenses they would have to pay for if maternity insurance did not exist. Stop being so judgemental.

Either adoption and birthing alike should be fully covered, or neither should be covered. No favoring pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a single adoptive mom who did save and save and save for my baby, I do wish folks who simply give birth would add up all the expenses they would have to pay for if maternity insurance did not exist. Stop being so judgemental.

Either adoption and birthing alike should be fully covered, or neither should be covered. No favoring pregnancy.

Troll. I’ve met some entitled people in my time, but never anyone who felt entitled to be provided a baby by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of these posts are the reasons why we gave up when we couldn't have a biological child. We decided to put the money we did have towards retirement and medical care for ourselves, rather than take a chance at going bankrupt to adopt, do foster care, or do ivf and still not end up with a child.

Once I am completely ok without having a child, I might try to do foster care.

Foster care is free and kids get medicaid. It makes no sense. For some of us its worth the money and risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a single adoptive mom who did save and save and save for my baby, I do wish folks who simply give birth would add up all the expenses they would have to pay for if maternity insurance did not exist. Stop being so judgemental.

Either adoption and birthing alike should be fully covered, or neither should be covered. No favoring pregnancy.

We saved and saved to but its not comparable. For us, the IVF would have been mostly covered as well as the medical appointments and delivery. Some of us have very good insurance where those costs would be minimal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these posts are the reasons why we gave up when we couldn't have a biological child. We decided to put the money we did have towards retirement and medical care for ourselves, rather than take a chance at going bankrupt to adopt, do foster care, or do ivf and still not end up with a child.

Once I am completely ok without having a child, I might try to do foster care.

Foster care is free and kids get medicaid. It makes no sense. For some of us its worth the money and risk.

It's "free" but the kids need lots of services which means lots of appointments. And the money they receive is not enough in the DC area to even cover the basics. That coupled with the preference for reunification, which is best, means I don't want to get too attached.

Which is why I need to wait until that is less of a possibility to then do foster care. In other words, foster care is a wonderful thing but it does not replace having a biological child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these posts are the reasons why we gave up when we couldn't have a biological child. We decided to put the money we did have towards retirement and medical care for ourselves, rather than take a chance at going bankrupt to adopt, do foster care, or do ivf and still not end up with a child.

Once I am completely ok without having a child, I might try to do foster care.

Foster care is free and kids get medicaid. It makes no sense. For some of us its worth the money and risk.

It's "free" but the kids need lots of services which means lots of appointments. And the money they receive is not enough in the DC area to even cover the basics. That coupled with the preference for reunification, which is best, means I don't want to get too attached.

Which is why I need to wait until that is less of a possibility to then do foster care. In other words, foster care is a wonderful thing but it does not replace having a biological child.

What are you rambling about? Yes, foster care is about reunification. Medicaid covers all medical expenses and is one of the more generous in terms of appointments. You don't want to put in any effort for a child, which means don't have or get one. Do the kid a favor. My kid had daily appointments for years, some twice a day. Its called parenting. You do what you need to do. Even if you gave birth your child could have similar or worse needs. You sound lazy.

Your comments about a biological child. Adoption is not for a replacement child. Really, don't foster or adopt as you will never be a good parent to them.

[Anonymous]

I am so glad I adopted my 3 children (internationally) and never chose to give birth. (Never attempted pregnancy.) The pregnancy moms on here all sound so entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these posts are the reasons why we gave up when we couldn't have a biological child. We decided to put the money we did have towards retirement and medical care for ourselves, rather than take a chance at going bankrupt to adopt, do foster care, or do ivf and still not end up with a child.

Once I am completely ok without having a child, I might try to do foster care.

Foster care is free and kids get medicaid. It makes no sense. For some of us its worth the money and risk.

It's "free" but the kids need lots of services which means lots of appointments. And the money they receive is not enough in the DC area to even cover the basics. That coupled with the preference for reunification, which is best, means I don't want to get too attached.

Which is why I need to wait until that is less of a possibility to then do foster care. In other words, foster care is a wonderful thing but it does not replace having a biological child.

My friends adopted their 4 children from foster care. No, it does not equate to bio kids. It must be better, because i have never seen a happier family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
By that logic, middle class families shouldn’t have kids because they might get bankrupted by medical expenses? Do you see what a ridiculous argument you are making? Most people having their first baby do not have an extra $30k lying around at birth. If you think they do, you are living in some kind of crazy upper middle class/rich bubble and aren’t qualified to speak on behalf of the average person.

Don't be so naive. It's VERY likely that a kid adopted say from Easter Europe will have serious physiological and psychological issues. You have to have means to deal with them.

And yes, you should have $30K lying around for at least as emergency fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted DD and belong to a support group for transracial families. Not one person has ever said anything about "rescuing" a child or being a "savior" this was just our way of making a family. Some of you are so mean sounding.

Then why do you need a support group?

Reactions like that are why families who adopt find support groups of others like them helpful.


It's something like this:

https://www.pactadopt.org/app/servlet/HomePage

Serving adopted children of color by providing not only adoptive placement but lifelong education, support, and community for adoptees and their families on matters of adoption and race