If Brangelina can do it, why can't we?

November 19, 2008 4:38 PM

How difficult is adopting a child going to be for a "non-traditional" couple?

My significant other and I planning our future together and have decided adopting a child is something we want to do (having a child the way nature intended is not in the cards for us, sadly). However, we've heard rumblings of the difficulties average couples have with the adoption process and we're concerned we're going to run into trouble.

The first issue is we may not go for a traditional state-sanctioned "marriage." To oversimplify for the sake of brevity, we're boycotting marriage until it's a right that's allowed every American citizen. Whether that means a civil union, common-law marriage, or "living-with-partner-but-not-married" situation will probably depend on where we decide to settle.

The second issue is we are an interracial couple (I'm white, he's of Mexican descent). We've heard over and over that agencies will try to "match" couples with children that are the same color as them. But we're not the same color, so then what?

Other information about us if it makes a difference - we're in our mid-twenties and would like to adopt within the next five years. We're financially stable (only debt at this point is student loan) and have good careers. We are strongly considering staying in the Midwest (most likely Minnesota) to start our family.

What kind of a battle are we in for?

posted by geekchic to human relations (24 comments total)

Choose one:

1) Get married, then adopt a child, who will probably be Hispanic because there is an oversupply of ethnic children. No gays are likely to feel slighted by your move, and will appreciate your continued support of their rights. In fact, you could even request a donation to a gay-rights organization in lieu of wedding gifts.

2) Don't get married, and have to go through millions of horrible things to adopt a child, much less do all sorts of other things, and eventually end up married anyways because you've been living together for so long that the state may make you a common-law couple, if you live in the states where that exists— Minnesota is one of them.

Choose the first option, for the love of God. There are lots of non-White children that need homes out there. Nobody is going to get hurt if you get married.

Also, boycotts only work for products on the market, i.e., the fall in demand spurs change. Marriage is not a product, so it doesn't matter what you do in that regard.
posted by Electrius at 4:48 PM on November 19, 2008 [8 favorites has favorites]

Two friends of mine, a gay couple, unmarried (two men) filled out all their paperwork and submitted for an adoption, assuming it would take years. They had a tentative arrangement within three days, as the first person to see their materials chose them. Their son is now seven, and they're a very happy family. When you're gay and unmarried, nobody's particularly surprised given the hurdles and legal limitations.

When you're straight and unmarried, though, that's possibly a big red flag, no matter your reasons -- and considering your reasons, that might be a red flag as well (that you're more concerned with taking a political position than providing a legally stable home environment.) That's speculation, of course.
posted by davejay at 4:49 PM on November 19, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

we're boycotting marriage until it's a right that's allowed every American citizen.

If adopting is any easier if you're married, you should give up the boycott and get married. A boycott isn't going to accomplish anything. Your future child is infinitely more important.

(Also, check your talking points -- "a right that's allowed every American citizen" is both too broad and too narrow a goal. Think about it.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:59 PM on November 19, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

No gays are likely to feel slighted by your move, and will appreciate your continued support of their rights. In fact, you could even request a donation to a gay-rights organization in lieu of wedding gifts.

I* will not feel slighted or betrayed, nor will any of the gay people I know. Give a good life to a kid who needs it, and raise him or her up to be a thoughtful, tolerant person. And yeah, ask for donations to lgbt groups in lieu of wedding presents.

*gotten married three times to the same woman now; only the Canadian one is still a sure thing.
posted by rtha at 5:21 PM on November 19, 2008

Do you have many millions of dollars? If not, then I think the unmarried will be a problem - in fact I suspect that the knee-jerk assumption will be that while you are both telling the same story, one of your is just wanting an easy out.

That said, get in touch with gay and lesbian couples in your city, or state if you are not in a big city, and find out which judges/agencies are known for being on board with special situations.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 5:22 PM on November 19, 2008

Here's a compromise: Why not get married in Massachusetts, Connecticut or Canada where gays are allowed to get married? You can look at it as supporting the states/ countries that have taken the courageous step of supporting marriage equality.

Of course your question was about adoption. You may want to read Dan Savage's books. He goes into great detail about the process that he and his boyfriend went through to adopt their son. They subsequently got married in Canada, but at the time they adopted they weren't married.
posted by bananafish at 5:32 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Please think this through. In many, many states - and with many countries for foreign adoptions - if you are not married, only one of you may legally adopt, as a single parent. This is true for both gay and straight couples.

So, Sam and Alex adopt a baby. Because only one of them can be legally recognised on the paperwork and Sam is the higher earner, and the adoption of baby Milo is done in Sam's name. Everyone lives happily ever after for five years, when Sam is tragically killed in a road traffic accident.

Because Sam and Alex were not married, the shit hits the fan because Alex has no parental rights. In fact, Alex has no legally recognised relationship with Milo at all. In sweeps Sam's distraught mother, who is Sam's next of kin, and a lengthy, expensive custody battle follows. What had started out as misplaced grief quickly becomes antagonistic, and when Sam's mother eventually wins, she picks up Milo and moves him back to her home in Florida.

Milo is completely displaced and has now lost not one but two parents and the security of his surroundings. And Alex has lost everything - house, savings, partner and child.

If you're a same sex couple and you do not have to option to secure your family with a marriage certificate, well... go forth and build your family the best you can, with the best legal protection you can, and may luck be with you. But if you have the option to simply skip the potential for this nightmare, put your principles on the shelf and your child first and get married.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:36 PM on November 19, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

Thank you all for your comments so far. We honestly had no idea that having our love and commitment to each other witnessed and signed by a government official was so necessary (and I realize boycott was probably the wrong word to use - I just wanted to avoid writing a manifesto on the institution of marriage).

Does this mean then that the reports of racial struggles in the adoption process are greatly exaggerated? Since we do have control over our marriage status, but do not have control over our ethnic background we are more worried about that aspect.

Electrius, asking for donations to LBGT causes in lieu of wedding gifts is a fantastic suggestion, thank you!

bananafish, I am familiar with Dan Savage, I think I'll have to finally pick up his book, thank you, too!
posted by geekchic at 5:45 PM on November 19, 2008

I never knew that race really played a part in adoptions. I always thought that the issue/struggle came down to couples requesting a certain race (white, blond hair, blues eyes) and not being able to find a match because that's what everyone wants and there are no more babies fitting that criteria (and a long waiting list). I have a friend that recently adopted two african-american babies - within 18 days of each other. My friend and her husband are both quite white. I think that if there is a loving committed couple, race doesn't play a part, unless it's the adoptive couple that is requesting a certain race and is un-flexible in that.

My two cents; I really don't know.
posted by Sassyfras at 5:59 PM on November 19, 2008

There are a lot of mixed-race children out there, my family members (who are mixed and in interracial marriages because, well...they're pretty much all interracial marriages when you're mixed) have had excellent luck adopting.

In Minnesota, your bigger problem will be your lack of tribal status, from what I know. Even that is surmountable.

Of course, different agencies have different standards and there are public and private ways to go about this. Adoption is not standardized, really. You want to look for a lot of good general books, i.e. Labor of the Heart. Then you want to get the advice of other local adoptive families, find out which local agencies are good, pick an agency, and then go to the agency with your questions.


Good luck.
posted by sondrialiac at 6:19 PM on November 19, 2008

Check the laws in your state. Some states do not allow cohabitating couples to adopt or even foster. (Arkansas just made it illegal this month, for example.) In those states only married couples or individuals who are single can adopt.

Your ethnicity should not be an issue.

Good luck!
posted by onhazier at 6:56 PM on November 19, 2008

AFAIK Adoption agencies in most countries, prefer to adopt children to a similar racial/ethnic background, but, there are usually more children from minority ethnicities (and mixed) available than matched adopters - being bi-racial in this case is probably a positive, not a negative.

Because of this, you will probably be more likely to be matched to a child of Mexican or hispanic descent. This sounds like it would be fine, right?
So you're all good there.
posted by Elysum at 7:40 PM on November 19, 2008

Here in Texas it is very common for families to be mixed Hispanic and Anglo. We've been doing it since the 1800s (i.e., from the time that Anglos first came to what was then Mexico). I grew up around Anglo, Hispanic, and mixed families in San Antonio, and I see the same here in the Houston area today. I suppose things are different in Minnesota; the Air Force sent us briefly in Minot, ND, and it was a different world. Even so, part of me is simply amazed that this is a consideration.

I'll add, as a gay man, go ahead and get married. I don't see the act of making this legal arrangement for your family as any sort of manifesto or social statement; it's simply the best and simplest way to handle all of the legal p's-and-q's.
posted by Robert Angelo at 8:13 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

If you're unmarried, and it's going to be an issue, you could do what a lot of lesbian couples do: you adopt as a single woman. Many agencies will wink wink nod nod over a thing like this. But some agencies will work with unmarried couples, and whether you match with a birthmom or not might just depend on whether the right birthmom comes along.

You don't have to adopt in the state you live in. You can find an agency with policies you like and work with them even if they're in a different state. For instance, we live in Michigan but used an Illinois agency to adopt our daughter because we liked the agency. Although we did have to be cleared by Michigan to bring the baby home across state lines, overall the adoption was governed by Illinois law.

If you're willing to adopt an African-American or mixed-race baby, the fact that you are a biracial couple will be in your favor in the eyes of birthmothers, I would think.

There are many kinds of adoptions and many ways to go about it (through foster care, with an adoption attorney, through an agency). A good way for you to start thinking about the kind of adoption you're interested in would be to pick up one of the many Comprehensive Guide to Adoption books available.

The Forever Parents on-line community is a good place to meet people who've been through every kind of adoption. People there can also advise about agencies, what kind of adoption might work best for you, and so on. I just went to get the URL and found that the topic on their home page was race and adoption! I don't hang out there anymore but found it invaluable before we brought our daughter home, and during the early months with her.

I can't recommend our agency entirely without reservations (we had some communications problems with them), but it is a good example of an agency that works with people regardless of sexual orientation or marital status. In fact, when I was researching agencies, one of the references they gave me was an unmarried male-female couple who'd adopted through them. We adopted through their African-American program. Their fees are also very reasonable compared to some. We're a white couple with two biological kids, also white, and now a black baby.
posted by not that girl at 8:20 PM on November 19, 2008

I wouldn't worry about DarlingBri's scenario too much, by the way. It definitely applies to same-sex couples, but I would be surprised if, for instance, you chose to adopt as a single woman, if you couldn't then petition to have your partner also adopt the child, once your adoption is finalized. Once an adoption is finalized, it's just the same as if the child was born to you, legally (it says so in the court papers--more than once).
posted by not that girl at 8:24 PM on November 19, 2008

I'm not sure where you are, but in Texas (and I'm assuming any state near the border), Hispanic-Anglo couples are incredibly common. As someone who used to work for an attorney who did family law, including lots of parental rights/adoption stuff for gay and straight couples, race wasn't a big issue in adoptions.
posted by fructose at 8:32 PM on November 19, 2008

One more thing: (maybe you and I should have coffee or something; apparently I have a lot to say on this subject. But it seems like a lot of uninformed people are chiming in on this thread, and at least I have actually adopted a baby!)

My partner (now husband) is male, and I'm female. One of the factors that led us to our agency was that we would not work with an agency that would not work with same-sex couples or single women. That really narrowed it down! If you're unwilling to get married out of solidarity, you are going to be very uncomfortable with the policies of many adoption agencies, both private and public. This is the thing that may very well be the challenge for you, not race!

We were also unwilling to work with an agency that had lower fees for Black or Hispanic babies than for white babies. That also eliminated a lot of them right off the bat.

We waited 14 months for our daughter. During that 14 months, we matched with another birthmother who changed her mind and decided to parent, which is very common.
posted by not that girl at 8:32 PM on November 19, 2008

Also, adopting a kid together is a far more permanent and less reversible commitment than getting legally married.
posted by fructose at 8:33 PM on November 19, 2008

OK - here's more info than you might want on adoption ...

First off, as people have said above, you'll want to find out about the laws in your state regarding unmarried couples adopting. You can just call a local adoption agency to find out this sort of thing. Worst case, one of you might wind up officially adopting the child (probably you - many places frown on single men adopting) and the other one becoming a guardian.

Now ... there's two different types of adoption - international adoption and domestic adoption. They're pretty different, and there's details that take a lot more space than fits here. I'll try to summarize, but you'll want to do some research.

With international adoption, you choose a country, submit a dossier, and are placed with a child by a bureaucratic agency in that country. Depending on the country, ethnicity might be an issue (for example, India prefers people of Indian descent) and most countries prefer married couples. Unmarried couples and LGBT couples get around this by having one partner do the adoption as a single parent. (as an aside, if you're unhappy about the rights denied to gay couples in the US, wait until you deal with a country in Latin America or SE Asia.)

With a domestic adoption, you prepare a dossier which is presented by an agency or lawyer to prospective birthmothers. You fill out a very detailed questionaire about what sorts of babies you'd consider, including race/ethnicity, birth defects, exposure to drugs/alcohol/tobacco, genetic risks, and lack of information. As birthmothers are found or contact the agency, they select some couples/people whose preferences fit. The birthmother then chooses you, based on whatever criteria are important to her. The agency doesn't have so much to do with this decision, apart from presenting the birthmom with potential parents who fit her desires. (Juno is actually not too far off on this process, although there'll be fewer wisecracks, probably.) Ethnicity might or might not be an issue - some birthmoms want their baby to grow up in a culturally similar home, whereas others have different preferences.

There's also foster care/adoption, which is yet another path.

Dan Savage's book (The Kid) gives a good first-person account of the domestic adoption process (plus, he's hilarious). A good start is to contact a couple of adoption agencies in your area - they typically have Q&A/info sessions where you can go and get specific answers to these sorts of things, find out about costs and waiting times, and decide which path is best for you.

Hope this helps - let me know if you want more details about any of this.
posted by chbrooks at 8:34 PM on November 19, 2008

I have been the placing social worker on a bunch of adoptions-from-foster care, so have that perspective to lend. I'm in Oregon. I have less experience with private-agency adoption. I'm not sure if you're looking only at private-agency infant adoptions, or a wider range of choices.
1. I placed with single parents, married parents, and gay and lesbian parents.
2. I placed many infants and small children (foster care adoptions are not always older kids, as is sometimes portrayed). HOWEVER, there is a lot of "competition" for the young and relatively "problem free" children. I might have received home studies for 45 families for an infant. If that's the case, something like being a heterosexual couple and not being married might have moved you down my list, everything else being equal. I am looking for the most stable family possible, with the most resources, and, like it or not, sometimes choosing not to be married can look less stable (yes, yes, I know about divorce rates. I'm just saying that sometimes people who can get married, and don't, might be doing that because they're not 100% committed to a life together-if I am only seeing you on paper, I don't really know what is true about you).
3. Check out this link re MEPA (the multi-ethnic placement act); which is federal legislation that does not allow any agency that receives federal funding to "delay or deny" placement of a child based on race." This is a bit of a balancing act, as most placing social workers (and bio families) would always prefer to place a child in a family where there culture and language will be honored.
4. I'm a big fan of open, mediated adoptions-both profesionally and because my husband has a relationship with his birth mom. Getting as much information as possible for your child is priceless.
posted by purenitrous at 10:04 PM on November 19, 2008

We honestly had no idea that having our love and commitment to each other witnessed and signed by a government official was so necessary

Marriage is not just a public vow between to people. It is, first and foremost, a contract with the state. That contract extends to you certain rights and protections. It's the protections you don't have access to if you're not married (or unable to get married) that makes some families vulnerable.

I wouldn't worry about DarlingBri's scenario too much, by the way.

Great. Just be sure you never want to live in Arkansas.

Once an adoption is finalized, it's just the same as if the child was born to you, legally (it says so in the court papers--more than once).

Until quite recently, not in Oklahoma, which nullified adoptions by same sex couples made in other states and effectively rendered those children orphans - and potentially wards of the state - when those families were even visiting in Oklahoma.

The broader point I'm making is that we live in polarised times, and the way in which legal battles are being fought against same-sex families has a shot-gun-pellet effect on other unmarried couples, too. What was never your issue could very well become your issue in ways you never expected, from the purchase of sex toys to the adoption of children.

In short: be crystal clear on the law in your state, keep an eye on relevant pending legislation, and be aware when you consider changing your state of residency.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:22 AM on November 20, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

You need the laws in your state, not this speculation. Call a family lawyer.
posted by miss tea at 3:30 AM on November 20, 2008

Umpteenthing "check the laws in your state". They vary so widely, you simply aren't going to get a definite answer here unless you specify the state.

I can only answer about Indiana. Until recently, as a single female, you could adopt. If there was a partner involved, they would be handled as a roommate. The roommate must undergo complete physicals, criminal background checks, etc. as required by the home study. After the adoption was final, the roommate could "re-adopt" in a similar fashion as step-parent adopting. It's definitely a wink-wink process, but your state may have something similar going on.

The "until recently" part is that adoption laws have changed here in a way that allows same-sex couples to adopt (I know...In Indiana???) This change would imply that hetero, co-habiting couples would have a more direct route to adoption as well. I need to check on this, though. It's pretty rare that such couples try to adopt, though. My source, frankly, hasn't had such an event in many, many years.

And, of course, there are many in the legislature working hard to legislate this away.

Additionally, even if it IS legal for non-married couples to adopt in your state, you also have the issue of the birth mother. In most open adoptions, the birth mother chooses the couple she wishes to give her child over to. Most mothers are going to prefer traditional hetero married couples. Non-traditional couples or singles largely end-up with special-needs or hard-to-adopt children. Of course, there are exceptions.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:57 AM on November 20, 2008

I'm just going to say this one more time: you do not have to adopt in your state of residence. It will mean traveling to take custody. It's not wrong to check the laws in your state, but you are not limited by the laws in your state.

Also, don't freak out too much about the "birthmother choice" issue. At the agency we used, about half of birthmothers didn't choose the adoptive family. They asked the agency to do it. We had issues in our family that our agency thought might make birthmothers uncomfortable, and it didn't matter--our daughter's birthmother asked the agency to make a choice, and they chose us.

DarlingBri, the OP and her partner are not a same-sex couple.

My take-away from this thread: AskMetafilter is not actually a great place to get this information. Read a book or two. Look at adoption agency websites. Get oriented about all your options. Good luck.
posted by not that girl at 6:36 AM on November 21, 2008