State askes families for voluntary cut in adoption support
VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) - How many families who adopted special needs children that were in state custody could use less support from the state of Washington? The Legislature told the state Department of Social and Health Services to ask.
The department recently sent letters to more than 9,000 families, asking them to make a voluntary reduction in their monthly support payments, The Columbian reported Monday.
"The department asks that you review your family's financial situation to determine whether your family can accommodate a reduction in your current adoption support monthly payment," the letter states. "The amount can be any amount you determine is feasible."
Those who agree to a reduction are asked to fill out a form and return it to the state's Adoption Support Program.
Adoption support payments are governed by contract, so mandatory reductions are unlikely, but Clark County adoptive parents Joe and Sarah Perry were alarmed when they found the letter in their mailbox. They fear the letter may signal an erosion of support for adoptive families.
"I don't have a problem with them asking," Joe Perry said. "My biggest concern is, if they're asking for volunteers, how long until they make reductions mandatory?"
"I can't afford a reduction," he said. "I'm trying to provide for my family, which I am, but it's difficult. We are a single-income family. We need my wife to stay home because of the kids' behavioral issues."
Support payments range from about $400 to $1,400 per child and total about $91 million this year, DSHS spokeswoman Chris Case said.
Costs are split 50-50 with the federal government. Special needs children include those with mental, physical emotional disabilities, minorities, sets of siblings and older children.
"What we're trying to do is find permanent homes for children that are hard to place," DSHS spokesman Thomas Shapley said.
The request to adoptive families to cut their own benefits was ordered by the Legislature this year as lawmakers looked for ways to cut state spending in the program. The request was part of a law that reduces adoption support in new contracts to no more than 80 percent of foster care maintenance payments, effective in July 2013. The current amount is 90 percent, down from 100 percent in 2010, Shapley said.
There's no count yet on the number of adoptive families willing to take less money, he said.
The Perrys won't be volunteering for less help with the three sons they adopted 10 years ago.
The boys, now ages 10, 13 and 14, are siblings and each has challenges, including attention deficit disorder, anxiety, reactive attachment disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, The Columbian reported. The youngest tested positive for drugs when he was born, Joe Perry said.
The couple receives about $2,300 per month in adoption support payments for all three children.
They said they would have adopted the children without any compensation, but the assurance of the payments affected financial decisions the family made, including the decision to purchase a larger home so the children could have their own rooms. The mortgage is now underwater due to a decrease in value, Perry said.
The department recently sent letters to more than 9,000 families, asking them to make a voluntary reduction in their monthly support payments, The Columbian reported Monday.
"The department asks that you review your family's financial situation to determine whether your family can accommodate a reduction in your current adoption support monthly payment," the letter states. "The amount can be any amount you determine is feasible."
Those who agree to a reduction are asked to fill out a form and return it to the state's Adoption Support Program.
Adoption support payments are governed by contract, so mandatory reductions are unlikely, but Clark County adoptive parents Joe and Sarah Perry were alarmed when they found the letter in their mailbox. They fear the letter may signal an erosion of support for adoptive families.
"I don't have a problem with them asking," Joe Perry said. "My biggest concern is, if they're asking for volunteers, how long until they make reductions mandatory?"
"I can't afford a reduction," he said. "I'm trying to provide for my family, which I am, but it's difficult. We are a single-income family. We need my wife to stay home because of the kids' behavioral issues."
Support payments range from about $400 to $1,400 per child and total about $91 million this year, DSHS spokeswoman Chris Case said.
Costs are split 50-50 with the federal government. Special needs children include those with mental, physical emotional disabilities, minorities, sets of siblings and older children.
"What we're trying to do is find permanent homes for children that are hard to place," DSHS spokesman Thomas Shapley said.
The request to adoptive families to cut their own benefits was ordered by the Legislature this year as lawmakers looked for ways to cut state spending in the program. The request was part of a law that reduces adoption support in new contracts to no more than 80 percent of foster care maintenance payments, effective in July 2013. The current amount is 90 percent, down from 100 percent in 2010, Shapley said.
There's no count yet on the number of adoptive families willing to take less money, he said.
The Perrys won't be volunteering for less help with the three sons they adopted 10 years ago.
The boys, now ages 10, 13 and 14, are siblings and each has challenges, including attention deficit disorder, anxiety, reactive attachment disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, The Columbian reported. The youngest tested positive for drugs when he was born, Joe Perry said.
The couple receives about $2,300 per month in adoption support payments for all three children.
They said they would have adopted the children without any compensation, but the assurance of the payments affected financial decisions the family made, including the decision to purchase a larger home so the children could have their own rooms. The mortgage is now underwater due to a decrease in value, Perry said.
If the government needs to cut spending and are not willing to cut their OWN benefits, then maybe they should start by making the gas companies lower prices. Maybe tell the airlines to stop all the stupid add on costs. And force the medical community to cut their outragous costs for a Doctor visit. My last one was over $300.00 and I have insurance.
I am curious and not looking to start a fight but those who have recently adopted special needs children, do you get to take that adoption credit that the IRS has offered for the past 2 years (2011 and 2012 thus far)? I think it's great that you can bring a child into a safe environment rather than them being bounced around from foster home to foster home until they are possibly bounced out of the system. I think Washington needs to find another way to take these cuts rather than asking parents of these children to voluntarily take a cut in their monthly stipend.Â
I think the monies given to these families is likely much less than if the child was left in foster care. Cut somewhere else. These children deserve a home and the couples willing to adopt them deserve assistance. Think how many payments could be made with the more than $1,000,000 it cose when Jay Inslee left congress and a special election was required. It is extra costs like that that undermine help for our special needs children. Do not put pressure on adoptive parents. Live up to your contract, Washington.
 @Lin19 Well said!!!!!
I have mixed feeling on this. On one hand it seems that if you adopt a child you should be the one to pay for all the child needs, you are asking the state to give you the child after all, and the child isn't a paycheck. Yet on the other hand as a mother of a special needs child and a former caregiver of special needs children I do know they take more of everything to care for, more money, more time, more patience, more worrying, more doctors appts, etc. I've often thought about adopting a special needs child but I know right now my husband and I cant afford it.  Special needs children are some of the hardest to care for, but it is one of the most rewarding things when you finally break through to them and they learn to trust and love you. There needs to be more support for these parents who are adopting special needs kind, not just money but a community effort to help them with what they need. Â
The thing is, you can't plan for possible medical or emotional issues with adoptive children. All you can count on is that it's unknown territory, but that you can possibly save the life of a child by venturing into it. We adopted our foster son, we were his 5th set of caretakers by the time he was 28 months. We couldn't afford to adopt him with adoption support, are you saying we should have just kept him as a foster child, meaning he could have been moved at any time to another home? Phooey. Taxes well spent. And nobody paid me for the slaps, kicks, broken walls & furniture, nights staying up, etc. Adoption support is well spent.
 @Iffyon Nor can you plan for such things even if you simply have a child. While it is a very noble gesture and responsibility to adopt a 'special needs' child, or a healthy child altogether... why would anyone do so without the ways and means to support them? I am adopted myself. My parents never asked the State or the Government for a dime. I'm a well adjusted man and my folks too weathered the nights, furniture etc. Never once asking for support. I know of a family personally, where they have adopted 7 children. Explicitly for the support. That is their primary source of income. As noble as it is... there are many that are manipulating the system. This I know for a fact.
 @d_2  @Iffyon Do those children have major physical/emotional/mental challenges? It is a fact also that children with substantial challenges take a lot of time, sweat, blood, and tears. In some cases, people who adopt many special children do so knowing that it will be a full time job. That's understandable and very terrific - the children can be a part of a real family, not in a group home or foster environment.
 @d_2 We also looked into adopting a child from the former USSR. We were told about the high risk of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in particular; that scared us the most. You just don't know if that will appear, when, and what manifestation it will take. Special needs in general don't scare me; it was the uncertainty of wondering if an FAS child would become physically violent or whatever. So many unknowns. Generally more than with a bio child.
Â
I don't like the idea of government help in general; I'd rather see things done at the local level. Families helping each other or whatever. But if it came down to government help or leaving the kids in foster care/orphanages (where they are supported by the government), I'd rather have the government help.
 @Silvia A couple of them do, yes. They adopted those children knowing full well the challenges and consequences. Listen.. people that do open their homes to children of all sorts have my ultimate thanks and respect. Doing so should not require any sustaining support from the Government. I in fact looked into adopting a child from Russia. Most if not all have Rickets. I would have done so never asking the Russian Gov't or our local Gov't for a dime. Circumstances changed, I/we did not have an opportunity.
Sorry, meant to say couldn't afford it withOUT adoption support.
As you can see from the Sleep Country commercials always collecting stuff for Foster Children, the state doesn't pay nearly enough for foster children and adopted children. I have adopted two special needs children from the state and it is like pulling teeth to get funding to help take care of their needs. The legislature needs to look elsewhere to cover their spending!!!!
Are you aware that children cared for by family members are eligible for nothing? We have custody of our great grandchildren and if we want to apply for any help for them it would be based on our income. Our social security "might" make us eligible for some assistance but I'm not doing that. If we had let these children go into foster care they would be eligible for many programs but I've seen too many bad foster homes to allow that to happen.
@Mamuk - I'd gladly donate winter coats to your great grandchildren because you can use the help ... you're NOT being paid where Foster and Adopted families are being paid!
@Cindy and it's because of commercials just like that ... that I REFUSE to donate to Foster children - Foster parents are being paid ... BUY what these kids need!!!!
Asinine!!!
What do we do with hard/impossible to adopt children?  State or Federally run orphanages ($$$)? Hope that the private sector steps up (where is the profit)? What do we do with these children?
This really upsets me! What the heck - I thought if you adopted a child (special needs or not) that YOU were responsible for them NOT all of us taxpayers - this is total BS ... these people are probably getting SSI too - this isn't suppose to be a business, and that's what you're doing!
@moonbeam51 I wasn't going to comment, until I read your's. Just to clarify for myself where you are coming from, are you also anti-abortion? Do you believe the government should never fund abortions? The only reason I ask is because I am so fed up with some people (and I do not know if you are one of them) who scream  and rant  about how a woman absolutely must carry her child to term, because it is a precious life. But when the child is born, many of these same people insist that taxpayers should not have to assist in funding for the care of these children they insisted must be allowed to be born. As a society,and everyone is part of one, whether they want to be or not--we are obligated to care for one another. Particularly if we insist upon sticking our noses in places that we really don't belong. If people insist upon legislating your personal views of life being precious, you then have the responsibility to care for the child if the woman will not or cannot. It's that simple. Â
Â
I will say no matter what your response is to my question I find it extremely offensive that you generalize a group of people who do so much more good than harm, as all being frauds and decieving the government. As others have said--when you have the guts to take in special needs foster kids--I suspect you will be singing a totally different tune. Â
@chickysgirl - I believe women should be able to make the decision that's right for them when it comes to having children. There are some women that shouldn't be parents. There are SO many people who what children and they're not able for one reason or another to have/get them...that it's sad. The BOTTOM line is this: The government should NOT be providing money to care for children that people have opened their doors to. IF you open your door then you should be able financially to do WHATEVER you need to ... to take care of that child. The only thing we can think of is that you're a bleeding heart Liberal!
 @moonbeam51 yeah try being a foster parent or adopting one of these kids! Would you rather they go from home to home until they age out (18) and have nobody. In the long run that would cost you and me (taxpayers) more money! We get much less in adoption support than we do for foster maintenance. And the foster maintenance payments don't even cover everything we do for these kids! Yes, i know there are foster parents who do it for the money and don't provide for the kids like they should, but most do take care of them and spend money out of their own pockets to take care of other peoples kids!
@moonbeam51Â Â Give it a try-become a fosterparent and then come back and let us all know your view of things...
@agatha - I'm NOT here to take on someone elses responsibility - I've taken care of MY own!
Know of a couple of families that have adopted children and they make pretty good money just like this couple do. I'm against tax payers paying people to adopt children. It sends the wrong message. Wouldn't be against food stamp help if the family is poor but the rest should be up to the adoptive parents to provide.
 @Blindman Really, how do you know they make good money? They offer and pay you way less money than you receive when your fostering them, plus you loose your mileage reimbursement, daycare coverage, repairs/replacement of things they break, etc.Â
Maybe they should redefine "Special Needs".
 @DDG Every adopted child should probably be considered special needs. They all have attachment disorder to some degree, even the children who were adopted as babies. It isn't an easy thing to deal with, and often appears in unusual ways. It's unpredictable. Handled properly, attachment disorder doesn't have to be a big deal. But the catch is the way the adoptive parents handle it.
So....DSHS wants to cut spending by asking families with special needs kids to reduce their support. I wonder if similar letters went out to parents of illegal anchor babies.
@James127  SO TRUE! Come on down to the Marysville Winco- watch how many foreigners use food stamps.. wonder what that costs us?? Yet no one wants to take care of these fosterchildren that were abused in and out of utero and born in the good ol USA. Sad huh?
Â
Whyaren't the legislatures, governor, lt. gov, etc. all being asked to voluntarily take a pay cut? Raising a special needs child, whether adopted or not, is a life long commitment, and very costly.
 @Traveler Their combined excuse(s) pertaining to pay cuts.... It's written in State Constitution(s) they don't have to do any such thing. How convenient is that?
Why should an adoption of any nature receive government assistance is my question. I am all for people choosing to adopt children, however if you cannot afford the cost of a child⦠maybe you should not be adopting.
This article talks about gov assistance for adopted "special needs" children, not ALL adopted children. "Special needs" children no doubt need more time, love , care, and financial to care for them. If gov does not assist in making adoption for these "special needs" children, these children will stay in foster care, orphanages, or even out on the streets, because they do not have families who could provide for them any way they can to give them the family love they need. "Special needs" children have more medical issues, and they can get real costly. Caring for "special needs" children is a full time job, and not all of them can go to school so their parent can get a part time job. Gov assistance is not for all adoptions, they are only for "special needs" children. Without gov assistance, there will be way less families who wants to help but can't afford to adopt these kids. I much prefer these children be provided with love and care from an environment they can call home. These kids deserves to be loved, and more can be adopted because of help from the gov, and the gov helps ONLY the "special needs" children, as is happening today. I don't have a problem with this, because I want these children to have a home.
@DreamTravler  Sure let these children who have Reactive Attachement disorder, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, Oppostitional Disorder etc... not have families or homes... Real thoughtful of you DreamTravler.
@agatha Nobody including myself has said these children should not have homes and be loved. The question and all my comments pertain to should tax payers fund it. I believe in personal responsibility... Finically and otherwise. I don't think tax payers should or need to support me. That's not to say if hard times came upon me and I had exhausted other options I wouldn't except state assistance. It just would be the last choice. If you are adopting any child you should be able to afford to do so. If so many of these children have known medical needs later in life, you should do your best to plan for it and not need assistance. Assistance should be there to help out in unforeseen circumstances and only until you get back on your feet. Having contracts to pay x amount because you choose to adopt seems unneeded to me.
@chickysgirl
Most of my friends including myself planned their children, but of course not all of them. Your right a lot of the times itâs unplanned. However this article is talking about adoption. That is completely planned.
Â
I am Pro Choice, encourage contraception, and have no objections what sex the parents are that want to adopt a child. If you want to adopt a child and pass whatever requirements exist (I have no idea what those are) then you should be able to do so.
Â
I also have no problem with tax payer funded support programs for people that fall on hard times, or are there to help children of parents that are in school and may not be able to afford the care while they work to better their education to find a better job. Thatâs what support programs are for. I do have a problem with the people that rely on those programs without making an effort to get off of them and improve their lives. Unfortunately I know a few of those people and it irritates the hell out of me that they donât make the effort to try and improve their lives and financial situation. Obviously there are legitimate cases where that is the only option to have state support and those I donât object to either. There is to much abuse of the programs that are running them for everyone else that has a legitimate need.
@DreamTravler I read your comment, and while it's a nice thought--personal responsibility--it simply is not reality. Too many of these special needs children were born to parents who themselves were in need of care they did not get as children. How many of your friends and family actually PLANNED for the children that were born into their care? I would be surprised if you didn't find that 1/4 to 1/2 of them were unplanned, born to single parents, born into such difficult situations, that there was no way they were going to grow up without some major scars--physically and emotionally or born with some preventable birth defect which prevents them from ever living a life which allows them to contribute to our society.  I find that often those who complain the loudest about providing taxpayer support for children in need are those who are anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and anti-gay couples adopting. All solutions to the problem, but because that's not part of their value system, they feel we must legislate against those viable solutions. I don't know whether you are part of that group or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if you are. Correct me if I am wrong.
 @DreamTravler  @agatha The catch is - yes, people should be able to pay for children if they choose to adopt. BUT if some families do not have financial assistance, they will not adopt. Or they will only adopt the kids without any identifiable (at the current time) disorder. The difficult to place children - who still need and deserve "forever homes" will be stuck in foster limbo indefinitely.
 @DreamTravler Bingo!!
 @DreamTravler If you put the cost of of adoption ALL on adoptive parents, you won't have very many adoptive parents for kids with special needs. The costs for these kids can be pretty steep, and without support you'd limit potential adoptive families.
Â
Leaving these kids in the system, to be cared for by the state, in state institutions or contracted to group homes would be far more expensive, and less beneficial for the kids.
Â
The state budget is $32 Billion, adoption support is less than 0.3% of the entire budget.
Â
I think finding 0.3% savings can be done. Quite easily, and not by making the kids suffer any more.
Â
Â
@JCM1776
I agree itâs a conundrum. You have people that want to adopt but need support on one hand, the other you have the people who donât want their taxes going to someone or something that is making an optional choice in life.
Â
Once again I am all for state/federal assistance in unforeseeable and unknown situations. The situations stated in this article to me seem like the families should plan for possible medical issues regarding physical or mental conditions and the costs associated with that before adopting.Â
Â
I donât claim to have solutions for the costs of foster care and such. I can only comment based upon the article with my thoughts regarding it. Frankly prior to this article I did not even know the state continued to support adoptive parents after the adoption.
 @DreamTravler Your comment leads me to believe your against abortion too. Whenever I encounter anti-abortionists I ask them "how many unwanted, special needs, drug addicted or fetal alcohol syndrome children have you adopted lately?" and I never get an answer, just dumb looking stares like deer in headlights. The hypocrisy is staggering!Â
So killing these kids is preferable to giving them a chance?
Â
By the way, ever tried adopting a kid like that? I have. It's not easy.
 @DreamTravler  @James127 I believe James is referring to abortion. Justifiably so.
@James127 Why ever said anything about killing kids?
@Tooby Roosday
Actually I am completely Pro Choice. Nobody should have the right to dictate what a Woman can or cannot do with her body. Thatâs a whole other argument though.
@LocalLady @dreamtravler: Very good points and suggestions in your response. I dont have answers for what to do. I understand you cannot always account for all costs assoicated with adopting or raising a child.
Â
The way the article is written it sounds like some people recieve payments and there may not be issues. I question why they should need state assistance.
Â
In a perfect world the type of care they need medically would be part of some kind of universal heath care plan. I know that would mean more taxes. I dont have a problem with more taxes in some cases. But that type of system would also mean the coverage is available to everyone vs. just a few families collecting money from the goverment for their specific needs.
 @dreamtravler:Â
With special needs kids, sometimes it is almost impossib le to know what financial needs there may be in the future - they do not all follow a single "path", no two cases or conditions are ever the same. So how would someone plan for such things if they do not know what to plan for?
Â
I have very mixed feelings on this. As a parent to a special needs child, I know first-hand what it was like trying to raise him, having needs that I could not meet & insurance would not pay for. You want what is best for the child, and you feel guilty for not being able to afford any & every opportunity to make their life better.
Â
But, there is a limit, there is only so much tax payer money available, seems like the money availabe is shrinking as the need continues to grow. So what do we do, keeping in mind that we need to do the best we can for the kids?
Â
I would hope they would consider evaluating every situation, see if the level of need has changed at all - and if it has lessened, then lessening the amount the state pays. The family in this article says the mom "must" stay home.  If they were very younmg kids or infants, yes I would agree. But these boys they adopted are all school-age. What is she doing while they are in school? They claim they can;t survive without the $2300 from the state every month because she does not work. Why can't she work part time? If she was working, even part time, they would have more of their own resources & not have need of so much of the state's resources.
@Tooby Roosday @Tooby
I actually have no problem with the government helping financially with special needs children when the families cannot afford the needed care.
Â
My point was that if you are adopting and know the child has special needs, why are you not trying to account for those costs ahead of going through the adoption process? If you cannot afford the perceived costs⦠you should not adopt.
Â
I am all for adoption and I have a friend that did adopt. From the information they gave me itâs not an easy process. I donât know if thatâs good or bad in the long term as they are great parents. I would think the process should be easier and less costly.
Â
I donât have any solutions to foster homes and I understand those are tax payer funded as well. The only solution I can think of means people have to take responsibility for their actions and be smart when having sex in order to try and avoid unwanted pregnancies and thus foster homes. Obviously there are other situations and circumstances that could come it to play for foster kids and adoption to.
 @DreamTravler  @Tooby I'm glad to hear that you're Pro Choice. You need to change your attitude about government financial assistance for special needs children though. If you have never dealt with a special needs child, you have no idea of how difficult it can be and how expensive it can be depending on the needs of the child. I have a special needs step-daughter, and with the costs of therapy, medication and other care needs, any financial assistance is very helpful (we DO NOT receive any assistance). These children deserve loving homes rather than being shuffled around to foster homes or institutionalized.
 @DreamTravler Ever try and pay for a "special needs" child's life? Until then I would suggest letting the families weigh in that do. It's thoughtless individuals such as yourself that miss "special needs" children in the article and immediately jump to conclusions about those who are trying everything they can to take care of them.
@Funky-Munky
I read the article and I understand they are talking about special needs children. You are correct that I donât understand the costs of raising a special needs child. I do have a child of my own so I understand those costs.
Â
My point is adoption is optional, its not something thrust upon you unexpectedly. Why should tax payer funds go to support a family that choose to adopt a child (Special needs or regular). If you are adopting you should understand the costâs going into that life choice and be able to afford it.
Â
I am all for the state streamlining the process and reducing (what I assume to be) the amount of feeâs and costâs associated with adoption. I just donât see why they should pay beyond that point. Maybe someone will have reasons listed here and I will change my mine. This is just simply my opinion.
 @DreamTravler I understand your feeling(s).... I would like to point out without those willing to adopt the state would still end up paying. I am not sure, but I think if the state was solely doing it the costs would be greater to the taxpayers. I am glad you read the article.
 @DreamTravler yes, you choose to adopt a child. You see the need, and you do everything possible to help meet that need by adopting a child - or multiple children. This is being unselfish, trying to meet the needs of these kids. Most adoptive children will have needs beyond the needs of bio kids - attachment disorders, even if they don't have cognitive/physical challenges (many do, btw). The costs of adoption, without government assistance, would mean that fewer families would adopt. More children would be stuck in foster care and group homes.
 @DreamTravler Wow. You sound really heartless. :-( Do you know how much it costs to adopt a child? It costs more to adopt a child from out of the country, of course, but even for an in country adoption, the costs are substantial. Not to mention, it the child has special needs, therapy can be horribly expensive and often not covered by insurance. Adoption tends to cost much more than having a biological child...People often go into debt to cover adoption costs, even with government assistance...if kids aren't adopted, they stay in foster care or group homes - far from ideal. Is that what you would suggest?
Silva, I am not heartless. I donât like seeing children in foster care, poverty, or any other situation that is not ideal.
Â
However I am also a tax payer that wantâs money to go to the appropriate assistance programs for those in need. Since adoption is optional I donât understand why tax payer money needs to go to those families after the adoption is completed.
Â
If I were to adopt a child I would make sure I could afford the costs associated with doing so. Otherwise I would not personally choose to adopt. Are there unexpected costs with raising children⦠of course. Would I expect the state to pay for unexpected costs in raising my own child, no. Of course unexpected things can happen in life such as job losses etc. In those situations I have no objections to state/federal funds stepping in to help out.
@DreamTravler  Maybe you need to visit a family that has adopted their fosterchildren. I think you would look at things differently.
Â
 @DreamTravler I understand. I am in favor of cutting government and reducing taxes. But in this case - we leave a child in foster care and pay for their care in the foster home. Foster homes are far from ideal - I'm not knocking foster parents, you understand. But they aren't a "forever home" for the children. They don't have the security for the child that an adoption does. At any rate, so we are paying the foster parents for the care of the child, and for case workers to monitor that child (case workers seem to not do such a great job, by the way). Why not give adoptive parents financial help instead of letting the money go toward fostering? It's probably more cost effective and definitely better for the child.
Â
 @Silvia So many these days jump to conclusions about others living on the so called Welfare gravy train... Those two thought this was a welfare abuse type of problem without reading the article. (my opinion) I am proud of those who take care of these defenseless children with "special need" it's a tough job for loving people. I personally couldn't do it. I am only qualified to take care of my three cats.Â
 @Funky-Munky I understand! From my experience, many people misunderstand adoption - think that it's just people looking for some "easy" money from the state. Just going through the adoption process is enough to make your head spin - that is far from "easy". The home study - yeow! Then you have a child that you grow to love,, but not knowing that child's background, and how much they will react to being adopted - and every child does to some degree - adoption tends to be so full of unknowns! Yes, it's worth it, but it's still far from hitting the government up for some easy money!
 @Silvia Or should I say voluntary money reduction.... I know several that use the system of adoption as a means to prosper from the state if you would like to discuss the downside.
 @Silvia Just in case you and others missed the fact(s) I am agreeing with you! I do feel parents that are doing the job of taking the responsibility are the ones who should be weighing in on the money reduction. :D)
 @Funky-Munky I know people that have adopted - am rather aware of the adoption process. It is far from "free government money". Even for children that appear to not have special needs, they still have challenges related to their adoption, some of which may not appear until a child is older. Also, many children are victims of abuse, neglect, and addictions (ie drug babies) during their time with their birth parent/s. I am not normally in favor of government handouts, but I think in the case of adoption, it is not a handout.
 @DreamTravler That kind of thinking is just too extreme....extreme....extreme......