“Family’s Fatal Plunge Off Cliff May Have Been Intentional, Authorities Say” (nytimes):
The vehicle, carrying Jennifer and Sarah Hart and at least three of their six adopted children, had stopped on a dirt pullout off Highway 1 on March 26 before accelerating about 70 feet to the edge of the cliff, the California Highway Patrol said, citing an analysis of the vehicle’s onboard computer. Investigators also did not find skid marks at the scene that might have indicated a collision.
Given that plenty of American couples have been driven insane by just one or two kids in the house, why were two people able to adopt six children? The argument was that, because neither mom worked, they had plenty of time and energy to care for children? (In this article with 5 facts about the two adoptive moms there is no suggestion that either Mrs. Hart had a job.) So the standard was more like what you’d have in a daycare center in which there has to be one worker for every 8 children?
Maryland tries to limit adoptions to 6 children per household (source). Angelina Jolie collected 4 children via adoption before she had her own two kids (and then tried to collect $1.2 million per-year tax-free on the 6 kids total). Generally it seems that states may have limits on the number of foster children one may take in, but there are no statutory limits on adoption. It will be up to a social worker or non-profit agency employee in practice and those people get paid for every adoption so they have a financial incentive to approve extra children in a household?
“Cash Incentives for Adoptions Seen as Risk to Some Children” (nytimes, 2003):
In December 1995, Raymond and Vanessa Jackson, who had already adopted a young girl, formally adopted another child — Bruce, a foster child then age 11. Over the next 12 months, the parents adopted two more boys from the state, and in 1997 they scooped up a fourth. Yet another girl was made legally theirs in 2000.
And then, even as prosecutors say the four adopted boys in the family’s New Jersey home were being starved on a diet of peanut butter and plaster wallboard, the Jacksons were being evaluated by state officials for the adoption of a seventh child, a 10-year-old girl.
The Jacksons, with six adopted children and one foster child, received more than $30,000 in government payments last year.
[Compare to child support: Jessica Kosow, a plaintiff described in our chapter on Massachusetts family law, asked for $235,080 per year and received $93,808 per year (plus a free house; at least $3 million total through the child’s 23rd birthday) to care for a single healthy child on a half-time basis.]
Readers: Given that decisions on adoption are currently left up to people who profit from approval, does there need to be a hard and fast rule limiting the number of kids that one or two adults can “scoop up” (as the Times put it)?
Related:
- The happiest children in Spain live with two daddies (a survey found that the least happy children live with two moms)
- Table of cash payments available to foster parents, by state
An anchor tag for that table of cash payments to foster parents would be navigationally helpful and semantically valid. I just downloaded the epub of RWD.
With adoptive children, there is a market driven by supply and demand. The main factors are skin color, age, health, and country of origin. Healthy, white, American-born newborns are so in demand, and in such limited supply, that they might not be obtainable at any price. This might explain why so many people continue to risk child support litigation. The Russians stopped exporting children after successive scandals of abuse by American adoptive parents.
Homosexual couples used to be excluded from much of the American market, so they were forced to take less desireable children, often HIV positive. Speculating on whether homosexual couples should face such additional barriers as consumers is bigotry.
In China, newly adoptive parents get a 24-hour grace period, during which they may return the child. It is unclear if there is a restocking fee.
I don’t see how you could determine the number of children that is safe. Family size varies quite a lot, and while six is above average, it is only about half the size of many healthy Catholic families I know.
Also, say the limit is set to 4. What then? Do you just place the others with your second best family? Leave them in foster care? Group home? This situation was terrible, but you do have to ask as compared to what.
The problem is not the number of kids, it is the number of “moms”. Who thought that a pair of white lesbian women adopting a bunch of black kids was a good idea?
Peter: Weren’t they effectively living in a “group home”? Six unrelated kids and two adults getting paychecks. The main difference seems to be the lack of supervision or management of the adults.
I suppose it was a group home. I would still say you have to compare the options actually available, so a second best home due to a standard kid limit of your first choice family.
I’d be interested in what you think about capping family sizes at some number, whether adopted or not. I’ve brought up on a previous post (http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2017/11/16/amazon-and-ibm-parental-leave/#comments) that my personal experience is that adoption is not a way to generate positive cash flow. I’ve noticed a headline about this particular family receiving $270k in adoption subsidies over ten years. Even though they don’t live in your neck of the woods, I’d admire the thriftiness of any family able to support a family of 8 on $27,000 per year! I’d assume this family had some other income stream.
Anyway, regardless of the financial situation, back to the question of family size. Should we go the path of China? How about scheduling childbirth (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/03/japanese-couple-apologise-ignoring-work-pregnancy-timetable/) so our expensive schools (http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2018/04/07/americans-cant-afford-to-live-in-america/) can better manage their growth? Lots of intriguing topics available down this path: population control, infrastructure, food & water supplies, economy vs environment, etc.
From an adoptive family perspective, if the family, support, financial, housing, and other resources can be met, why a limit? The alternative children in my state is camping out in social workers’ offices (http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article174170991.html) while waiting for placement in just temporary foster homes, let alone a stable family to grow up and thrive in.
OT
I know a married couple that adopted two special needs children and they are compensated to the tune of roughly $75,000 per year for both kids combined. I don’t know if this is from federal, state or a combo.
I could not imagine six adopted, non-related kids in one family.
DL: ” I’d admire the thriftiness of any family able to support a family of 8 on $27,000 per year!”
Why does one need to be thrifty to support a family of any size in the U.S.? A family is entitled to means-tested public housing. A family is entitled to means-tested prices for health insurance (Medicaid should have been free for this family if their only income was $27k/year, for example). A family is entitled to food stamps. Thus there is no constraint on family size in the U.S., regardless of how low one’s income is, when it comes to food, shelter, and health care.
Phil,
The welfare benefits you describe unfortunately are not available to all. I took a call from an elderly lady tonight who has a gross SSI income of less than $800 per month and she has not been able to “win” a section 8 housing subsidy.
Mark: Agreed that there can be a long waiting list for a free house in the U.S. (the most extreme example of inequality; some people get free houses and those on waiting list get nothing). However, at least in Massachusetts you can cut the line and get immediate free housing if you have at least one dependent child, say that you are the victim of domestic violence, etc. http://children.massbudget.org/emergency-assistance-family-shelters-and-services explains some of this and links to statistics showing that 3,600-4,800 “families” are staying in hotels at taxpayer expense at any one time while waiting for a free long-term house.
The key is to refrain from earning too much. https://www.masslegalhelp.org/income-benefits/emergency-assistance-income-limits shows that the two mothers that kicked off the original posting would have become disqualified from emergency assistance if they’d earned more than $47,518 per year.