E-Answer.Net

My son was removed from the care of his original parents before he ever left the hospital. He was placed in kinship care with his grandparents because of his original "home" situation. At that time, DYFS told the original family & grandparents that if they were deciding not to parent (which they had made clear), then they should proceed with a private adoption because of his special medical disorder. The family proceeded with finding us and we began the private adoption process. Shortly thereafter, DYFS changed their mind and decided the child should be placed in foster care. They tried to stop our private adoption and the original family & grandparents had to go to court to stop DYFS from taking the child. The caseworker told me point blank that the reason they were trying to put the child into foster care was that he was a "hot commodity since he was a Caucasian infant". I was appalled that anyone would say that about a child, and especially a person in social work.



Fortunately, the judge who the original family and grandparents met with agreed with their rights to place the child for adoption and granted immediate custody to the grandparents for the purposes of adoption. This removed the state from the situation because they no longer had any reason to be involved since the grandparents had legal custody.



Our situation is very different than most, but it proves to me that the government should not be allowed to interfere with a family's personal choice - unless the child is somehow in immediate danger.

Show me an adoption "without any incentives, or coersions, or pressure" and I'll show you a society that doesn't need government oversight. Not that government does a very good job in the ethics dept. anyway.



I know there are a lot of younger women who say that it was their decision, unfortunately they will be looking back in 20-30 years and see just how they were swindled. I also know there are a few women - very few - who even in hindsight say that it truly was their decision, but they lacked support.



We as a society would do better to keep families together to begin with in order to avoid the atrocities of infant adoption.

I think the government should be "interfering" with the way agencies do business. doesn't it seem strange that in the U.S. you have to be on a list to get a kidney, but if you have more money you can get a child faster?



But these are fantasies anyway. The National Council for Adoption has powerful lobbyists (and DEEP pockets) to ensure that adoption is big business in America for years to come.

I agree with Lara and Sunny.



I think the appropriate word should be "protect".



The only people I feel that would intentionally use the word "interfere" when it comes to adoption and legislative reformation are child traffickers, those that support it or those that turn a blind eye to it.

I'm sure there are some extreme circumstances in which the government would have to step in... . . .. . . but I sure can't think of any.

interfere? no



Give legal guidelines? Yep

If everythiong is on the up 'n up, then there is no reason to interfere, but if they sence something is off, then they can investigate.

The government shouldn't be able to interfere unless the prospective adoptive parents have a history of child abuse or neglect, of course.

i dont think the goverment should prevent this as it is down to the parents if they want to put there child up 4 adoption

i would think not.

no