Why are they in a hospital bed? (Adoption related)

I have never heard of this happening in the UK. I don’t think it happens in Europe at all. Mothers don’t willingly give up their babies for adoption. I can’t believe that mothers in the US are making a free choice to do this. As NiceGerbil says there is something disturbing about it.

It makes me think of the mother and baby home scandals.

All the things NiceGerbil listed under benefits of adoption in Indiana are provided by the state in the UK. My partner was unemployed for one of my pregnancies, I got £500 maternity grant to spend on nursing bras, maternity clothes, baby clothes etc, I got vouchers to buy fruit and vegetables for myself and child 1, obviously no-one pays for maternity care in the UK, then we get child benefit after the baby is born and no expectation that a mother will return to work for the first 12 months. I am not saying that it is easy to exist on benefits but at least it is possible. In the states it seems as if there is no support at all for single mothers or even couples on a low income or unemployed.

Why isn’t it recognised in the USA that mothers and babies should not be separated except in extreme circumstances? Why doesn’t the USA support families in difficulties? Why is the buying and selling of babies, of human beings seen as acceptable in the USA?

When babies in the UK are placed for adoption they are at least 6 weeks old. It isn’t that common though and usually happens because all the other children of that mother have been taken into care already. I have known of one or two cases where the mother addicted to heroin that there was an element of willingly giving up babies for adoption but they had 6 weeks to change their minds.

Free access to contraception and abortion are vital too. I don’t understand how anyone can be all up in arms about abortion being bad and not care about the suffering of mothers and babies traumatised by separation or mothers and babies living in poverty and/or forced apart by lack of paid maternity leave. Contraception and abortion save a whole world of woe. I really struggle to understand the so called ‘pro-life’ lobby. They don’t seem to care about ‘life’ enough to campaign vociferously against the death penalty, or the military or for gun controls or a decent basic standard of life for everyone.

Also I just can’t understand why they are so bothered about abortion, or why they can’t see that a woman’s bodily integrity is sacrosanct and no woman should be forced into motherhood (by that I mean 40 weeks of pregnancy, giving birth and all that comes after that whether mother and baby are separated or not) against her will, nor should anyone be born into this world unwanted.

When they are motivated by religious beliefs then why this one issue? Why aren’t they protesting outside porn studios, harassing men as they buy women in red light areas or as they try to enter strip clubs or lap dancing clubs?

The issue is homophobia
@Simonjt can you expand please?
Do you think posters would feel differently if this were a single heterosexual man doing the same pose in a hospital bed he didn't give birth in?

We don’t know if they are in the maternity ward or just in a generic hospital room. Most hospitals here have only private rooms except for the ICU. Even our local emergency department has private rooms, some with solid doors, some with a glass wall and a curtain that can be drawn for privacy.

Every The maternity wards I’ve been on is locked with controlled access and all the babies have alarms on their ankles so it would surprise me if the hospital wanted to put them in a room elsewhere in the building. It’s seems more likely that they would move the mother to a generic gynecological wing, but I am not a hospital administrator so I am just speculating.

Maternity rooms are for women giving birth or recovering afterwards, not the care of infants whose parents didn't just give birth. A newborn may be kept in the same room as its postpartum mother for convenience and bonding (unless it needs to be in the NICU or something), and maternity rooms often have both a bed and a bassinet or incubator to accommodate that. But if the baby is hospitalized and the mother isn't, they don't put the baby in a maternity suite just because it's a baby - that's not what they're for. Here, the babies' adoptive parents aren't hospitalized and certainly aren't postpartum, and the babies aren't being cared for by their biological mother, so I don't think they'd have been given that type of room.

Most surrogacy arrangements involve one or both parents legally adopting the child. In a few states, this can be done before birth. In a few others, legal motherhood is determined by DNA rather than gestation, so if an embryo that used the husband's sperm and the wife's ovum was implanted into a surrogate, there would be no need for adoption. But two men can't both be the biological parent of the same child, by any definition, so even if one's sperm was used, the other would still need to adopt the child to legally establish the parental relationship. I don't have a problem with surrogacy, personally, but I think it's worth noting that saying "These children are/will be adopted" doesn't eliminate that possibility.

As for the Indiana stats, many children adopted in the US were adopted from overseas, so have nothing to do with the rules for birthmothers in the US. Many more are adopted by close relatives like grandparents, so still, nothing to do with those rules. And then there are the ones taken by the state - you have to really screw up for that to happen, and stay screwed up for years. And then there are surrogacy arrangements, which usually also involve a legal adoption. Oh, and stepparent adoptions - that's a lot. Maybe more than all the rest combined. The number adopted via private placement, where birth parents and adoptive parents "match" and then negotiate terms, is much smaller than the total number of children with at least one adoptive parent. And I can't think of a better way of doing it while still allowing the birthmother free agency to choose whom she wants to raise her child.

Its like the hospital bed is quite a symbolic bit of furniture really. Maybe it was the only place they could fit both of them. Or they had been having skin to skin or something. I don't know.

To be honest I didn't get what why people are getting upset with the picture, then I thought how weird it would it have been if my male OH had popped into a hospital bed for a photo with our LO. And I think I kind of get it.

The USian adoption system is almost as much baby trafficking as surrogacy in some areas.

I also highly doubt that these babies were adopted. I think it's far more likely they paid a woman to gestate these babies and bought them from her at birth.

See the stats etc above.

There is something dodgy as fuck going on imo

Last one

'In the UK there are around 6,000 children who need to be adopted every year. Many of these children are of school age and over 50% of them are brothers and sisters who would need to be placed together. These children come from a wide variety of different religious and ethnic backgrounds. '

Population 60 million I think. 6k.

Indiana 2k adoptions (completed that's not number of children who could be adopted). 6 million people.

Women sometimes choose during their pregnancy to relinquish the babies for adoption. It’s not forced by the state. If so, they get to pick the adopting parents and can choose to have them begin parenting immediately. Every state has its own waiting period where the mother can change her mind. (Technically the father as well)

If the state takes the baby at birth, it’s likely the mother has a previous history with social services and the baby would technically be placed as a foster to adopt so the potential adoptive parents might be in for considerable heartbreak even months later but they do know this when the placement begins.

My experience is that even healthy babies are required to stay in the hospital for at least 24-48 hours. All the hospitals in our area only have private maternity rooms and the nurseries are only for sick babies or mothers who are incapacitated; babies generally stay with their parents in room.

Can't find any data on the mothers.

Indiana govt says 2k adoptions a year. 6 million people.

3% of children there are adopted?!

When you Google Indiana adopt newborn or similar.

You get about 50/50

Adoption agencies
Agencies to help find birth parents

Fucking hell

Ok this is not good I had no idea

This is. All wrong.

Federal data reveal that before 1973, 8.7 percent of babies born to unwed mothers were placed for adoption. By 2002, the rate had dropped to just 1 percent. Radke speculates that single parenting has become more socially acceptable during the last four decades, while teen moms who were raised in unstable families are less likely to place their child for adoption because they often view their baby as a source of love and stability.

Radke hopes more birth parents become aware of the option of adoption and that more adults develop interest in becoming adoptive parents.

“We think of adoption as just another way to parent,” Radke said. “Whether you have biological children or not, adoption is another way to build your family. You’re providing that safety and stability that every child needs.”

Oops took the ads sorry

This is unbelievable.

Hoosier means someone who lives in Indiana Google tells me.

'Overall, 2.7 percent of Hoosier children live in adoptive families.'

Nearly every 3 in 100 children in Indiana is adopted???????

This is very interesting and worrying.

Can be added to the list of wtf USA I think.

'
Subscribe
Sign In
up next
25% of Indiana kids have access to high-quality preschool, report...
OPINION
Indiana is national leader in adoptions
BILL STANCZYKIEWICZ | | 9:25 am EDT May 1, 2015
As the nation prepares to celebrate Mother’s Day, families formed through adoption are more common in Indiana compared with other states.

According to the National Council for Adoption, Indiana has the nation’s fourth highest rate of adoption per live births, the ninth highest rate of adoption per nonmarital births, and the 11th highest rate of adoption per 100,000 adults.

“Our state’s laws make Indiana a very adoption-friendly state,” said Nadja Radke, a pregnancy and adoption counselor for St. Elizabeth Coleman, a Catholic Charities ministry that has been serving in Indiana for 100 years.

Radke explained that the birth mother’s signature on the adoption consent decree is final, while the birth father or other biological family members have only 30 days after the baby’s birth to claim custody.

“One of the biggest fears we hear is that the birth parents will continue to meddle,” Radke said. “That just is not true at all. By the time the decision has been made to place the child for adoption, the birth parent has made the choice to not parent the child.”

'
Sign In
up next
25% of Indiana kids have access to high-quality preschool, report...
OPINION
Indiana is national leader in adoptions
BILL STANCZYKIEWICZ | | 9:25 am EDT May 1, 2015
As the nation prepares to celebrate Mother’s Day, families formed through adoption are more common in Indiana compared with other states.

According to the National Council for Adoption, Indiana has the nation’s fourth highest rate of adoption per live births, the ninth highest rate of adoption per nonmarital births, and the 11th highest rate of adoption per 100,000 adults.

“Our state’s laws make Indiana a very adoption-friendly state,” said Nadja Radke, a pregnancy and adoption counselor for St. Elizabeth Coleman, a Catholic Charities ministry that has been serving in Indiana for 100 years.

Radke explained that the birth mother’s signature on the adoption consent decree is final, while the birth father or other biological family members have only 30 days after the baby’s birth to claim custody.

“One of the biggest fears we hear is that the birth parents will continue to meddle,” Radke said. “That just is not true at all. By the time the decision has been made to place the child for adoption, the birth parent has made the choice to not parent the child.”

Labor Day Sale!
Don’t miss your chance for unlimited digital access to exclusive content.
$1 for 6 Months
Subscribe Now
Between 2009 and 2013, an annual average of 3,678 children were adopted in Indiana. Along with domestic adoptions through private agencies or attorneys, children also can be adopted through the state’s foster care system as well as internationally. Overall, 2.7 percent of Hoosier children live in adoptive families.'

Similar number of links for agencies offering to locate birth parents of those adopted...

Oh dear

'In many cases, however, women that are pregnant need financial assistance for adoption for their medical expenses, pregnancy expenses and more. While there are no adoption agencies that pay you in Indiana, your adoption- and pregnancy-related expenses will be taken care of at no cost to you. The type of adoption financial assistance in Indiana that you may receive can include:

Attorney fees
Maternity clothes
Transportation
Housing and utilities
Food and additional living expenses, as determined by the court
Medical assistance
And more, depending on your situation
The costs listed above will be covered by the adoptive family and the child-placing agency that you choose.'

Other links saying why are black babies cheaper to adopt.. yikes.

Searching brings up a lot of agencies.

The Indiana gov site gives costs involved and list of agencies
www.in.gov/dcs/adoption/adoption-agencies/

12500 for an infant.
I think they're in Indiana (?)

Where are the babies coming from that this is viable for multiple businesses to facilitate?

Bed thing aside.

I don't know how common it is for babies to go for adoption at birth. I'm thinking pretty rare. Given most children who could be adopted are older.

SS will try to keep baby with mother if poss. I know there are some iffy cases but I don't think there's widespread unethical practices going on.

What is the situation in USA. A pp said matched. So the newborns go at birth sometimes.

Newborn twins.

In general and again a feel but women even girls don't tend to want their babies gone straight after birth.

So what's going on in USA? Which state is this? Is this sort of thing not unusual?

How come, what's going on?

May be fine may be not. I don't know.

I should explain that I have had a lot of experience in US hospitals, unfortunately, but here are a few things you should know. 1. "Wards" are generally rare except in special circumstances. 2. Chairs of various types are plentiful and is very much frowned upon to sit on a hospital bed. Hospital beds are considered to be for patients only and are the work area of the doctors and nurses. Sitting on a bed is considered contaminating it. 3. If there was any medical reason for the babies to need to stay overnight, they would stay in the nursery where nurses would watch them, not in a hospital room with two healthy adults. If the babies did not need medical care, they could go home with their new parents. Hospitals actually need those rooms. So Mr. Buttigieg dhould not need an overnight room.tMothers can care for their newborns in their private or semi-private rooms as they recover from the birth, but the babies can also be placed in the nursery if the mothers need to sleep, etc.

It is highly unlikely that we are talking about adoption. A far more likely scenario is that these men hired a surrogate, mixed their sperm, and hired an egg donor so that the woman who bore the child had no genetic relationship to it. That is the way these things are done now. I don't have proof but my Spidey sense tells me this is so and I am generally correct. One clue: twins. That suggests to me that more than one egg may have been implanted. Also, there have been a number of high profile surrogacy cases of gay men hiring surrogates and posing for similar lying-in-hospital-beds-inappropriately type photos recently--a phenomenon I will discuss in part 2.

All well and good supporting mothers to stay with their babies when you live in a country where the mother has the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - we’re talking about America!

My best friends adopted at birth last year, birth mum was in Texas at the time and they live in California. They were matched (ie she found out about them and she made the call that she wanted her baby to go to them - there isn’t necessarily a “waiting list”) in January and their daughter was born in March, in California. Birth Mum stipulated baby should be born where her dads live and she left the hospital after 5 days to return to her life but baby was there for another 2 weeks due to being premature and her dads were the ones in NICU with her.

Birth mum had just left an abusive marriage, fell pregnant by accident and lived in rural Texas, didn’t know or was in denial about her pregnancy until about 20weeks, was in a women’s shelter and categorically did not want her baby - but it was too late and too much stigma for abortion.

There are a lot of horrific assumptions on this thread about the realities of women in America who give up their babies for adoption and the gay male couples who give these babies a home and a life. FWIW they have no photos of birth mum, they followed her lead completely in that she wanted a closed adoption, no photos, didn’t hold or see the baby at all.

Let a happy family be happy