Strollerderby

Economy Down, Adoptions Up

Posted by Shannon LC Cate

Adoption agencies around the country are reporting a rise of between 10 and 30% in pregnant women and new mothers inquiring about placing their infants with new families, since the recession began.

The story of one such woman, a single mother to three teens who found herself unexpectedly pregnant again with no support from her baby's father, is outlined in a report at USATODAY.com.

As an adoptive mother, I understand the joy of adoptive parents.  As an advocate of reproductive choice, I believe strongly in ethical adoption as an option for women who need it and choose it freely from other options.  But I am saddened by this rise in adoptions due to economic crisis.

When adoptions happen strictly because a mother can't afford--financially--to raise her baby, society has failed both mother and child.  When the cost of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education can only be met by some, all families are devalued.  The only solution to a mother's financial desperation should not be sending her child to live with wealthier parents.  When that is the case, it suggests that only people with a certain income deserve or are capable of raising children.

I can already hear the protests that people without the means to support their children shouldn't have children in the first place.  But even if I believed that (which I don't), pregnancy is not 100% preventable by any means at all.  I include abstinence, because sex is not always a woman's choice.

But I simply don't believe that the care and raising of children ought to be an exclusively private enterprise.  In fact, neither do those involved in adoption.  Adoption is all about the communal care of children.  It is about people outside a family working with that family--becoming additional family--for the support of children who need more than just their birth parents' support.

But adoption has enormous consequences for all parties involved--adopted people, first parents, adoptive parents--and should be a last resort option when other alternatives are exhausted.  Mere inability to pay a hospital bill should not lead to adoption.

If I thought my children were with me just because their first mothers were too poor to raise them, I couldn't sleep at night.  I've been poor in the past, myself.  Poverty does not make a person unfit to be a parent.  And circumstances change.  My family could find itself in financial trouble in the future.  I would hope that under those circumstances, I wouldn't be told my only option were giving my children to others.

Before we celebrate a rise in adoptions, we need to rethink what society could be doing to help original families stay together.  Universal healthcare, quality public education, fair housing costs and other supports are a few modest proposals to get us started.

See also:

Adoption Tide Turns in Florida?

Pregnancy, Birth and HIV: The Good News

image: Brett T. Roseman, USA Today


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

Sue said:

I completely agree. Well, except for universal healthcare. But everything else :)

May 19, 2009 12:43 PM
 

Sheri said:

I certainly agree with you in some aspects.  However, (and I'm an adoptee talking, so I know a bit) being able to take care of a child is important.  And it is doubly if not more so if there is no means of support.  There are other options out there for women who don't have a lot of money.  Food stamps, WIC, church groups, birthright etc.  

The whole communial thing, I'm not so sure about.  I am grateful everyday for my birth mother's choice to give me up for adoption.  She was young and not ready either financially or emotionally to be my mom.  But she made a choice to allow someone else to be my parents.  I can't imagine how hard that must be, but in the end, I only have one set of parents.  Should she seek me out, I'd probably like to be her friend.  But that is it.  Same with my birth father.  

Open adoption is not right for everyone.  Really.  I know when we looked into adoption, I couldn't do it.  As thankful and grateful as I could be to a woman who gave birth to a baby and would choose me to be the one to love and raise him/her, the moment that child would be handed to me....that would have to be it.  

Not all adoptees are walking around with a giant hole in their heart about being adopted.  And hearing all the time about maybe how I should, or why am I not "wondering who I am" or why I don't want to know my "real parents" drives me bonkers.  

I believe that you should help people out when you see someone in trouble.  (all that "evil" Catholic faith stuff).  But end the end, I have to do what is right by my family first.  

May 19, 2009 12:53 PM
 

Shannon LC Cate said:

Oh come on Sue, you know you agree with me.  Who would Jesus refuse to cover?

May 19, 2009 1:18 PM
 

sarah said:

Creepy. Ick.

May 19, 2009 1:41 PM
 

Heather said:

Wow. The point made by your "modest" proposals for reform really hits me.  We have such a long way to go.

May 19, 2009 2:47 PM
 

JJ said:

"The only solution to a mother's financial desperation should not be sending her child to live with wealthier parents."

I completely agree.  But, why do I never hear this argument when people write about international adoption?

May 19, 2009 3:33 PM
 

Shannon LC Cate said:

You'll hear it from me, J.J.

May 19, 2009 3:37 PM
 

Lula said:

Me too. And an increasing number of others, thankfully. The new DVD "Adopted" (Point Made Productions) does a nice job of discussing just that point on the companion DVD "Adopted: We Can Do Better". Highly recommended for potential adoptive parents, domestic or international.

Sheri, I think you hit the nail right on the head with this statement about your own birthmother: "She was young and not ready either financially or emotionally to be my mom." If she was not emotionally prepared to raise you, including doing whatever she needed to do to provide for you materially, placing you for adoption may well have been the best parenting your birthmother could provide at the time you were born. But when women are placing their children for adoption based solely on economic crisis, I say we've got serious systemic problems to address. Parenting shouldn't be a class privilege.

May 19, 2009 3:53 PM
 

Alice said:

I think that not being able to afford to feed, house and care for a child means you are not a good parent.  Those are the main things you should do as a parent.  Most adoptions are because a birth parent could not afford to be a parent to the child.  Sure it is sad but it is reality in this world and always has been.  Many women choose abortion when they cannot afford to raise a child, too.  I bet those are up as well.  You can fantasize all you want about the "too young to parent" birth mother but most birth mothers are plenty old enough but are too poor or dont want the burden of another child.  It is ridiculous to say that being too poor to keep a child is a new phenomena.  

May 19, 2009 5:00 PM
 

leahsmom said:

As an adoptee myself, I found Sheri's comment to be really powerful.  Being poor and running into hard times doesn't make someone unfit to be a parent. But it might make them unable to be a parent.  And if there's no end in sight, being a parent might mean that you need to give up your child to someone who has the resources to care for them.  If my birth mother hadn't given me up for adoption, I might well have died, what with all my medical conditions that a family in poverty or without healthcare wouldn't have been able to cover.

And I know that you know this, Shannon, but I agree with Sheri on the 'no hole' comment.  Does being an adoptee give rise to some psychological baggage? Sure it does. What that baggage is differs for everyone.  And you know what else gives rise to pyschological baggage? Being a biological child.  You don't get to escape from "issues" by being born and raised in the same family!

May 19, 2009 5:28 PM
 

Liana said:

I really think that it should be up to the person making a decision to place about what she/they think is or is not a valid reason to make an adoption plan. If the expectant parent decides, as the woman did in the article, that finances were her main reason and she is comfortable with that decision, her choice should be respected. I would no more presume to tell her that she made her decision for the wrong reasons than I would a clueless 15 year old who chooses to parent because her baby "would be so cute clapping for her at her high school graduation," (a reason I did hear from one of my teen patients.

I guess as the womanist that I am, when do we stop looking at the choices people (women) make and deciding that there are a global set of right and wrong reasons with regard to women's reproductive choices? Can't we leave such reasons for the choices up to the individual without need to decide their rightness or wrongness?

May 19, 2009 6:07 PM
 

Shannon LC Cate said:

Liana, as I mentioned above I'm completely supportive of women's right to choose.  But when their choices are limited by limiting who has access to basic human needs like healthcare, food, education, etc. those choices are not freely made.  I do not argue that we should judge women for their choices, I argue that we should make sure those choices are real choices and not just lesser evils.

May 19, 2009 6:12 PM
 

Lula said:

Yes, there are reports that abortion rates are on the rise as well due to the economic crisis. I'm no happier about women opting to terminate a wanted pregnancy because they can't afford basic survival necessities like healthcare, housing, and food than I am about an increase in adoptions due to lack of same.

www.boston.com/.../abortions_vasectomies_on_increase_in_economic_crisis

The increase in vasectomies delights me, though. I love a nice clean vasectomy.

May 19, 2009 8:37 PM
 

Sue said:

Ah, dragging the Big J into it are we <grin> well I like that uncomfortable part of scripture in 2 Thessalonians that says people who refuse to work according to their ability should not be allowed to eat (or presumably, obtain other charity). The government is not a good judge of character, nor do they require people to work to their ability (generalizing, as I know there are states that have implemented decent welfare reform but I believe they are in the minority).

May 19, 2009 9:20 PM
 

JJ said:

Wow Sue!  I'm glad I'm not a member of your church. I'm rather floored.

In my opinion, EVERYONE deserves to eat.  No matter what your bible says or how you interpret it.

What a horrible thing to say.  (What this has to do with adoption I don't know.)

May 20, 2009 11:45 AM
 

Lula said:

(I'm pretty sure Sue and Shannon are friends & bringing and ongoing conversation onto Strollerderby.)

May 20, 2009 1:21 PM
 

Knitty said:

Wasn't there something in the bible about loaves and fishes?  Helping the less fortunate?  The virtues of charity and self-sacrifice?  

I'd actually be interested in hearing a sermon at this no-food-for-the-poor church.  And getting a gander at the flock.

May 20, 2009 9:05 PM

About Shannon LC Cate

Shannon LC Cate, PhD is a lesbian housewife and work-from-home mother of two girls via domestic, open, transracial adoption. They are both under five and already too brilliant and beautiful for their own good. Shannon lives, writes and assembles tricycles in Chicago, Illinois.

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage