Oh and to@ those aren’t my thumbs,you have the wrong impression about foster parents!There might be a few that’s in it for money,but there really isn’t any money in it.That money goes for the child just like child support!And I know there is many foster parents that do the same as we do any spend 100s of extra a year for the child to do extra thing like sports,fun activites,ect…Most of the children in the SYSTEM come from broken homes and don’t even know what its like to be loved!!!!!!!!!!

it sure would be a nice concept, but a lot of people want to adopt kids with no baggage attached to them or they don’t want to foster children only to get attached to them and have them go back home.

I’m concerned about it being in the hands of agencies, though. Every time a prospective adoptive parent chose a foster child instead of a newborn, the agency would lose out on tens of thousands of dollars… not exactly encouraging the agency to be the foster child’s best advocate.

I’m afraid the agency’s “pitch” for the foster children would be something incredibly backhanded, would trot out all the stereotypes and unlikely worst case scenarios, and essentially use the foster kids as a way to market their infants, who they could claim came with less baggage.

I think having adoption agencies involved (since they have a built in conflicting agenda) might actually make things worse for foster children.

Maybe an option would be to have an information packet prepared by the state or federal government, given out to all prospective parents considering adoption? I know it wouldn’t have the same punch as a face to face conversation, but at least it would be standardized. At least you could be sure it would do no harm.

I definitely think prospective adoptive parents should be made aware of foster care adoption… but I don’t think the agencies are the people to tell them. It needs to be someone working for the foster kids’ interests, not potentially against them. It needs to be someone without their own conflicting agenda.

In our county we were told that there are lots and lots families waiting to adopt a legally free child from fostercare unger the age of 6, including those with minor to moderate special needs, and the wait could be very long. However, with both of international adoptions it actually was the other way around. It took the agency a while to find a family for them because of very minor “issues to consider”, even though they were under 2 months old at time of referal.

If not adopted, many of the children available for adoption internationally will grow up in an orphanage, some of whom were legally free as infants. I don’t understand why these children aren’t considered “needy”, while foster children are, even those younger foster kids who have no problem at all being adopted.

Also, of all the adoptive parents I know who either adopted internationally or domestically, just about all of them considered foster-adoption first before deciding to go a different route. By the time a family is speaking with an agency, they’ve probably already decided against adopting from fostercare.

I do disrepsectfully disagree with the poster who stated anyone who wants to adopt should foster first. They are very different roles, and not everyone is fit to be a foster parent. I actually think anyone who is wanting to adopt should NOT foster until they have resolved their issues with adoption. Foster children require someone committed to seeing if they can be reunited, not to be first considered to be an option for adoption.

ETA, is offended by the analogy of McDonald’s and Subway. Adoption should not be a capitalist enterprise and yes all options should be presented, with an emphasis on foster care adoption.