Eight myths that keep good families from adopting a child

I have a theory about why some good ideas never catch on. It is that the people who would benefit most have heard a rumour, and the rumour is wrong, and nobody has bothered to correct it. A rumour is the cheapest form of regulation there is. It costs the government nothing, nobody has to vote for it, and it stops people from doing something wonderful before they ever pick up the phone.

Adoption is one of the places where this happens. Across the country there are couples and single adults who would open their homes to a child and have talked themselves out of it with a story they heard once at a dinner party. Meanwhile there are children who need a home. So let me take eight of the common reasons, state each one, test it against what the law and the record say, and give a verdict. A warning at the outset: I am not a lawyer or an adoption agency, and I am not giving advice about your own situation. Rules differ from state to state and change. For each point I tell you where to check.

Why a conservative cares

The case for adoption is among the oldest pro-life and pro-family arguments there is. A culture that says every child has dignity ought to be glad to see every child have a family, and a movement that talks about the value of the family has a duty to point out the families waiting to be formed. It is also an argument about the limits of government. A state is a poor parent. It can feed, house and supervise a child, and it cannot love one. The best answer to a child in foster care is a family, and families, not agencies, are what a free society is made of.

Let me be upbeat about this, because there is reason to be. The country has built a legal structure that supports adoption, with a federal tax credit, a system of subsidies for children who need them and an international treaty that sets standards. Here is what it says.

The eight myths, tested

Myth one: adoption costs a fortune

The claim: You need tens of thousands of dollars to adopt.

The record: Some adoptions do cost a great deal. Private domestic infant adoption through an agency or attorney, and international adoption, can run to substantial sums, because of agency fees, legal work, travel and home study costs. That part is true, and it is where the rumour gets its strength.

But the rumour treats all adoption as if it were one kind. Adoption from foster care is different. When a child in the foster care system becomes legally free for adoption, states commonly charge little or nothing for the process, and many offer help with legal costs. Federal law, through the adoption assistance provisions of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, authorises subsidies for the adoption of children with special needs, which in the law covers a wide range of situations including older age, sibling groups and medical conditions. These subsidies can cover ongoing costs and, in many states, medical coverage for the child.

The second thing to know is the federal adoption tax credit, created in 1996, which lets families claim a credit against income tax for qualified adoption expenses. It has a maximum per child, phases out at higher incomes and is adjusted from time to time, so check the IRS instructions for Form 8839 for the current amount and the current rules. For the adoption of a child that a state determines has special needs, the credit is available in the full amount without regard to actual expenses.

Verdict: Partly true for private and international adoption, largely false for foster care, and softened by a credit that Congress has kept on the books since 1996.

Myth two: you can only adopt a baby

The claim: Adoption means infants, and infants are scarce.

The record: The children in the foster care system waiting for adoption are often school-age or older, and many are in sibling groups. Infants are only part of the picture. If your picture of adoption is a newborn in a blanket, you are looking at one small part of it, and the larger part is children who need a family at seven, ten or fourteen.

I would add the point nobody wants to hear, which is that a child who ages out of foster care at eighteen without a family leaves with a backpack and a bus ticket, and the research on what follows for many of those young people is sobering. A family that takes in an older child is not settling for second best. It is doing the thing that matters most.

Verdict: False as a rule. Many children waiting are older, and families are needed for them above all.

Myth three: you must be wealthy

The claim: Only well-off people are allowed to adopt.

The record: There is no income test in the usual sense. Agencies and courts ask whether a household can provide for a child: stable housing, steady income and the ability to meet the child's needs. That is a test of sufficiency and not of wealth. A modest household that pays its bills and has room for a child is eligible in the ordinary course, and public subsidies are available for some children precisely so that income need not decide who can say yes.

One caution is that eligibility standards vary by state and by agency, and the home study that every adoption requires will look at the household's finances. But the idea that a family must be rich is a rumour, not a rule.

Verdict: False. The law asks for stability, not riches.

Myth four: the birth mother will come back and take the child

The claim: Birth parents can change their minds and reclaim the baby years later.

The record: This is the fear that stops more people than any other, fed by a few widely reported cases. Here is the real structure. Each state sets rules for when a birth parent's consent becomes final, and the rules differ: some states set a short period in which consent can be withdrawn, some make consent irrevocable at signing or after a court hearing, and a few allow revocation only on proof of fraud or coercion. Once an adoption is finalised by a court, it is permanent, and the adoptive parents have the same legal status as any parents.

The cases that make the news typically involve a birth father whose rights were not properly addressed at the start, or a consent that was defective. That is why agencies and attorneys treat the legal clearance of both birth parents' rights as the first priority, and why a competent professional in your state matters. The risk is real in a poorly handled case. It is small in a properly handled one.

Verdict: Largely a myth once the adoption is final, and the way to reduce the risk further is to use a licensed agency or an experienced attorney and to learn your state's consent rules before you start.

Myth five: open adoption means sharing custody

The claim: If the birth parents stay in the child's life, the adoptive parents are not really the parents.

The record: Open adoption describes an arrangement in which the adoptive family and the birth family have some degree of contact. It ranges widely: an exchange of letters and photographs through the agency, occasional visits, or a close relationship. It does not mean the birth parent has parental rights after the adoption. Once the adoption is final, the adoptive parents are the legal parents and make the decisions.

Some states give legal force to agreements about contact, and others treat them as promises that rest on good faith. That is one more thing to ask about in your own state. Many families who have tried open adoption describe it as a benefit to the child, who has access to the story of where she came from, and many birth mothers say it eases the grief of placing a child. Others prefer a closed arrangement, and that is a choice.

Verdict: Misleading. Openness describes contact, not custody.

Myth six: international adoption is lawless

The claim: Adopting from abroad means navigating a black market.

The record: Abuses have happened, and that is the reason for the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The United States implemented it through the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, and it has applied to American adoptions with other member countries since April 2008. The convention sets standards: it requires that the child be eligible for adoption, that other options within the child's own country be considered first, that consent be freely given and that agencies be accredited. In the United States, agencies providing intercountry adoption services must be accredited or approved.

The result is a system with real oversight, though one with real limits. It can be slow, and some countries have closed their programmes or restricted them, partly because of concerns about corruption in the past. ten questions families ask about adopting a child from another country goes through the practical questions in detail. The right conclusion is not that international adoption is dangerous but that it should be done through an accredited agency, with a clear understanding of the rules of both countries.

Verdict: A myth for adoptions done within the Hague framework through accredited agencies, and a fair warning against anyone offering a shortcut.

Myth seven: single people and older people cannot adopt

The claim: Adoption is only for married couples under forty.

The record: Single adults can adopt in the United States, and have long done so, both through foster care and through other routes. Marital status can matter in particular situations, and some agencies and some countries of origin have their own preferences, so international programmes in particular may set limits. Within the American foster care system, a single person who is stable and prepared is welcome.

Age works the same way. State law commonly sets a minimum age for adoptive parents, and I know of no general maximum, but check your state. Agencies assess whether a prospective parent has the health, energy and support to raise a child to adulthood, and a fifty-five-year-old with a stable home is a perfectly good candidate for an older child. Some international programmes do set age ranges, so check them.

Verdict: False as a general rule. Check the specific agency and country.

Myth eight: adopted children are damaged, and a family is gambling

The claim: Children in foster care come with problems that no family can handle.

The record: This one needs care, because it contains a truth. Children who have been in foster care have often lived through trauma, neglect or instability, and many carry needs that call for patience, training and support. A family should know this and prepare. It is wrong to promise that love is all it takes, and honest agencies say so.

But the rumour goes too far when it treats the child as the problem. Children adopted from foster care grow up to be as various as any other children, and the idea that adoption is a gamble confuses difficulty with doom. The system exists to match children with families, to train parents before placement and to provide post-adoption support, and the subsidies mentioned earlier include help with the costs of therapy and care in many states. The preparation is the answer to the fear.

Verdict: A half-truth. Some children have serious needs, and good families and good support meet them every day.

The argument in four numbered steps

Since a host ought to give you a conclusion you can carry out the door, here it is.

1. A child's best chance is a family, and every child waiting has one fewer obstacle if there is a family willing to take the step.
2. The legal and financial structure of adoption is more friendly than the rumours suggest, with a federal credit, state subsidies and an international treaty to police the abuses.
3. The risks are real but manageable, through licensed professionals, state-specific legal advice and honest preparation.
4. So the fair question is not "Could I afford it?" or "Am I the right type?" but "What are the actual rules in my state, and who can explain them?"

The Founding anchor

The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A child with no family is a child whose claim to all three depends on the goodness of strangers. The Founders believed that a republic stands on the character of its families, and John Adams said the Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. A country that invites its families to take in the children who need them is acting on that conviction. That is why adoption is a theme throughout the pro-life and pro-family argument, and why it belongs beside Baby Moses laws, from one Texas statute in 1999 to all fifty states, where a surrendered newborn is placed with a waiting family, and beside the family came before the state, so why does the state act like a parent? and why a church charity knows things a federal program never will, which describe what churches and families can do that a program cannot.

It also connects to the arguments about the dignity of every human life in size, development, location, dependency, the four tests that exclude no one. A person who believes that every child counts should be willing to put that belief into a bedroom.

Where to check the rules

Because rules vary, here is where to look. Start with your state's child welfare agency, whose website describes the process for adopting from foster care and any subsidies. Check the IRS instructions for Form 8839 for the current credit. For international adoption, the State Department's Office of Children's Issues publishes the rules for each country and the list of accredited agencies. And for the law in your state, your state legislature's website carries the statutes on consent, open adoption agreements and eligibility. An attorney who practises adoption law in your state can answer the questions this post cannot.

The case in brief

1. Most of the reasons families give for not adopting, including cost, age, income and the fear of birth parents returning, are rumours or half-truths when tested against the law.
2. Adoption from foster care is often low-cost, subsidised for children with special needs and supported by a federal tax credit created in 1996, and the Hague Convention, in force for the United States since 2008, regulates international adoption.
3. Single adults and older adults can adopt, open adoption does not share custody, and a finalised adoption is permanent.
4. The honest warning is that some children carry serious needs, and preparation and post-adoption support are part of the answer.
5. A conservative case for adoption rests on the dignity of every child and on the conviction that families, not agencies, raise children.

What you can do: visit your state child welfare agency's website this month, read its page on adopting from foster care, and attend one information session.