Bethany Boylan

Bethany Boylan has won the Law Office of George J. Skuros Justice in Family Law Scholarship for the Fall 2024 semester. Bethany is a bright young woman who we expect to have a very successful legal career. Congratulations, Bethany, and good luck in the future!

Read Bethany’s Essay:

Barriers to adoption exist in many forms: home life stability, age, and relevant criminal records are a prevalent few, but the most common obstacle for prospective families is the sheer cost of adopting a child. Private agency adoptions, the path most frequently pursued by those seeking to adopt infants, can cost between $30,000 and $60,000 overall (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2022). While these costs are often attributed to adoption proceeding fees and attorney rates, little explanation is offered for the high variability between agencies within the same state. One factor, however, is clear: children of color cost less to adopt. This essay will examine the background of this phenomenon, its psychological and financial impacts, and how this discrepancy in the implementation of adoption practices may be resolved. The Issue Across the U.S., research has shown that children of color are adopted less frequently than their White counterparts and spend more time in foster care. A 2010 study from Michigan surveyed 1,083 families who had adopted in recent years, returning an astonishing 44% of those adopted being Caucasian/White (Skidmore et al., 2016). According to data collected by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), African American children are retained in foster care nine months longer than White children (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2010, pg. 15). This lower “demand” is reflected in the reduced costs of their adoptions; for one family interviewed in NPR’s investigation, a Caucasian child was quoted at $35,000 to adopt, a biracial child at $24,000–26,000, and an African American girl at a mere $18,000 (NPR, 2013). According to economist Allan Collard-Wexler, “the cost of adopting a black baby needs to be $38,000 lower than the cost of a white baby in order to make parents indifferent to race” (A.S., 2010). Yet price differentiation based on the traits of adoptive children is no new phenomenon. Subsidies for state adoptions are common in the U.S., particularly for those children deemed “hard to place.” These are available under the Title IV-E program federally or non-Title IV-E programs locally, with such subsidies meant to offset the costs of adopting children with developmental or medical issues given their satisfaction of specific criteria (Social Security Act Title IV-E, 42 §§601–687 (1980)). Adoption expenses are often reimbursed under these programs, too (Kelly, 2020). The care of these children is thereby made more economically feasible for potential parents, with the added benefit of incentivizing a permanent placement. Without monetary assistance from the local, state, or federal government, it is unlikely that many of these qualifying children would find adoptive homes. If the goal of these programs is to therefore find homes for children in the state’s care, does the financial motivation invalidate this objective? Many would argue not; if a child with a medical or developmental disorder finds a supportive home, surely these government funds and benefits have served their purpose. So why is race different? The Effects The discrepancy lies in the effects on these adopted children of color. In their adulthood, some adoptees of color raised in White households have been impacted psychologically by the cost differential. One Facebook user, Maria, shared her experience in an adoption group on the site: “When I was a freshman in high school I got into a stupid fight with my mom over nothing and was saying really mean things to her just because I was mad, and I yelled at her that I bet she was sorry she chose me and she flashed back saying they didn’t choose me, I was just the cheapest option….I am 37 years old and every time I pick up a menu I look at the cheapest entrée and think, that’s me. I am just the cheapest thing on life’s menu [sic]” (Thomas, 2023). Another concern thus arises: are these children of color being placed in the best homes for their developmental needs? If cost, a significant obstacle to adoption for many American families, becomes the foremost determiner in a family’s adoptive choice, what issues may arise in the child’s upbringing? Interracial adoption and its impacts on minority adoptees have been topics long discussed by psychologists, as behavioral specialists voice worries about the erasure of a child’s cultural history and community. One such adoptee, Asher Isaacs, was adopted by a White couple and expressed his alienation: “Because I felt that I did not belong to any group, my confidence eroded. I was ashamed and embarrassed when people discussed race or when they wanted to know about my family” (Isaacs, 1994, pg. 128). Factoring in the perpetual feeling of being the “cheaper option,” as Maria conveyed, the lesser cost of non-White children only fuels the monster of racism in this country. Subsidies for adopted children with medical or developmental disorders can be justified as meant for medical or treatment expenses and missed work associated with their care; even subsidies for older children can be rationalized, as cost deductions are often directly tied to their years in the state’s care. Only the factor of race cannot be succinctly justified. The Solution The issue, at its core, stems from a lack of “interest” in or “demand” for children of color. This is not an easy problem to solve; its roots lead back to before the founding of this nation. Yet by establishing standardized costs for private agencies, its occurrence can be greatly reduced. Adoption subsidies – both federal and otherwise – still have a place in domestic adoptions, and assistance granted to the adoptive families of qualifying children can enable the financially disadvantaged to adopt. Foster adoptions, too, remain a viable option for these potential parents, with such adoptions being “virtually free of cost” (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2022). In an effort to increase the adoption rates of children of color, foster parents should be recruited in greater numbers from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. These parents, as well as existing foster parents, should also receive increased state funding for the services they provide. As money will always remain a major incentivizing factor, paid care for those in the state’s custody may allow caregivers to create a stable living off of their support of these children. Conclusions It is never easy to discuss what is, essentially, the “buying” of children in a supply-and-demand market; but it is for this reason that we must discuss it. Adoption prices based on race cannot be ethically permissible, and it is through public discourse that the issue can be solved. If we, as a society, value the mental health and well-being of our children, actions should be taken to standardize adoption costs and incentivize foster and adoptive parents from all racial backgrounds to participate in child welfare. While “children of color cost less to adopt” remains a fact in our present, it does not have to in our future