Many states do have adoption subsidies, in recognition of the fact that if you adopt a child at 13 there isn't much time to save for college, or that you will end up paying for more specialized therapies, possibly private school, childcare (even for a 15 year old, I cannot leave mine alone) and before and after school care. There are numerous studies which show that adoption subsidies prevent adoption disruption and promote healthier adoptive families. And these subsidies are only HALF funded through the state, as the other portion is provided by the federal government, who recognize that NOT having older children adopted is in the long run a far more expensive proposition for both state and federal government. But we don't tend to think ' in the long run' here in America, where the concept of family planning cold be seen as either contentious or archaic, depending on your perspective.
My husband and I have adopted one child (at age 13) from the state and are now in the process of adopting two siblings ( 9 and 13), a process that, due to foot dragging by Brentwood court won't be complete until spring of 2012, possibly later. All these children are special needs and two out of three have significant mental health issues due to their previous abuse and neglect.
At minimum, emotionally these children are 3-4 years younger than their chronological age, and they require omnipresent supervision. Never mind the fact that after years of neglect, you want to give them swimming lessons, piano lessons, camp...such children need structured activities or they behaviorally self-destruct, and they have been deprived of all the things they need to enrich their lives, grow and move forward. To give you an idea of what I mean when I say their lives need enrichment - for starters, many children that we have encountered in the system have never had a birthday party, can't tell time, can't tie their shoes - all due to neglect.
According to the NH foster adoptive parent association, most people who adopt in this state are socioeconomically lower middle class; having been to many trainings with fellow foster adoptive parents, I would agree with this. One sees lots of old beater cars driving out of the parking lot at the end of the training day. It would be great if loads of New Hampshire's upper middle class parents were lining up to adopt the hard to place older special needs kids ( like Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, based on a true story), but that isn't the reality.
Adoption in 2010 and 2011 was cushioned by a federal tax credit of $12,000+ per child that was made refundable; that is, a refund of that amount on your return. Prior to 2010, no such refund was available. So for a brief window, a window that closes 12-31-11, there was an opportunity to at least mitigate New Hampshire's subsidy blunder.
Other changes the state Department of Social Services has made compared to prior years: prospective adoptive parents are given little, if any weight in the adoption process. The state has insisted that our kids visit with a former foster parent we really don't care for, going so far as to mandate monthly overnight visits- at a time when we are attempting to bond with these children and create our own sense of family- our objections were denounced and we were made to feel as if we had a problem. I was told by the head of DCYF that if her foster parents weren't doing as the state wanted, maybe they shouldn't be foster parents and the state could place the children elsewhere. The implied threat was clear; do what we say or you can say goodbye to these kids.
So as prospective adoptive parents, be ready to take your kids visiting to the jail, to the relatives that abused them, and to former foster parents you can't stand;you'll do what the state tells you to do, even though you are assuming all of the risks and taking all of the responsibility. Once the state begins termination proceedings, you will be providing all the transportation to all these aforementioned visits you don't want, because the state no longer provides it and they will make you do it.
I've since learned that the changes to adoption subsidy law were brought in by newly elected libertarian legislators, who want to eliminate the role of the federal government in this state
( sponsored bills pending in the legislature to wipe out the Affordable Care Act), so the fact that subsidies are 50% paid for by the federal government is actually probably the reason they were eliminated, in addition to pure ignorance.
These legislators would never take it upon themselves or their family to adopt an older special needs child from state custody and have no experience or knowledge about this population, but they want to make the lives of those who are willing to do so far more difficult.
My sincere advice to prospective New England parents who are looking to adopt from foster care - consider Rhode Island, Maine, or Massachusetts - forget New Hampshire.
No comments:
Post a Comment