Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

How do you feel about paying or asking for living expenses? Just asking - not a AP or BM

Maybe it's just me but I have been seeing quite a few post regarding this issue. I have mixed feelings on it, because and not to offend anyone - these are just my thoughts and feelings but... It seems like your selling your unborn child to the family that can pay your living expenses, but if no family can pay your expenses what happens? Your still pregnant with the same bills, If you were pregnant or not you would still have these expenses so why is it ok to ask a family who has their own bills and who are probably saving for the child their hoping to adopt and give everything to, why is it alright to ask them.. Because they want a baby? I think this is wrong -if your considering placement - the best family should of course be considered but again 'To Me' - not the family thats willing to throw money at you to get the baby. There are alot scams also when these mothers get your money and keep their baby.

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 10:24 AM on Oct. 22, 2009 in Adoption

Answers (25)
  • As a mom who once relinquished a child decades ago, I am not in favor of expectant mothers considering adoption receiving ANY payments/expenses from an agency or potential adoptive parents. If a mother takes money, she may feel less free to change her mind. When a mother who has taken some money does change her mind, the potential adoptive parents often feel cheated and/or though they paid money expecting a baby. It is a bad idea all around for an expectant mom to take money. State laws vary, but, many states have stringent restrictions on how much an expectant mom is allowed to receive from potential adoptive parents.

    If a mother cannot afford her living or prenatal expenses, there are many better ways for her to get some help....and most other ways have no strings attached to them.

    Answer by Southernroots at 11:34 AM on Oct. 22, 2009

  • We did not provide financial support of any kind to our childrens birth mothers. We felt if they really wanted to give their children up they would and if they changed their mind that was their right. We also never dealt with moms early in pregnancy we knew it was too early for them to. We encouraged the birth moms to take the children home for a bit as well to make sure it was something they really wanted to do. Two of our childrens mothers did and kept the children one for a month another for 6 weeks. Both opted to give their children up knowing for them it was best. The other mother who gave us our twins gave them up at birth they were the product of her being raped by her father. So she wanted nothing to do with them and she wanted the closed adoption. The other two birth moms opted for closed as well. It was hard but we keep boxes for all three moms and at anytime they can contact the agency for our info.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:58 AM on Oct. 22, 2009

  • I am an Amom so believe me, I would be thrilled not to have to pay expenses but let me explain why I did. The bmom worked in a factory where it was advised from the doctor that she could no longer work after 8 months. She had other children. She was facing getting kicked out of her home. I didnt want her or the baby in utero to be under that kind of stress when she was about to deliver. She also didnt have a phone to call in an emergency and I wanted her to have that. I cared about her but also about what ended up being my child. I wanted her to be able to eat. After she delivered, she had to stay home for a couple of weeks. Here is someone already extremely poor, her pregnancy shouldnt make her profit but in her case, it was making her than much more impoverished. I didnt think she now be without a baby and in worse financial shape than had she kept the baby. She shouldnt profit but shouldnt be punished either.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:08 PM on Oct. 22, 2009

  • I paid bmom expenses twice. I have some thoughts on how and when. In the first situation we paid close to seven thousand dollars and the bmom did change her mind and she did keep the money paid already. We could have taken her to court and no doubt we would have won our claim. It was very clear leaglly. But what would have been the point? Soo...and we paid our child's bmom's expences. We knew the risk going in and it was clearly spelled out. Our organization went over adoption ettiquette. I do think it is completely fine to provide reinbursement of expences and a modest amount for after care and needs. Some of the responsibiity is on the bparents. They have the right to choose a family that meets the child's needs and their's if they have any needs.

    Answer by frogdawg at 3:30 PM on Oct. 22, 2009

  • I know what you mean about selling the baby. In the same way it could be considered buying a baby. There is a problem there because the expectant mom could feel like she cannot change her mind and parent the baby because she owes the paps.

    In my case I had several expenses that needed to be paid. I had no health insurance, so all my pre-natal and hospital expenses needed to be paid and while I couldn't work because of the pregnancy (I was a server in a restaurant) I needed my rent, food, travel expenses paid also. All these expenses were incurred because of the pregnancy and would have had to have been paid by the paps had amom been pregnant with what is now their child.

    I did not sell my baby. I did not make any money. In fact I lost money because while they were paying my living expenses during the time I couldn't work, I didn't ask them to compensate me my whole pay check.


    Answer by onethentwins at 3:42 PM on Oct. 23, 2009

  • HUH... If the amom was pregnant, she woud have had to pay for heath insurance, rent, and travel for another person?? I dont know what you mean. Obviously she had to feed, insure and house herself whether she was pregnant or not, why do you think it is the same.

    You do realize that they probably spent an huge amount of money on you, dont you?

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:34 PM on Oct. 23, 2009

  • I got on medicaid against the lawyer's recommendation. I refused any monetary help. The only thing the PAP's paid for was my $6 lunch during on of our meetings. While, in the end, I did surrender, I refused their help because I didn't want to feel obligated. My family kept telling me that I needed to let them cover stuff so not to "burden the taxpayers", but were appalled at the mere mention of changing my mind after letting the PAP's cover my expenses. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    But I do consider paying expenses similar to buying the child. Maybe not outright and I do understand there are some situations where there are few other options, but if the mother can get on public assistance and seek help thru other means, then there is no reason a prospective adoptive parent should have to pay anything. And any lawyer/agency that encourages it should be shut down.

    Answer by randi1978 at 10:14 AM on Oct. 24, 2009

  • I agree with what Randi1978 said. I think getting on Medicaid is a good idea. That is what it is there for - help when somebody needs it. I know that Catholic Charities helps emoms with those expenses with no strings attached. The cost of supporting this can be spread to all of the PAPs. If either of our matches had fallen through, CC would have put up back in the pool of hopeful APs. That way the PAPs can help cover the cost without any certain emom feeling obligated to any one person.

    Ceejay, I am not denying your bad experience with someone associated with CC. There are turkeys everywhere.

    Answer by Iamgr8teful at 1:27 PM on Oct. 24, 2009

  • The PAPS in my case didn't spend anything to support me (it was offered by the agency; i declined) I was on medicaid so no, no one family spent huge amounts of money on me. In fact, I didnt pick the parents till after baby was born.
    But really, so WHAT if they spent that money on me & I changed my mind. It would have been well within my rights to decide to keep my own child. Yet, you get condemened either way as has already been mentioned.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:22 PM on Oct. 24, 2009

  • Anon 4:34 - "I dont know what you mean."

    I mean, if my sons amom had been pregnant with him instead of me, then she would have had to pay her pregnancy medical expenses and living expenses during her maternity leave. Yes, it cost them a lot of money, but none of it ended up in my pocket. It went to the OB and the hospital and my landlord. Had I not been pregnant with what became her child, then I wouldn't have had prenatal and delivery expenses, and I wouldn't have been on maternity leave. Believe me, by the time I was well enough to go back to work I was quite broke.

    Plus, there was no way I could have made enough money to pay those bills myself, and I was ineligible for Medicaid or disability unless I'd gone home to England.


    Answer by onethentwins at 5:00 PM on Oct. 24, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.