Mom pleads guilty in baby sale

"Angelina Jolie reportedly paid around $13,000 for her new baby - what’s the diff?"

Wow. I bet you'll see some reactions with a statement like that!

She should have moved out of state, where it's legal for her to sell babies.

Reply

There's a big "diff", as I'm sure you know. Considering this blog just linked to my post last week about people who make obnoxious comments re selling and buying of babies, I'm really disappointed to see this taken so lightly. When a responsible birthparent makes an adoption plan, qualified parents are (usually) chosen to adopt the child. The system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than sticking a "for sale" sign on your kid's forehead.

Reply

The money in international adoption is spent on fees to the governments involved (sending country and receiving countries.) Fees such as Visas, adoption decrees, homestudy, etc. Adoptive parents often have to go through rigourous interviews and read educational materials given/ provided by social workers. I think before making flip statements, a little research could provide the answers... but that would take some effort, no?

Reply

Marla,

People who adopt domestically pay too - often more than for international adoptions. And yes, I'm quite aware of what the costs are of international adoptions, as our family has looked into adoption pretty extensively.

I think, before making flip assumptions, you might consider that you don't know anything much about me, my family, or what I might or might not know about adoption, yes?

My point was, that people who adopt a baby "pay" for a baby. The woman who was "buying" this baby for $5,000 - maybe she just didn't have $15-20K to adopt through other channels, and she was desperate to be a mom. Point is, we don't really know the motivation of either the buyer or the seller here, and maybe it's not quite as seedy as it seems on the surface.

It could just be a desperate birth mom and a would-be adoptive mom desperate for a child, and the fact that she was paying for a baby does not, IMO, make her substantially different than any other adoptive parent, unless details surface that there was something seedier going on here.

Reply

My point was, that people who adopt a baby "pay" for a baby.

By typing this you missed my point. People who adopt pay for services and fees for the adoption, not the baby.

And. I was not judging this woman since I do not know all the circumstances, rather I was responding to your comment about the difference between her and Angelina Jolie adoption.

Reply

Domestic adoption isn't always expensive. If the would-be adoptive mom was that desperate, she could certainly have gone through the foster care system and adopted nearly for free. No, it's not easy, but it is legitimate, at least. We don't know the details of why both women chose the route they did, no, but they both had other options. The baby was TEN MONTHS OLD at the time. Ten months the birthmother had her child, time to figure out what to do, to seek out help, to do something. And this is the best she could come up with?

Believe me, I know the feeling of watching uncaring teenage moms pop out babies while what you want so desperately is out of your reach. The system sucks, and this case is sad testimony to that. But that doesn't mean we get to circumvent it. So to me, the fact that she was willing to do a black-market "adoption" -- and how on earth was she planning to legitimize this child? Pretend she was pregnant like they did in the 50s? -- it DOES make her "substantially different" from parents willing to go through a flawed system, invasive interviews and paperwork, and a possibly long and heartbreaking wait to adopt a child.

And you can insist on seening adoption as "paying" for a baby if you like, but it's just not. If you gave birth in a hospital without health insurance, it would cost you just as much as a typical IA, and yet no one seems to see that as baby-buying -- you're paying for SERVICES RENDERED either way. NOT the child. It's a philosphical distinction, sure, but an important one.

Reply

To further the discussion on cost of adoption...foster care adoption is nearly free, especially with adoption support and adoption subsidy for those children who are "harder to place"...meaning, over the age of 2, non-white, or have special needs. Then, all cost incurred (lawyer fees etc..) are reimbursed by the government. We've adopted two children this way, both of which were 3 weeks old when we brought them home. They were both born addicted to meth, but now at 2 and 3 years old, have little to no problems. We could not have afforded to adopt had we gone any other route.

Carrie

Reply

It's illegal, it does a disservice to other adopted children and families, and this mother could of voluntarily relinquished her rights. The difference is that the money was going to the birthmother, instead of to pay for the child's living expenses/lawyers/agencies.

My adoption was free. I am adopting a beautiful nine year old girl. She's smart, funny, and behaves great. I didn't "buy" her.

Reply

I appreciate the sensitivity of adoptive parents on this subject, folks. But really, I think we're arguing semantics. When you go to the store to buy a product - say, for instance, a roast beef - you could say that you are paying for a roast beef, or you could say that you are paying for the cashier who rings you up, the store manager, the truck driver who brought it there, the expenses of the cattle farmer who raised the cow. The bottom line is still that you paid money in exchange for something you valued.

When you adopt a baby (and let's, for the moment, focus on traditional domestic and international adoptions, not on adopting foster kids or hard-to-place kids), you are paying for the services of the people who make it possible for that to happen for you, but you are still, in essence, paying to be able to have something you value - a child. And frankly, someone is making some money off adoptions - it's not like every agency handling adoptions is doing it non-profit (I'm sure some are, but some aren't) and the lawyers certainly rake in their fees, etc.

You could cut out the middle man, place an ad for a birth mother, and handle the adoption privately, paying only your lawyer, the mother's expenses, and filing fees, or you can go through an agency and let them do that work. You're still paying for a baby, whether you look at it as "paying the people who do the work to make it happen" or look at it as "paying for the baby", the bottom line is still - you pay money, you get a baby.

My only point on this particular case (and really, none of us know the women involved enough to be able to know what anyone's real motives were), is that the mere fact that a woman paid $5,000 for the baby doesn't villify her in my eyes. Should she have gone through legit channels to adopt? Sure. But "paying" for a baby doesn't make her a bad person in and of itself. If she was trying to get the baby for some nefarious reason, okay, but until I hear some proof of that, I'm going to give her the benefit of a doubt.

Reply

We are discussing children. NOT roast beef. An absurd analogy, and one that is precisely the problem. When we commodify children by equating adoption expenses with a "purchase," we are doing everyone involved in the process a grave and harmful injustice.

There's also the problem of inequity - no one ever equates the fees involved with birthing a child with, um, buying a roast beef. And yet! People are still making a profit over the expenses involved with childbirth. The doctors/insurance companies certainly rake in their fees, don't they?

Look, Kim, your point is taken, okay? We get that you're telling us not to judge the birthmother in this particular case, and I think most of us are NOT. It's how you've made your point that we are objecting to. So regardless of the point you were trying to make, the way you made it was irresponsible and damaging to the children and adults impacted by adoption. I

Reply

Bravo, Molly! Well said.

Reply

I suspect that it is not the birthmother who was willing to accept $5000, nor the woman who was willing to pay, that is getting so many commenters upset. It is the wording of the original post, and subsequent replies. At least--this is what is upsetting me.

Saying "Angelina Jolie reportedly paid around $13,000 for her new baby - what’s the diff?" in this offhand manner does a few things. It negates the work of adoption agencies, like mine, which works to make the lives of "unadoptable" children better. It conflates an illegal act with a legal act. It suggests that adoptive families don't care about the process of adoption, or the country they adopt from, or the people who are involved--all they care about is getting their kid, even if it's illegal. While I care very deeply for my daughter-to-be, I also want to make sure that the correct process is followed. Stories like this do two things: they add to the negative press surrounding adoption, and they have the capacity to make adoption harder than it already is for all parties involved. I don't see my paying 20,000 for the adoption of my daughter as equal to this story, I'm sorry. And the public doesn't either--otherwise adoptive families all over would be in court. Saying the two are the same is wrong--there's a big "diff." While the end might be similar--I want a baby, this woman wanted a baby--the MEANS is what counts here.

And--comparing the adoption process to buying roast beef is ridiculous, and will only serve to weaken your argument.

Reply

When a birth mother chooses to surrender her rights in a legal, ethical domestic adoption she receives in depth counseling to deal with and process her feelings and expectations about adoption. She is provided with a social worker who acts as her representative in the process and as an advocate for her rights. She will also be presented with choices about parenting and should she choose to parent she would be referred to services that would help her and support her in that choice. If she chooses to place her baby she will be provided with profiles of lots of families so she can choose the family that she feels most comfortable with. She will also get access to follow up care and counseling and will have access to the services of the agency to facilitate contact with the adoptive family if both parties agree to it. She will have a state mandated period after signing away legal rights, to change her mind. Her legal rights will be looked after and protected.

On the flip side the agency will screen the adoptive parents to ensure that they are equipped emotionally and financially to parent a child. The agency performs a home inspection to insure the home is safe for children. The parents take classes to prepare them for the issues involved in parenting a child through adoption. They also receive the services of the agency to facilitate contact with the birth family so that their child will have access to information about their past and their history. In a legal, ethical international adoption (which I presume Ms. Jolie's to be since I have seen absolutely no evidence to the contrary) the parent is also screened and certified. They need to prove to the sending country that their home is safe and that the child will be well cared for and provided for. They pay an agency not only to facilitate the legal aspects of the adoption and to provide guidance in country but also to help provide care and necessities for the children who will never be adopted.

If you truly cannot see the difference between that process and baby buying I just don't know what else to say. I don't think you intended any harm from your original statement or your follow-ups. I think you demonstrate the unfortunate ignorance that many people have about adoption. Unfortunately there are some unethical parties who approach adoption as a business rather than a professional service and the media's need to focus on these individuals diminishes adoption as a whole. Fortunately there are some wonderful groups like Ethica (online at ethicanet.org) working to protect the rights of all parties involved in adoption and ensure that children's rights are represented and protected in legal adoption. I sincerely hope that you will carefully read and think about these comments because I believe that when you know better, you do better. Now that you know I hope you will refrain from making statements like this about adoption in the future.

There is no excuse for selling or buying a child. What those women did was a violation of that child's human rights. A human being is not a product to be bought and sold. Period!

Reply

Kim,
Did you really just compare adopting a child to buying roast beef? Shame on you!

Reply

I just wanted to clarify one thing from my comment above in regards to the individuals involved in this case.

I have sympathy for both of those women. They must have been in great pain and turmoil to consider taking part in the buying and selling of a human being. But just becasue they are worthy of our compassion does not make it right or excusable. To imply that this choice is excusable does a great disservice to the many thousands of placing and adoptive families who act legally every year.

Reply

molly, karen, amy-- well said. just to add one more thing--
----->kim wrote: you could cut out the middle man, place an ad for a birth
mother, and handle the adoption privately, paying only your lawyer, the mother's
expenses, and filing fees, or you can go through an agency and let them do that
work.

but that's not what these women did. you need a legal middle body-- whether
that's an agency, a social worker, judge or a private attorney-- to make an
adoption *legal*. that was the fundamental error in what these 2 women did.that
is the "diff".

if we are using analogies (comparing apples to apples, not people
to meat products), it would be like me going to vietnam and finding a child on
the street and paying the mom 5,000 for him/her. now, i'm not saying this
doesn't happen, but that is why it is called the black market (and is illegal) and the same applies to
domestic adoption. it is, quite simply, illegal.

marla
apparently a mom to a piece of roast beef
----------------------------------------------

Reply

i just wanted to applaud the women here who took the time to attempt to educate the author of this piece.

kim, i can only guess from your claim that your family had "looked into adoption pretty extensively" that you were considering this as a way of expanding your family? neither i nor anyone else who's read your words need to make flip decisions about what you do or don't know about adoption. your knowledge isn't the issue...your disgusting attitude on the other hand makes me very glad you didn't persue this further, and i'll continue to pray that you never do.

julie
..another lunchmeat mum

Reply

wow, here i was thinking i was the mother of a child, not a cut of meat.... in my jurisdiction, you simply cannot spend a single peny on a child. you pay minimal fees to non-profit agencies that are very tightly regulated by the province (in canada). every penny is accounted for, whether national or, in my case, international. yes, an adoption fee goes to the orphanage, and i have no doubt that sometimes, a few orphanage directors might pocket a little something. but i refuse to see it as buying a baby. when i went through invitro, was i buying a child? or course not! i paid for the services. yes, the ultimate result of adoption is a child, but the moeny goes to facilitate the process, not for the baby!

Reply

using your argument kim you have also 'bought' your babies. i assume you paid for the services of a doctor and hospital when you gave birth. prenatal appointments, care, classes? adoptive parents also pay for the services that lead them to being parents. agency fees, notary documents, visas, travel and the like. it is actually no different. internationally adoptive parents do not pay the mother of the child or the famly of that child for their offspring. theerfore angelina adopting a baby from ethiopia and a woman illegally paying a 'mother' for her child are two totally different things. it is like comparing apples and oranges.

have you ever stopped for one minute and tried to think as an empathic, caring human being. do you know what that is? how do you think the children of adoption feel when ignorant people such as yourself tell those children they were 'bought'.

your attitudes perpetuate the myth that adoption is a commodity market. it isn't. because if you use your argument all children are a commodity item (unless you paid no money to anyone for anything in pthe process of birthing your child.

i actually find it very hard to believe that you have looked into adoption extensively because your attitudes belay the gaining of any real knowledge.

Reply

it is interesting to me that just a week or two ago there was a post on blogging baby about how rude it was of jenex's neighbors to ask how much her daughter "cost" because she was adopted.

and yet, here we are a week later with a post that equates adoption with purchasing a child and then analogized with buying meat? this post and the author's follow up comment is beyond rude and offensive to adopted children, their birth parents and their adoptive parents.

the whole post was relatively benign until that "what's the diff?" at the end. no one is arguing about the motives of either of the women involved in that story. your commenters are upset about the cavalier way you have equated adoption with the commodification of children.

gosh, why don't we just compare employment and slavery while we are at it. people do work, money changes hands, what's the diff?

if this is how you feel about adoption, i agree with the commenter above who was glad you decided against it.

amber
apparently waiting in line to buy a 10lb hunk of bologna

Reply