Gay adoption laws vs. Christian agencies

Some states already require adoption and foster care agencies to give children to gay couples.  That includes Christian ministries, which, in many cases are shutting down their operations rather than compromise their convictions.  Now a proposed law before the Senate would make nondiscrimination against gay adoptions, including by religious agencies, a national policy:

Adoption and traditional marriage proponents said legislation introduced Monday by Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to prohibit adoption agencies from barring homosexual couples from adopting a child would hinder religious agencies right to religious freedom and lessen the pool of foster families.

Gillibrand’s bill, Every Child Deserves a Family Act, enables states to require adoption agencies to allow lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples to foster or adopt children in order to receive federal assistance.

“By removing all barriers for LGBT families to serve as foster parents, New York State has increased its foster parent pool by 128,000 prospective parents. This legislation would open thousands of new foster and adoptive homes to children ensuring they are raised in loving families,” she said in statement announcing the bill.

Gillibrand and fellow bill supporters praise the act for seeking to place the estimated 400,000 children currently in the U.S. foster care system in homes.

But Peter Breen, executive director of the Thomas More Society Pro-life Law Center, told The Christian Post the law would lessen the pool of foster families because it would penalize faith-based agencies that recruit Christian families.

Breen is currently representing Catholic Charities of Illinois. The adoption agency has been caring for and placing children in homes since 1921 – long before the state began offering adoption services in 1969.

Breen said that Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is using the recently passed Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act to “exclude religious entities that object to civil unions.”

Catholic Charities does not allow cohabitating couples – both heterosexual and homosexual-to adopt through its service due its religious beliefs. The state’s decision to cancel contracts with Catholic Charities may cause the agency to close its door to foster care in the state.

Breen said most faith-based foster care groups are reliant on state and federal funds.

If Gillibrand’s law were to pass, Breen said, it would “effectively bar any religious group that [has] sincerely-held religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage … it would bar them from foster care.”

via Traditional Marriage Proponents: Federal LGBT Adoption Bill Attacks Religious Freedom, Christian News.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • MHB

    Those who can fight the legal battle in defense of marriage according to God’s design should continue to fight it. Simultaneously, more Christian families can have mercy on these children by offering themselves to be foster and adoptive families, perhaps especially through the non-sectarian agencies (as they may be the only ones remaining), in order that the pool fills with healthier water.

    Additionally, it’s a problem that the majority of the funding for Lutheran Child and Family Services comes from the state. We should not think that we need the state in order to carry out mercy work.

  • MHB

    Those who can fight the legal battle in defense of marriage according to God’s design should continue to fight it. Simultaneously, more Christian families can have mercy on these children by offering themselves to be foster and adoptive families, perhaps especially through the non-sectarian agencies (as they may be the only ones remaining), in order that the pool fills with healthier water.

    Additionally, it’s a problem that the majority of the funding for Lutheran Child and Family Services comes from the state. We should not think that we need the state in order to carry out mercy work.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    And people thought I was nuts when I said it was only a matter of time before they pulled funding because of an unpopular stance.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    And people thought I was nuts when I said it was only a matter of time before they pulled funding because of an unpopular stance.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    So, the Federal Government is now going to insert itself into what has always been the business of the states? By what Constitutional authority?

    If adoptions are the Federal Government’s bailiwick, then the states should quit wasting their own money on adoption programs, and let the Feds do it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    So, the Federal Government is now going to insert itself into what has always been the business of the states? By what Constitutional authority?

    If adoptions are the Federal Government’s bailiwick, then the states should quit wasting their own money on adoption programs, and let the Feds do it.

  • DonS

    Well, this proposed law won’t go anywhere. It is bigoted anti-faith grandstanding by Gillibrand that will not survive cloture to reach the Senate floor. And, even if it did, it wouldn’t get through the House. However, the sad thing is that it brings to light the lengths at which the left will go to discriminate against religious faith. We’ve talked about this issue before — a radical ideology that says that if you won’t violate your faith convictions then you cann0t conduct your business at all.

    Wake up, those of you of faith on the left, to the intolerance of your secular leftist compadres.

  • DonS

    Well, this proposed law won’t go anywhere. It is bigoted anti-faith grandstanding by Gillibrand that will not survive cloture to reach the Senate floor. And, even if it did, it wouldn’t get through the House. However, the sad thing is that it brings to light the lengths at which the left will go to discriminate against religious faith. We’ve talked about this issue before — a radical ideology that says that if you won’t violate your faith convictions then you cann0t conduct your business at all.

    Wake up, those of you of faith on the left, to the intolerance of your secular leftist compadres.

  • Pete

    I don’t understand from the article whether the Act makes it illegal to deny adoption to LGBT people or it simply denies funding to those organizations. How, if at all is this related to the shift made by the Bush admin to move funds to faith based groups? I was concerned then, even though most Christians I knew were excited. Christian organizations that are dependent on government funding or grants have put themselves in a very tough position.

  • Pete

    I don’t understand from the article whether the Act makes it illegal to deny adoption to LGBT people or it simply denies funding to those organizations. How, if at all is this related to the shift made by the Bush admin to move funds to faith based groups? I was concerned then, even though most Christians I knew were excited. Christian organizations that are dependent on government funding or grants have put themselves in a very tough position.

  • Joe

    Couple of points here – 1. the federal law does not do anything impermissible. It simply says that the states are now allowed to require that agencies permit LGBT folks to adopt. New flash – under principles of federalism a state has always had the ability to make this a requirement. (I don’t like it but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about it).

    2. anytime you are taking gov’t money you subject yourself the gov’ts rules. If you don’t like it, don’t take the money or don’t contract with the state. Catholic Charities has not “right” to serve as a state recognized adoption agency. Whether excluding is a good idea or a bad idea is a policy question and nothing more. I think it would be bad policy – but everything I think is bad is not unconstitutional. If it were the world would be drastically different and you would all have to call me King Joe.

  • Joe

    Couple of points here – 1. the federal law does not do anything impermissible. It simply says that the states are now allowed to require that agencies permit LGBT folks to adopt. New flash – under principles of federalism a state has always had the ability to make this a requirement. (I don’t like it but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about it).

    2. anytime you are taking gov’t money you subject yourself the gov’ts rules. If you don’t like it, don’t take the money or don’t contract with the state. Catholic Charities has not “right” to serve as a state recognized adoption agency. Whether excluding is a good idea or a bad idea is a policy question and nothing more. I think it would be bad policy – but everything I think is bad is not unconstitutional. If it were the world would be drastically different and you would all have to call me King Joe.

  • DonS

    Actually, Joe @ 6, if I am reading it correctly, the proposed federal law would PROHIBIT agencies receiving federal funding from not permitting gay couples to adopt. It’s not merely allowing states to do so — it is REQUIRING them to do so.

    It’s pretty hard to be in the adoption and foster care business, in any kind of impactful way, without directly or indirectly benefiting from government funds, since most of the kids are “in the system”. Practically, these policies, already in effect in some blue states, push faith-based organizations out of the sector.

  • DonS

    Actually, Joe @ 6, if I am reading it correctly, the proposed federal law would PROHIBIT agencies receiving federal funding from not permitting gay couples to adopt. It’s not merely allowing states to do so — it is REQUIRING them to do so.

    It’s pretty hard to be in the adoption and foster care business, in any kind of impactful way, without directly or indirectly benefiting from government funds, since most of the kids are “in the system”. Practically, these policies, already in effect in some blue states, push faith-based organizations out of the sector.

  • DonS

    By the way, Joe, I am not saying these laws are unconstitutional, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts. I’m just saying they are horrendous policy, pushing people of faith further into the margins of society, and representing the monumental intolerance of the left, supposedly in the name of “tolerance”.

  • DonS

    By the way, Joe, I am not saying these laws are unconstitutional, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts. I’m just saying they are horrendous policy, pushing people of faith further into the margins of society, and representing the monumental intolerance of the left, supposedly in the name of “tolerance”.

  • Joe

    Don – I agree its bad policy. Bu I really get tired of folks always jumping to, and never getting past, the “they can’t do that”or “its their right” position instead of actually discussion whether or not something is wise policy.

    I think this is terrible policy.

    As for what the bill does, I have nto read the text itself by I thought the second para of the article made it clear:

    “Gillibrand’s bill, Every Child Deserves a Family Act, enables states to require adoption agencies to allow lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples to foster or adopt children in order to receive federal assistance.”

    I guess the first para could be read as the feds actually dictating state policy – but its pretty general and it is a summary of what someone else said the law does.

  • Joe

    Don – I agree its bad policy. Bu I really get tired of folks always jumping to, and never getting past, the “they can’t do that”or “its their right” position instead of actually discussion whether or not something is wise policy.

    I think this is terrible policy.

    As for what the bill does, I have nto read the text itself by I thought the second para of the article made it clear:

    “Gillibrand’s bill, Every Child Deserves a Family Act, enables states to require adoption agencies to allow lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples to foster or adopt children in order to receive federal assistance.”

    I guess the first para could be read as the feds actually dictating state policy – but its pretty general and it is a summary of what someone else said the law does.

  • DonS

    Joe @ 9:

    Here’s the last paragraph from Gillibrand’s Oct. 28 press release:

    The Every Child Deserves A Family Act would prohibit an entity that receives federal assistance and is involved in adoption or foster care placements from discriminating against prospective adoptive or foster parents solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. Congress annually invests more than $8 billion into the child welfare system, and many of these children could be adopted by LGBT couples if the bans in local jurisdictions were removed.

    I haven’t read the actual act, but the focus seems to be on forcing the five states that still prohibit gay couple adoptions from continuing to do so.

    As for the Constitution, I agree with you that people have a misapprehension about the role of the Constitution — “there oughta be a law” too often translates into “we oughta have a Constitutional right”.

    Unfortunately, the expansion of government into every aspect of our lives, combined with a hyper-zealous interpretation of the Establishment Clause into some sort of prohibition against any sort of intersection of faith and government, is forcing faith out of having any role in the public square. It is sad, and pathetic, and a horrendous policy for the future of our country and its people.

  • DonS

    Joe @ 9:

    Here’s the last paragraph from Gillibrand’s Oct. 28 press release:

    The Every Child Deserves A Family Act would prohibit an entity that receives federal assistance and is involved in adoption or foster care placements from discriminating against prospective adoptive or foster parents solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. Congress annually invests more than $8 billion into the child welfare system, and many of these children could be adopted by LGBT couples if the bans in local jurisdictions were removed.

    I haven’t read the actual act, but the focus seems to be on forcing the five states that still prohibit gay couple adoptions from continuing to do so.

    As for the Constitution, I agree with you that people have a misapprehension about the role of the Constitution — “there oughta be a law” too often translates into “we oughta have a Constitutional right”.

    Unfortunately, the expansion of government into every aspect of our lives, combined with a hyper-zealous interpretation of the Establishment Clause into some sort of prohibition against any sort of intersection of faith and government, is forcing faith out of having any role in the public square. It is sad, and pathetic, and a horrendous policy for the future of our country and its people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Typically, the federal government inserts itself (illegitimately, in my opinion) in the states’ business, not by passing laws that say the states must do thus-and-so, but by passing laws that grant federal funding to the states that do thus-and-so.

    The states can of course decline the offer of free candy money and tell the feds to shove off, but they never do. Why would they? Free federal money has become the crack cocaine of state budgets. The states just can’t kick the habit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Typically, the federal government inserts itself (illegitimately, in my opinion) in the states’ business, not by passing laws that say the states must do thus-and-so, but by passing laws that grant federal funding to the states that do thus-and-so.

    The states can of course decline the offer of free candy money and tell the feds to shove off, but they never do. Why would they? Free federal money has become the crack cocaine of state budgets. The states just can’t kick the habit.

  • Grace

    I may have missed it, but I read nothing of ‘private adoptions’ which are accomplished all the time. In this way a woman can adopt her child out, to whomever she chooses, making the selection herself.

  • Grace

    I may have missed it, but I read nothing of ‘private adoptions’ which are accomplished all the time. In this way a woman can adopt her child out, to whomever she chooses, making the selection herself.

  • DonS

    Yep, Mike @ 11. Absolutely correct. The federal government has no business funding most of the things they do. Their justification, of course, is usually “interstate commerce” — roads are built across state lines or accommodate drivers from other states and some children are adopted across state lines or from other countries. The real breakdown occurred back in the 60′s, when the feds chose to use the rationale of interstate commerce rather than the legitimate constitutional authority granted under the 14th Amendment to address the racist laws of certain southern states. The reason? They wanted to hit restaurant owners that didn’t want to serve blacks, and they couldn’t do that under the 14th Amendment, since it only applies to government actions. Certainly a worthy goal, but one that worked a lot of damage to our concept of limited federal government, when the courts, under intense political pressure, upheld those laws. If you can apply federal non-discrimination laws to a private business contained entirely within one state, on the basis that out-of-state travelers might eat in that establishment, there is not much left to the idea of limited government, is there?

    We would have been far better off if they had restrained themselves and allowed these racist restaurants to die off naturally, which they would have soon enough. I always wondered why someone would want to eat in a restaurant that didn’t want them there, anyway. Who knows what additional ingredients they consumed.

  • DonS

    Yep, Mike @ 11. Absolutely correct. The federal government has no business funding most of the things they do. Their justification, of course, is usually “interstate commerce” — roads are built across state lines or accommodate drivers from other states and some children are adopted across state lines or from other countries. The real breakdown occurred back in the 60′s, when the feds chose to use the rationale of interstate commerce rather than the legitimate constitutional authority granted under the 14th Amendment to address the racist laws of certain southern states. The reason? They wanted to hit restaurant owners that didn’t want to serve blacks, and they couldn’t do that under the 14th Amendment, since it only applies to government actions. Certainly a worthy goal, but one that worked a lot of damage to our concept of limited federal government, when the courts, under intense political pressure, upheld those laws. If you can apply federal non-discrimination laws to a private business contained entirely within one state, on the basis that out-of-state travelers might eat in that establishment, there is not much left to the idea of limited government, is there?

    We would have been far better off if they had restrained themselves and allowed these racist restaurants to die off naturally, which they would have soon enough. I always wondered why someone would want to eat in a restaurant that didn’t want them there, anyway. Who knows what additional ingredients they consumed.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 12: Private adoptions, by definition, take no government funds and thus would not fall under these restrictions. That’s why you read nothing about them. But they are a small segment of the adoption world, because they are very expensive and involved, and cannot be used to adopt children that are “in the system”.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 12: Private adoptions, by definition, take no government funds and thus would not fall under these restrictions. That’s why you read nothing about them. But they are a small segment of the adoption world, because they are very expensive and involved, and cannot be used to adopt children that are “in the system”.

  • Grace

    DonS @14

    They aren’t as “small” as you might believe. Christian adoptions can be accomplished through ‘private adoption’ – Christian groups help with such adoptions, and they are not any more expensive then others, … that excuse is used to scare off potential families and those who wish to give their infants to a Christian family.

    Have you been involved in ‘private adoptions’ as an attorney here in Southern CA?

  • Grace

    DonS @14

    They aren’t as “small” as you might believe. Christian adoptions can be accomplished through ‘private adoption’ – Christian groups help with such adoptions, and they are not any more expensive then others, … that excuse is used to scare off potential families and those who wish to give their infants to a Christian family.

    Have you been involved in ‘private adoptions’ as an attorney here in Southern CA?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS, help me out here. You complain (@10) about “the expansion of government into every aspect of our lives”. You also assert (@13) that “The federal government has no business funding most of the things they do.”

    And yet you’re complaining about a group potentially being denied federal funds?

    Isn’t the issue here that Christian charities have allowed themselves to become dependent on the government teat? Of course they’re going to be told how they can act — they’re not in charge of their own funding!

    Were the charities to reject federal funding, it would be a win-win: they could run their services as they saw fit (at least with respect to this issue), and they would save the taxpayers all that money, resulting in less government expansion into every aspect of our lives.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS, help me out here. You complain (@10) about “the expansion of government into every aspect of our lives”. You also assert (@13) that “The federal government has no business funding most of the things they do.”

    And yet you’re complaining about a group potentially being denied federal funds?

    Isn’t the issue here that Christian charities have allowed themselves to become dependent on the government teat? Of course they’re going to be told how they can act — they’re not in charge of their own funding!

    Were the charities to reject federal funding, it would be a win-win: they could run their services as they saw fit (at least with respect to this issue), and they would save the taxpayers all that money, resulting in less government expansion into every aspect of our lives.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 15: No, I don’t do adoptions.

    I think private adoptions are great — don’t get me wrong. And, as laws like these become more commonplace, forcing people of faith out of the mainstream adoption world, they will certainly become more prominent and important. The point I was making, though, was that they are only a segment of the adoption system, because they can’t be used to adopt children that are in the social services system. Forcing faith-based agencies out of that system is a policy travesty.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 15: No, I don’t do adoptions.

    I think private adoptions are great — don’t get me wrong. And, as laws like these become more commonplace, forcing people of faith out of the mainstream adoption world, they will certainly become more prominent and important. The point I was making, though, was that they are only a segment of the adoption system, because they can’t be used to adopt children that are in the social services system. Forcing faith-based agencies out of that system is a policy travesty.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    “Were the charities to reject federal funding, it would be a win-win: they could run their services as they saw fit (at least with respect to this issue), and they would save the taxpayers all that money, resulting in less government expansion into every aspect of our lives.”

    RIGHT!

  • Grace

    tODD,

    “Were the charities to reject federal funding, it would be a win-win: they could run their services as they saw fit (at least with respect to this issue), and they would save the taxpayers all that money, resulting in less government expansion into every aspect of our lives.”

    RIGHT!

  • DonS

    tODD @ 16: Again, to emphasize, we are talking about bad policy here, not constitutional rights. Adoption agencies cannot place children in social services, either in group homes or foster care, without the involvement of government funds. Depending upon definition, faith-based agencies who have a faith-based moral objection to placing children into gay homes, must be excluded from adopting out kids in the system. If the definitions aren’t that broad now, they will be in the future — you can see that coming.

    The goal of government should be to make sure kids get placed in good homes. To force agencies who have been doing this for a long time, and do it well, just because they won’t place into gay homes, harms those kids. Plain and simple. Government can ensure that there are agencies available to place kids into gay homes without forcing EVERY agency to do that work. It’s another case of government valuing ideology over the kids that are at risk.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 16: Again, to emphasize, we are talking about bad policy here, not constitutional rights. Adoption agencies cannot place children in social services, either in group homes or foster care, without the involvement of government funds. Depending upon definition, faith-based agencies who have a faith-based moral objection to placing children into gay homes, must be excluded from adopting out kids in the system. If the definitions aren’t that broad now, they will be in the future — you can see that coming.

    The goal of government should be to make sure kids get placed in good homes. To force agencies who have been doing this for a long time, and do it well, just because they won’t place into gay homes, harms those kids. Plain and simple. Government can ensure that there are agencies available to place kids into gay homes without forcing EVERY agency to do that work. It’s another case of government valuing ideology over the kids that are at risk.

  • DonS

    Should be “to force agencies out of the adoption business”

  • DonS

    Should be “to force agencies out of the adoption business”

  • Grace

    DonS @ 17
    “I think private adoptions are great — don’t get me wrong. And, as laws like these become more commonplace, forcing people of faith out of the mainstream adoption world, they will certainly become more prominent and important.”

    “Private adoptions” have been around for a long time. Christians who want to adopt, and those who have found themselves expecting a child they want to be placed in a Christian home can be helped. That is what many pro-life Christian organizations are all about. The cost is no more, and most likely less then an adoption which goes through endless government red tape.

    Most unwed mothers want to MEET the individuals that will take and raise their child. They want to know something about them. Are there are children in the home, what denomination are they affiliated with, and will the child they adopt be raised to know Christ, attend Sunday School? Many questions come into play with such a meeting. Often times the adoptive parents will send pictures once a year, so the biological mother can see for herself how the little one is doing.

    This is not an insurmountable problem. It has been solved, people just aren’t aware of it.

  • Grace

    DonS @ 17
    “I think private adoptions are great — don’t get me wrong. And, as laws like these become more commonplace, forcing people of faith out of the mainstream adoption world, they will certainly become more prominent and important.”

    “Private adoptions” have been around for a long time. Christians who want to adopt, and those who have found themselves expecting a child they want to be placed in a Christian home can be helped. That is what many pro-life Christian organizations are all about. The cost is no more, and most likely less then an adoption which goes through endless government red tape.

    Most unwed mothers want to MEET the individuals that will take and raise their child. They want to know something about them. Are there are children in the home, what denomination are they affiliated with, and will the child they adopt be raised to know Christ, attend Sunday School? Many questions come into play with such a meeting. Often times the adoptive parents will send pictures once a year, so the biological mother can see for herself how the little one is doing.

    This is not an insurmountable problem. It has been solved, people just aren’t aware of it.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 21: You are completely missing the point. Private adoptions are not available for kids that are in the care of social services.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 21: You are completely missing the point. Private adoptions are not available for kids that are in the care of social services.

  • T.G. Christian

    Does anyone have statistics regarding this? e.g.,
    How many religious agencies in adoption? What percentage of overall are religious? What is % of muslim/hindu/buddhist agencies?
    How many kids are adopted via these different agencies?
    This might help us understand what would be fallout if this proposal becomes law.

  • T.G. Christian

    Does anyone have statistics regarding this? e.g.,
    How many religious agencies in adoption? What percentage of overall are religious? What is % of muslim/hindu/buddhist agencies?
    How many kids are adopted via these different agencies?
    This might help us understand what would be fallout if this proposal becomes law.

  • Grace

    DonS @22

    YOU WROTE: “Grace @ 21: You are completely missing the point. Private adoptions are not available for kids that are in the care of social services.”

    No Don, I did not miss the ‘point. Adoptions, where the biological mother has not yet given birth, seeks to adopt out her child to a couple, ……. is not in the “social services” –

    My post @ 21 did not, in any way suggest “social services” -

  • Grace

    DonS @22

    YOU WROTE: “Grace @ 21: You are completely missing the point. Private adoptions are not available for kids that are in the care of social services.”

    No Don, I did not miss the ‘point. Adoptions, where the biological mother has not yet given birth, seeks to adopt out her child to a couple, ……. is not in the “social services” –

    My post @ 21 did not, in any way suggest “social services” -

  • Grace

    Families for Private Adoption

    What exactly is private adoption?

    Private (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency. Like other types of adoption, private adoption is governed by state laws. In addition, if a child is brought from one state to another, then the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children apply.

    What are the advantages and disadvantages of private adoption?

    The advantages include:

    Greater control over choice for birth parents and adoptive parents. Private adoption allows all parties involved to make choices about the baby and each other. For many, the opportunity to meet provides added reassurance that decisions are being made in the best interests of the child.

    More information. Direct contact means more extensive background information for the child, including medical, social, and religious histories.

    More immediate bonding. Private adoption allows the newborn baby to bypass foster care in a temporary home or an orphanage. Indeed, most babies adopted privately come home from the hospital with the adoptive parents, so the bonding process begins immediately.

    Chance of shorter search. Compared with agency adoptions, the search times for infants may be shorter.

    http://ffpa.org/staticpages/index.php/FAQ

  • Grace

    Families for Private Adoption

    What exactly is private adoption?

    Private (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency. Like other types of adoption, private adoption is governed by state laws. In addition, if a child is brought from one state to another, then the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children apply.

    What are the advantages and disadvantages of private adoption?

    The advantages include:

    Greater control over choice for birth parents and adoptive parents. Private adoption allows all parties involved to make choices about the baby and each other. For many, the opportunity to meet provides added reassurance that decisions are being made in the best interests of the child.

    More information. Direct contact means more extensive background information for the child, including medical, social, and religious histories.

    More immediate bonding. Private adoption allows the newborn baby to bypass foster care in a temporary home or an orphanage. Indeed, most babies adopted privately come home from the hospital with the adoptive parents, so the bonding process begins immediately.

    Chance of shorter search. Compared with agency adoptions, the search times for infants may be shorter.

    http://ffpa.org/staticpages/index.php/FAQ

  • BW

    Grace,

    What DonS is saying is that private adoption isn’t an option for kids already in the system. Children that are abandoned or whose parents didn’t care for them till they were taken by social services, or whose parents are abusive, those kids don’t have the option of private adoption.

  • BW

    Grace,

    What DonS is saying is that private adoption isn’t an option for kids already in the system. Children that are abandoned or whose parents didn’t care for them till they were taken by social services, or whose parents are abusive, those kids don’t have the option of private adoption.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Private adoptions, by definition, take no government funds and thus would not fall under these restrictions. That’s why you read nothing about them. But they are a small segment of the adoption world, because they are very expensive and involved, and cannot be used to adopt children that are “in the system”.

    Okay, I have a question.

    Why are adoptions and foster care so expensive for agencies to administer? I mean, these are the least desirable kids and wards of the state. You would think the state would be dying to get rid of them as fast as they could. So, is the whole thing sort of a boondoggle, or what is actually going on? I hear from my friends trying to adopt from foster care that they have to comply with a laundry list of stuff just to be considered. It is so upside down crazy. These are the best possible parents and homes vying for the worst kids and the state makes it long and expensive. What is up with all this expense, yada, yada?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Private adoptions, by definition, take no government funds and thus would not fall under these restrictions. That’s why you read nothing about them. But they are a small segment of the adoption world, because they are very expensive and involved, and cannot be used to adopt children that are “in the system”.

    Okay, I have a question.

    Why are adoptions and foster care so expensive for agencies to administer? I mean, these are the least desirable kids and wards of the state. You would think the state would be dying to get rid of them as fast as they could. So, is the whole thing sort of a boondoggle, or what is actually going on? I hear from my friends trying to adopt from foster care that they have to comply with a laundry list of stuff just to be considered. It is so upside down crazy. These are the best possible parents and homes vying for the worst kids and the state makes it long and expensive. What is up with all this expense, yada, yada?

  • Grace

    BW @ 26

    I am well aware of the differences between ‘private adoption’ and children who are in the “system” available for adoption, or foster care.

    There is no reason to expound on what DonS meant. My point was never about children who are in the “social services” system.

  • Grace

    BW @ 26

    I am well aware of the differences between ‘private adoption’ and children who are in the “system” available for adoption, or foster care.

    There is no reason to expound on what DonS meant. My point was never about children who are in the “social services” system.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 24: Fair enough, except that you were specifically responding to my comment @ 17, where I was talking about children in the social services system. So, if your “point was never about children who are in the “social services” system, why did you preface your comment as a response to mine?

    If you want to start a new string of comments, fine, go ahead. But don’t rebut my comment and then claim that I’m off topic when I respond.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 24: Fair enough, except that you were specifically responding to my comment @ 17, where I was talking about children in the social services system. So, if your “point was never about children who are in the “social services” system, why did you preface your comment as a response to mine?

    If you want to start a new string of comments, fine, go ahead. But don’t rebut my comment and then claim that I’m off topic when I respond.

  • Grace

    DonS

    I made a comment at 12
    12 Grace November 9, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    I may have missed it, but I read nothing of ‘private adoptions’ which are accomplished all the time. In this way a woman can adopt her child out, to whomever she chooses, making the selection herself.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You responded at 14

    14 DonS November 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Grace @ 12: Private adoptions, by definition, take no government funds and thus would not fall under these restrictions. That’s why you read nothing about them. But they are a small segment of the adoption world, because they are very expensive and involved, and cannot be used to adopt children that are “in the system”.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    15 Grace November 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    DonS @14

    They aren’t as “small” as you might believe. Christian adoptions can be accomplished through ‘private adoption’ – Christian groups help with such adoptions, and they are not any more expensive then others, … that excuse is used to scare off potential families and those who wish to give their infants to a Christian family.

    Have you been involved in ‘private adoptions’ as an attorney here in Southern CA?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    It was a comment, to single out “private adoption” which is often times sought by homosexuals – many do want newborns. Not all adoption agencies are run by the state. Therefore the first comment I made @ 12.

    There is no reason to start nit-picking what I post. Adoption is a serious subject, one in which I have been involved for a long time –

    It might surprise you Don, they are not as you state…. “they are very expensive and involved” …. which is not always true, in fact they are easier, in many ways.

  • Grace

    DonS

    I made a comment at 12
    12 Grace November 9, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    I may have missed it, but I read nothing of ‘private adoptions’ which are accomplished all the time. In this way a woman can adopt her child out, to whomever she chooses, making the selection herself.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You responded at 14

    14 DonS November 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Grace @ 12: Private adoptions, by definition, take no government funds and thus would not fall under these restrictions. That’s why you read nothing about them. But they are a small segment of the adoption world, because they are very expensive and involved, and cannot be used to adopt children that are “in the system”.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    15 Grace November 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    DonS @14

    They aren’t as “small” as you might believe. Christian adoptions can be accomplished through ‘private adoption’ – Christian groups help with such adoptions, and they are not any more expensive then others, … that excuse is used to scare off potential families and those who wish to give their infants to a Christian family.

    Have you been involved in ‘private adoptions’ as an attorney here in Southern CA?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    It was a comment, to single out “private adoption” which is often times sought by homosexuals – many do want newborns. Not all adoption agencies are run by the state. Therefore the first comment I made @ 12.

    There is no reason to start nit-picking what I post. Adoption is a serious subject, one in which I have been involved for a long time –

    It might surprise you Don, they are not as you state…. “they are very expensive and involved” …. which is not always true, in fact they are easier, in many ways.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 30: OK, fair enough. But the focus of this legislation, as reported in the linked article, is on children who are in the foster care system, almost all of whom are not candidates for private adoption. That is why it was not emphasized in this thread, and why, @ 12, you read nothing of private adoption.

  • DonS

    Grace @ 30: OK, fair enough. But the focus of this legislation, as reported in the linked article, is on children who are in the foster care system, almost all of whom are not candidates for private adoption. That is why it was not emphasized in this thread, and why, @ 12, you read nothing of private adoption.

  • Grace

    DonS @ 31

    YOU WROTE: “That is why it was not emphasized in this thread, and why, @ 12, you read nothing of private adoption”

    That is correct, however I brought it up because even children that are older, that have not been taken from their parents, due to abuse, etc, can still be adopted by others, IF the parent chooses to give permission for such an adoption – as in the case of extreme illness, or impending death, due to such illness. It’s in the best interest of children, that their parent/parents make such provision, if there is time to do so.

    Giving guardianship, or parenthood to a trusted friend or relative is often accomplished, therefore leaving “social services” out of the equation.

  • Grace

    DonS @ 31

    YOU WROTE: “That is why it was not emphasized in this thread, and why, @ 12, you read nothing of private adoption”

    That is correct, however I brought it up because even children that are older, that have not been taken from their parents, due to abuse, etc, can still be adopted by others, IF the parent chooses to give permission for such an adoption – as in the case of extreme illness, or impending death, due to such illness. It’s in the best interest of children, that their parent/parents make such provision, if there is time to do so.

    Giving guardianship, or parenthood to a trusted friend or relative is often accomplished, therefore leaving “social services” out of the equation.

  • BW

    Grace,

    I see what you are saying, but if social services has to take the children due to neglect or abuse, do you think the parent(s) are really thinking of the best interest of the children? Do you think they would give such consent, when up to that point, they have never thought of the welfare of their children?

  • BW

    Grace,

    I see what you are saying, but if social services has to take the children due to neglect or abuse, do you think the parent(s) are really thinking of the best interest of the children? Do you think they would give such consent, when up to that point, they have never thought of the welfare of their children?

  • BW

    Grace,

    I see what you are saying, ignore my post @33. You are talking about non neglect or abuse situations.

  • BW

    Grace,

    I see what you are saying, ignore my post @33. You are talking about non neglect or abuse situations.

  • Grace

    BW @33

    Good question, but there is no air-tight answer. There are so many variables.

  • Grace

    BW @33

    Good question, but there is no air-tight answer. There are so many variables.

  • Grace

    Sorry BW, I didn’t see post 34 before I posted.

  • Grace

    Sorry BW, I didn’t see post 34 before I posted.

  • DonS

    I think we’re all agreed that private adoption is a great alternative, for those cases where it applies and is feasible. So, to emphasize, my comments are to regular adoption involving kids in the system where government funding is involved. Which is, of course, the subject of this thread.

  • DonS

    I think we’re all agreed that private adoption is a great alternative, for those cases where it applies and is feasible. So, to emphasize, my comments are to regular adoption involving kids in the system where government funding is involved. Which is, of course, the subject of this thread.

  • Grace

    DonS @37

    I agree with your remarks – I doubt however, that this will be settled the way those in the Christian community pray for. We live in a fallen world as you know.

    Adoption is difficult at best. There is no easy answer.. homosexuals wanting to adopt, and demanding that they be allowed to do so, has not helped the situation.

    Children become confused about themselves, realizing that female and male’s are different, not just in appearance, but in many other ways as well. Children are dependent on those whom they live with. They are expected to be grateful for whatever has befallen them. When they’ve already been taken from their biological parents for whatever reason, it leaves a painful mark, .. those who are thrust into a homosexual mom/mom or dad/dad lifestyle makes it worse. Even though one of the parents is a biological parent, either divorced from the other, or adopted.

    The whole subject is painful, the end result is often very sad, leaving children growing into, and being adults, without a proper foundation. I would use the word “bewildered” as adults.

  • Grace

    DonS @37

    I agree with your remarks – I doubt however, that this will be settled the way those in the Christian community pray for. We live in a fallen world as you know.

    Adoption is difficult at best. There is no easy answer.. homosexuals wanting to adopt, and demanding that they be allowed to do so, has not helped the situation.

    Children become confused about themselves, realizing that female and male’s are different, not just in appearance, but in many other ways as well. Children are dependent on those whom they live with. They are expected to be grateful for whatever has befallen them. When they’ve already been taken from their biological parents for whatever reason, it leaves a painful mark, .. those who are thrust into a homosexual mom/mom or dad/dad lifestyle makes it worse. Even though one of the parents is a biological parent, either divorced from the other, or adopted.

    The whole subject is painful, the end result is often very sad, leaving children growing into, and being adults, without a proper foundation. I would use the word “bewildered” as adults.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X