Billie Doll it is actually. The government gives your wavers and pays you to adopt foster kids. In California for a state adoption from the foster care system it is under $500, that is also tax deductible. 🤪🤪😂
It's awful. Most women choose adoption because they can't support the baby, but then the state pays people to take those babies and foster them. It's messed up. Those women need help with food, money, not adoption.
It's crazy that they don't even get half their money back if the mother of the baby decides not to give the baby away once it's born. Seems like a scam to me.
The thing is that that could be used to pressure the mother into giving them the baby. And It would literally be buying a child, more than it already is. It baffles my that it's even allowed to pay for getting a baby in the US. And it's not only the adoptive parents that could put pressure on the mother to give up her child, just imagine how the adoption agency must have pressured her. If a mother refuse to give up her child they will lose customers in the future. It's an incredibly dirty business.
you should never have to pay any money to adopt a child. Money shouldn't be involved, you can't buy a baby that's disgusting. The fact that money is involved means that it will be open to abuse.
Dealing with a person that has a drug problem & criminal background wanting to give the baby up would be cause to not want to pay because you can never trust them. They could likely use it as a scam to make money & keep the baby. I totally agree with you! Money shouldn’t be involved to keep these things from happening. If someone wants to give their baby up then they should do it because they want the best for the baby, not for money.
I totally agree. What's the difference between child trafficking and adopting or fostering? It's absolutely mad, how can we put a price to a human being when they need help, a family, love? How insane have we become to do business with children who desperately need help to survive? Where has our humanity gone? When the war in Ukrania started people were opening their homes in other countries to help the families running away from the war, they offered their houses, food, every help they could give without asking for any money back. That's who we are, but the governments don't allow us to be this way as they create business with people/children and forbid people to help each other. It's crazy!!
There was something dystopian about this programme. The desperate, relinquishing, biological mothers. The almost vulture-like adoptive "hope to be" parents. The adoption agencies who profit by other people's misery, and by other people's desire to be parents-( who aren't keen to take any child who desperately needs a home.) As for potential adoptive parents being deceived, and loosing their cash to a woman who changes her mind, or is just flat out deceitful, caveat emptor applies to them! Louis Theroux deals with them all in a sensitive manner.
People always mention adopting but have no idea on the fees adoption agencies ask for. $50k is ludicrous but that is nothing in comparison to what many parents end up paying out (hundreds of thousands..). It’s insane that we have so many ‘unwanted’ (I hate that term.. breaks my heart) little ones who genuinely need loving homes, & so many people willing to give them but don’t have those extortionate funds. That’s why people go abroad to adopt because the process isn’t anywhere near as expensive or complex. Something needs to drastically change somewhere. The entire system both in the US & U.K. is old fashioned & damaging to all parties. These baby’s & toddlers are treated like materialistic items by so many in the system. Every mother has the right to change their mind, that should never be taken away from her, but these funds should absolutely be refundable by the agency. They’re bleeding hopeful parents dry of money. It’s all down to greed. It’s just so bloody sad 😔
Laura Williams not many babies are actually ‘unwanted’ Most birth mums do it because they have no choice. It’s the ultimate loving act of kindness and selflessness a women can do, when they’re not in the position to give their child a good life.
Sarah You’re absolutely right. I should have put for lack of better wording. I did ponder over that word. I’ve said the exact same thing you’ve said to me on another adoption video elsewhere on TH-cam. These birth mums are incredibly strong individuals & I have no doubt in my mind that they love their baby’s unconditionally. That’s what makes these adoptions agencies even more callous to me, they’re so money hungry that it’s almost like they forget the human beings behind it all.
As someone who was raised by someone other than biologicals, I can say emphatically that to remove a baby from a mother that doesn't truly WANT to give up her baby is criminal. It's traumatic for the mother, it's traumatic for the baby, it's traumatic for the person the baby grows up to be. If these parents want to experience a baby, they should bring a young, vulnerable mother baby unit into their home and love them BOTH. The adoption industry is fueled by GREED.
@Cory Stone then if you can't have a biological child of your own, you don't get one. Or adopt an older foster child that was abused or neglected. You don't get to BUY a baby. It's completely unethical.
It’s kind of twisted to put the weight of all your happiness and fulfilment in life upon a child before you’ve even met them. What a burden to put on them. Find happiness and fulfilment in your life on your own before dragging someone else into it
The people shouldnt have to pay for anything until they have received the child. Loosing 50k is a massive deal to some people especially those that only have 1 opportunity to pay that out. That woman knew what she was doing, she just wanted someone else to pay
They were not forced to go into the open adoption process. They choose to do so. The pregnant woman was honest about her misgivings in the video call. They eventually adopted a baby. Anyone who has $50,000 to put down for a "baby girl." I'm not sympathetic.
Sorry but that woman if she had doubts shouldn't have taken those peoples money, she shouldn't have taken them along for the journey knowing what they wanted. Also the journalist did state thats its open or abuse and ut has been abused. The pregnant woman didnt want to pay for her pregnancy so she throught and carried out a scam to get there money and leave them with nothing. She should be forced to pay back every penny and should be ashamed of herself. There are hundreds maybe even thousands of people that would do anything to be a parent that can't be naturally for whatever reason. These parents wanted to complete there family. Do they deserve to do that, yes they do. Should they be ripped off, scammed, abused to do that No. Thats why the pregnant woman should have said and stop taking there money as soon as she wasn't sure. There should have been a clause in the agreement that if she didn't follow through that she should pay back the money they spent. She knew she wanted to keep her baby but she didnt want to pay the hospital bills so she found the most vulnerable people she could and abused them. Open adoption should be stopped until the flaws are fixed and the playing field is level and the balls not just in the court of the pregnant woman. Also there should be insurance involved either by the business or the people looking to adopt that pays out when a woman pulls out. The business should also have been up today with everything and cut the pregnant woman off asap after they find out that she has doubts. Clearly they failed in this case.
How were they vulnerable? They already had 3 kids, a nice house and 50k to spare they knew they could easily lose. If couples insist on having a newborn straight from the womb they should be ready for it to fall through. These people were scammed, but the pregnant women are usually the vulnerable ones who need protecting.
@@thirdtwinify i mean vulnerable because the pregnant woman knew what they wanted and exploited that plus she knew they wouldn't get the money back. In america if the people who are wanting a child were pregnant themselves thats what they would have to pay for treatment. Everyone is vulnerable in 1 way or another. The pregnant woman exploited that vulnerability. The pregnant women arent forced to give up there babies and if they are that should be a crime. But in the instance shown the pregnant woman wasn't vulnerable, so she should be made to pay the money back because if she was to not go through the open adoption that's exactly what she would be paying for her pregnancy. They could always set up a payment plan. Its a crime to defraud someone out of there money and that happens all the time but there is insurances to cover most of that fraud so it should be exactly the same for open adoption. It would make the woman think a lot harder about if adoption is for them.
I was shocked by this documentary. It seems these adoption agencies often coerce and manipulate vulnerable mothers into parting with their newborn babies by making them feel like they aren't worthy of parenting their children. That woman from the agency and the adoptive parents are both breathing down that other young girl's neck until the baby is greedily taken from her and its new parents walk of with 'their' baby strapped into a car seat like it is some kind of prize. Very sad. I think that girl's face lit up when she saw her baby on the scan, and she was withdrawn when Louis went back to visit. The very language used by the couple featured in this clip is shocking, that women wanting to 'get a baby' says it all really. I don't feel sorry for them getting scammed, they should have learned a salutary lesson.
Lucie in this case NO, they birth mother was fully aware of the situation and the time and risk the couple was taking, so was the agency and its ok to tryna talk some sense into her as she'd initially made the promise knowing full well the couple shelled out 50k for the whole process. she should be made to pay half of it.
You're absolutely right. Women and babies being preyed on. It's disgusting. No one has the right to a baby, especially not someone else's baby. The way she acts all upset and snooty is infuriating. Leave that mother and baby alone ffs.
Where were the tears when mama was telling you how she has no one to support her and help her raise this baby. That part was so sad. There were no tears then…. so selfish. There were only tears when “adoptive mom” didn’t get what she wanted.
Exactly!! 💯💯 It's ALL about the adoptive mom, even the dad is pushed to the side. Adoptive mother's are some of the most selfish people on earth. "Someone give me a baby!! I deserve one!!"
The thing is, adoption can be a great process for mothers who are not able or willing to care for a child. Though when anything becomes a billion dollar industry, there will be those who are exploited. Like the man said, pain is inevitable in this process. Systems that impact vulnerable ( financially and otherwise) women who can't afford children so that wealthy families can essentially "shop" for the child they want. I'm not with it.
We aren't "shopping" for the baby we want. We are waiting for the baby whose mother chooses us to parent her baby. Adoption is born from loss for all those involved. Those of us who choose this path work hard to save and fund raise so we don't go into debt to fulfill our call to become parents.
Ah bless you sweetheart,I agree with you,all the money involved takes away from what it's all supposed to be about,this is more about the couples needs and not the child xx
Bless you but the choice is an individual decision. I think some of you need to actual parents or at least one parent that's been adopted/fostered , you guys want to foist things onto people who clearly do not want to or aren't ready. a young couple in their early 30s ain't willing to be a foster parent but rather and adoptive parent. fostering is suited for folk at the less pressured staged of their lives with maybe kids of their own already.
open adoption is amazing for the adoption for homeless at risk mothers. i proudly adopted to a gay couple when state adoptions would never have allowed them to talk to me. no its no for every one but for homeless women its amazing to able be supported when all ready down. if i had not made choice i would have had my child taken from arms at birth and not had a say in the family.
Wow, he’s an incredible journalist. I just watched this episode on hbo max. In this TH-cam clip when the potential adopter is telling us the birth mother just changed her mind etc...in the full episode he replies back “you know she does have that choice”. Like imagine you having to give up one of your sons???!! Regardless what circumstances the birth mother is currently in....in that moment-it’s her right to have those 30 days to confirm after giving birth. Period.
Although this was heartbreaking for the adopters I think the mother did the right thing in keeping her kid. My friend gave hers up as she was lone parent without support and she aches for that child every day of her life. It's heart breaking to see. She thought she was doing best for the child and maybe she was but it's destroyed her.
Of course it's heartbreaking. It's trauma. Severing the mother baby dyad is absolutely traumatizing. To the mother and baby. So so sad that we encourage adoption as an option as if it's easy and wonderful. All it does is make everyone else happy, everyone forgets the baby and mother that long for each other. Praying for your friend to find peace and healing 🙏🏻
Can anyone clarify if the housing/medical costs to the expectant mom stay with the mom once the mom changes her mind last minute? That seems more like fraud to me.
Because the threat that she would have to pay back the money if she changed her mind would be blackmailing and literally buying a child more than it already is.
I agree, Erica. I'm sure there are people that would use the adoption system with no intention of adopting the baby to someone. I think that if there are any doubts, they would be less likely to go through the process, which would save a lot of heartache for the other couple (and money). There are good reasons why people decide to put their babies up for adoption, so it shouldn't be so easy to flip flop on that decision. I can understand not forcing someone to give up their baby, but you can force them to be financially responsible for their own bills if they decide to keep the baby just like everyone else.
I think those babies shouldn't be promised to anyone before the baby is born, and the woman is actually giving it away. There could be waiting lists, and yes the baby would then be offered suddenly, but at least the families wouldn't have to lose money and get hugely disappointed (and taken advantaged of) in the end.
No way in hell am i paying 10s of thousands for a surrogate, when there is countless other kids in the system already waiting. I find that abit mad to be honest with you.
Wow. Unbelievable. I think the mothers should have to sign a contract so they would have to stick to their promises. Yes I understand why they change their mind when they get the baby in their hands but paying 50 thousand dollars for nothing is absolutely ridiculous.
What if you have made a genuine mistake and want to keep your baby but it's property of somebody else? Also, how can you be the owner/guardian/legal parent or whatever of something that hasn't fully formed yet and is biologically attached to somebody else. Where would we draw the line? Could people sign away there next baby even if they weren't currently pregnant? Imagine knowing the next child you have is not going to be yours because you signed a contract? Na na na bad idea dude rethink, go back to your drawing board.
They should at least get at least 40 thousand out of the 50 thousand refunded. I understand the the documentation/legal fees are high, but you should get the majority of it back if the adoption falls through.
@@FreeRsGuides Ok, how about this? The mother should have to sign a contract stating that IF she changes her mind, which she has every right to do, then she is responsible for repaying all costs incurred by the couple or person she made the agreement with.
@@darkkiss7247 That would mean hardly anyone would commit to giving a baby up prior to birth, meaning parents would wait until they give birth then give their baby up - meaning it'll be looked after by foster parents / passed around more before finding a home. Arranging things before birth helps put a good home in place. I agree 50k is outrageous btw and there has to be a better way im just not sure what way.
I just think of how sad it would make the adoptive mommy, and if I was not positive, I would not commit to putting my baby up for adoption. There has got to be some sort of consideration given to the adoptive parents as well....I'm sure it would be heartbreaking if i could not have had my own children, trying to adopt then having that ripped from me😖
the question that must be asking, why must adoption exist in the first place? in an ideal world, a child is born from the love of a father and and a mother. however, inequality, financial struggle, abusive relationship, and various other thing happened. so shouldn't the effort and financial support go to resolve these issues first???????? adoption, let alone transforming it into an INDUSTRY, should NOT happened in the first place.
how about the cost of the impact of loss and trauma to the mother and her family and future family, and to her child displaced by adoption. oh, yes, that doesn't matter does it...Those people's lives are disposable.
funny how Louis Theroux fails to cover the impact of loss on the mother and her family and future family, and the legal construct where the mother is utterly disempowered and stripped of all rights (and will be placed in jail if she breaches those rights) and that if she wishes to revoke her "ill informed and premature consent" post lapse of cooling off period there is NOTHING she can do and even if she takes it to court, she will have no hope of having her own born returned. And even if she tries to revoke in the revocation period it is unlikely she will get her baby back (depending on who she has on her side to fight for her legal rights, which is usually no one or no one of substance) . Nor does he cover the percentage of adopters who promise open adoption and then close the adoption deliberately after they have the baby. In fact adopter and sociopath Susan Burns outlines how to befriend and con mothers into open adoption in her book . The mother of the child she coerced and lied to get committed suicide. but again , Louis Theroux never talks about the suicide rate and mental health impact of and PTSD and disassociative disorders caused by relinquishment , on the mother and the trauma on the newborn, because. Well I guess that would actually mean valuing the well being and rights of mothers and their newborns. And at the end of the day Louis works for those who have , not the have nots.
100% agree with you. Adoption industry is an awful business. I haven't watched the full doc, but knowing Louis, I would guess that he absolutely covered the impact on the mother.
Of course the birth mother should have the right to change her mind once the baby is born. However, I think the couple who's planning to adopt the child should get most of the money back if she chooses to keep the child. Of course some things still have to be paid for (towards the agency who set this up and did all the work), but they should not have to pay any medical expenses or anything to the woman who kept the child.
One thing most agencies and lawyers do is put the mother on Medicaid. And pocket the difference for so called medical expenses. Thus, they are defrauding both the PAPs and the tax payers.
You know, I get where you are coming from, but think about it in more practical terms. These birth mothers are generally already poor people in dire circumstances. Where are they going to get the ~50.000 dollar to pay back the adoptive couple if they change their mind? In effect, choosing to keep the baby at the last minute wouldn't be a viable option for them because of the cost. It would force a lot of women to give up babies that they wanted to keep. It's not like I don't have sympathy for the prospective adoptive parents who also loose immense amounts of money, but it seems to me like if you have the funds to try and get adopt a child in the first place, you're likely in a better financial place to deal with that loss of money. The fact that adoption seems like such a racket in terms of costs is a problem, but I do not think that the way to solve that is by forcing this debt on birth mothers in vulnerable situations, when they decide to keep their child.
@@yltraviole But they should not have to pay for her medical bills, she should be treated like any other mother who gives birth to a child. Of course she should not have to pay back everything and it should be as fair as possible for both parties.
@@fridal5218 I see what you are saying. The adoptive parents paying for health care creates an incentive for women to put their children up for adoption, even if that's not actually what they want to do. And they would benefit too from giving their prospective child the best pre-natal care possible, not to mention the child, so this is a bit of a dilemma for me. However, this of course wouldn't be a problem if the US had a functioning health care system.
That woman should pay the couple back. Disgusting behaviour on principle, and doesn’t help the adoption system as a whole. Criminal charges should be considered.
It should be the agency that refunds, not the mum, she has the right to change her mind and it's the third party that's taking in most of the money anyway
@@je6874 She had the right to change her mind and the adoptees were aware of this and chose to take the risk. Forcing her to give money back would be blackmailing.
Alex no it’s not blackmail. It’s simple - if she has the $50,000 then she needs to return that money. If she doesn’t she might as well have stolen the money because the couple got nothing out of it. She has the right to change her mind but she has absolutely no right to keep the money and walk off.
@@je6874 Uhm, yes it is? Because there's an 'if' in there. If you don't give away the baby then you have to pay back money you don't have for things you desperately needed. That's so obviously blackmailing, which is why this type of adoption is incredibly illegal were I live. here we try to help mothers and that has resulted in adoptions being rare, which is what every country should strive for.
History repeats it self. Im so divided on this issue. I can see the dark side of this but also the positive side. Did you know aadoption was a big thing in ancient rome? The way other nations looked at it was well if ny country was conquered and a rich family wants to have my baby and pay for it. Then why not. I know we cant compare and im totally stream lining it but this is an amazing topic.
because you have bonds and a relationship and deep connection with your baby and this is your baby, not theirs. You're not talking about a sack of potatoes that you're unsealing. It is not an amazing topic. It is something that has been created and conducted for the benefit for adopters for decades.
@@kimqueen324 with all due respect its an amazing topic for discucsion and debate, how else is there going to be anytype of reform or discord in the subject to pass through a legislative body. Many times the problem lines in defining the definition of adoption adn the parameters on witch it operates, defining is key to passing legislative action to reform or limit Its not black and white, nothing ever is. There is everything from pdophile rings to sex traffiking thats a fact, if you read the UNSC yearly report of human traffikng it lists many adoption agencies involved in that buisness, but like i mentioned befored its not all black and white. and again 1 person opinion doesnt outweight the opinion of many, that is exactly why discorse and dialogue on this amazing topic is required.
@@pedroferia1988 it's always 'fascinating" when it's happening to someone else. It's not fascinating when it's your child and your family caught up in adoption law, politics and deception. The entire process is geared to streamline the removal of the mothers newborn at birth. It is entirely dependent on the integrity of the person conducting the adoption as to how much information they give the mother in protecting herself and her newborn. Why and how a "procedure" in the 21st century that risks causing great trauma and damage is promoted as a wonderful thing , and can be conducted and proceed with the persons involved being kept ignorant of all the risk and impacts, until it is too late, is beyond me. I can only surmise it is because at the end of the day it is a practice still entrenched in misogny and discrimination against women who conceive outside of marriage, and poorer women. And look at how psychiatry, medicine and social work has pathologised such women, but never investigate those who would seek to remove and withhold their children (ie social workers, adoption workers and infertile women).. It is fascinating to a eugenicist, it is fascinating to a sociopath, it is NOT fascinating to a mother or child kept apart and it is not fascinating to families who have suffered the loss to adoption. Is it fascinating to watch infertile women/perimenopausal women take other peoples children, lock them out of their life and then gaslight and belittle the mother, reneging on promises of contact. Is it fascinating that a mother who cannot live without her child and finds the whole loss harrowing that she commits suicide? Perhaps do a google into mental health impact on mothers and adoptees and then see how fascinating it is. How indulgent to call entrapment and brainwashing and mother abuse fascinating.
I'm a dumb american I know, and this is confusing to me....this is about birth moms, who get pregnant for 9 months and then have to just hand it over for 10-20k? No one saw the flaws in this? No one thought of hormones and emotions...especially when the birth mom is an ex drug addict who I wouldn't want that baby if YOU paid me...weird. next.
What do you expect from the USA where everything is treated as a commodity and available at a price. Very disappointed in Louis Theroux continental film making in the USA, why not film in a more well adjusted county. Why not have more discussions with grown up adoptees then you will understand the true cost of adoption.
You don’t know the circumstances in which those children were made or conceived (ie. IVF she may have used up all her frozen embryos on those boys) she may have gone through early menopause after she had her sons, cancer, accidents, surgery. All of these things affect fertility and could have stopped her from having more children.
Joanne Tiffany You mean the agency? If the birth mother did receive money it wouldn’t have been cash. The agency MAY have put some of that $50k into her emergency housing (if she were homeless), basic food and energy bills and medical screens and tests. They only would have covered some of these costs, literally to the point she delivers a healthy baby. Make no mistake these agencies don’t care about the birth mother or her wellbeing, or even that the kid ends up with the adoptive family, because either way they get to keep the money.
Adopt a child from the foster system. There are thousands waiting. It costs nothing.
You think that's free? Really?
@@billiedoll4560 I believe the state will pay you to become a foster parent. It's been that way forever.
It’s supplemented (the costs), but it’s still expensive and by no means is it free.
Billie Doll it is actually. The government gives your wavers and pays you to adopt foster kids. In California for a state adoption from the foster care system it is under $500, that is also tax deductible. 🤪🤪😂
Ed Denoy yea is super cheap. I already went to a foster to adopt orientation. It's not hard or expensive
Why do I feel so sorry for the mums giving their kids away and not sorry for the mums that want to adopt?
It's awful. Most women choose adoption because they can't support the baby, but then the state pays people to take those babies and foster them. It's messed up. Those women need help with food, money, not adoption.
It's crazy that they don't even get half their money back if the mother of the baby decides not to give the baby away once it's born. Seems like a scam to me.
The thing is that that could be used to pressure the mother into giving them the baby. And It would literally be buying a child, more than it already is. It baffles my that it's even allowed to pay for getting a baby in the US. And it's not only the adoptive parents that could put pressure on the mother to give up her child, just imagine how the adoption agency must have pressured her. If a mother refuse to give up her child they will lose customers in the future. It's an incredibly dirty business.
A scam ? They are basically buying a human baby.The way you are speaking is like they are buying a product !
rubuscha That’s how they’re treating the situation
@@777violett The birth mother will have the last word regardless of money,since she carried that child with her body.I dont think it's stupid.
rubuscha Shit, well might as well do that myself too right? That’s so heartless imo.
you should never have to pay any money to adopt a child. Money shouldn't be involved, you can't buy a baby that's disgusting. The fact that money is involved means that it will be open to abuse.
Dealing with a person that has a drug problem & criminal background wanting to give the baby up would be cause to not want to pay because you can never trust them. They could likely use it as a scam to make money & keep the baby. I totally agree with you! Money shouldn’t be involved to keep these things from happening. If someone wants to give their baby up then they should do it because they want the best for the baby, not for money.
I totally agree. What's the difference between child trafficking and adopting or fostering? It's absolutely mad, how can we put a price to a human being when they need help, a family, love? How insane have we become to do business with children who desperately need help to survive? Where has our humanity gone? When the war in Ukrania started people were opening their homes in other countries to help the families running away from the war, they offered their houses, food, every help they could give without asking for any money back. That's who we are, but the governments don't allow us to be this way as they create business with people/children and forbid people to help each other. It's crazy!!
There was something dystopian about this programme. The desperate, relinquishing, biological mothers. The almost vulture-like adoptive "hope to be" parents. The adoption agencies who profit by other people's misery, and by other people's desire to be parents-( who aren't keen to take any child who desperately needs a home.) As for potential adoptive parents being deceived, and loosing their cash to a woman who changes her mind, or is just flat out deceitful, caveat emptor applies to them! Louis Theroux deals with them all in a sensitive manner.
Most of the time the adopters quickly "close" the adoption and shut the birth mother out.
People always mention adopting but have no idea on the fees adoption agencies ask for. $50k is ludicrous but that is nothing in comparison to what many parents end up paying out (hundreds of thousands..). It’s insane that we have so many ‘unwanted’ (I hate that term.. breaks my heart) little ones who genuinely need loving homes, & so many people willing to give them but don’t have those extortionate funds. That’s why people go abroad to adopt because the process isn’t anywhere near as expensive or complex. Something needs to drastically change somewhere. The entire system both in the US & U.K. is old fashioned & damaging to all parties. These baby’s & toddlers are treated like materialistic items by so many in the system.
Every mother has the right to change their mind, that should never be taken away from her, but these funds should absolutely be refundable by the agency. They’re bleeding hopeful parents dry of money. It’s all down to greed. It’s just so bloody sad 😔
Laura Williams not many babies are actually ‘unwanted’
Most birth mums do it because they have no choice. It’s the ultimate loving act of kindness and selflessness a women can do, when they’re not in the position to give their child a good life.
Sarah You’re absolutely right. I should have put for lack of better wording. I did ponder over that word. I’ve said the exact same thing you’ve said to me on another adoption video elsewhere on TH-cam. These birth mums are incredibly strong individuals & I have no doubt in my mind that they love their baby’s unconditionally. That’s what makes these adoptions agencies even more callous to me, they’re so money hungry that it’s almost like they forget the human beings behind it all.
As someone who was raised by someone other than biologicals, I can say emphatically that to remove a baby from a mother that doesn't truly WANT to give up her baby is criminal. It's traumatic for the mother, it's traumatic for the baby, it's traumatic for the person the baby grows up to be. If these parents want to experience a baby, they should bring a young, vulnerable mother baby unit into their home and love them BOTH. The adoption industry is fueled by GREED.
@Cory Stone then if you can't have a biological child of your own, you don't get one. Or adopt an older foster child that was abused or neglected. You don't get to BUY a baby. It's completely unethical.
>You don't get to BUY a baby.
lol you do actually
A billion dollar industry... says enough. So sad.
It’s kind of twisted to put the weight of all your happiness and fulfilment in life upon a child before you’ve even met them. What a burden to put on them. Find happiness and fulfilment in your life on your own before dragging someone else into it
This is why people don’t adopt
The people shouldnt have to pay for anything until they have received the child. Loosing 50k is a massive deal to some people especially those that only have 1 opportunity to pay that out. That woman knew what she was doing, she just wanted someone else to pay
They were not forced to go into the open adoption process. They choose to do so. The pregnant woman was honest about her misgivings in the video call. They eventually adopted a baby. Anyone who has $50,000 to put down for a "baby girl." I'm not sympathetic.
Sorry but that woman if she had doubts shouldn't have taken those peoples money, she shouldn't have taken them along for the journey knowing what they wanted. Also the journalist did state thats its open or abuse and ut has been abused. The pregnant woman didnt want to pay for her pregnancy so she throught and carried out a scam to get there money and leave them with nothing. She should be forced to pay back every penny and should be ashamed of herself.
There are hundreds maybe even thousands of people that would do anything to be a parent that can't be naturally for whatever reason. These parents wanted to complete there family. Do they deserve to do that, yes they do. Should they be ripped off, scammed, abused to do that No. Thats why the pregnant woman should have said and stop taking there money as soon as she wasn't sure. There should have been a clause in the agreement that if she didn't follow through that she should pay back the money they spent. She knew she wanted to keep her baby but she didnt want to pay the hospital bills so she found the most vulnerable people she could and abused them.
Open adoption should be stopped until the flaws are fixed and the playing field is level and the balls not just in the court of the pregnant woman. Also there should be insurance involved either by the business or the people looking to adopt that pays out when a woman pulls out.
The business should also have been up today with everything and cut the pregnant woman off asap after they find out that she has doubts. Clearly they failed in this case.
How were they vulnerable? They already had 3 kids, a nice house and 50k to spare they knew they could easily lose. If couples insist on having a newborn straight from the womb they should be ready for it to fall through. These people were scammed, but the pregnant women are usually the vulnerable ones who need protecting.
@@thirdtwinify i mean vulnerable because the pregnant woman knew what they wanted and exploited that plus she knew they wouldn't get the money back.
In america if the people who are wanting a child were pregnant themselves thats what they would have to pay for treatment.
Everyone is vulnerable in 1 way or another. The pregnant woman exploited that vulnerability. The pregnant women arent forced to give up there babies and if they are that should be a crime. But in the instance shown the pregnant woman wasn't vulnerable, so she should be made to pay the money back because if she was to not go through the open adoption that's exactly what she would be paying for her pregnancy. They could always set up a payment plan.
Its a crime to defraud someone out of there money and that happens all the time but there is insurances to cover most of that fraud so it should be exactly the same for open adoption. It would make the woman think a lot harder about if adoption is for them.
Lucy Suttle doesn’t mean it’s okay to take $50k for them. Even if they have “$50k to spare”
I was shocked by this documentary. It seems these adoption agencies often coerce and manipulate vulnerable mothers into parting with their newborn babies by making them feel like they aren't worthy of parenting their children. That woman from the agency and the adoptive parents are both breathing down that other young girl's neck until the baby is greedily taken from her and its new parents walk of with 'their' baby strapped into a car seat like it is some kind of prize. Very sad. I think that girl's face lit up when she saw her baby on the scan, and she was withdrawn when Louis went back to visit.
The very language used by the couple featured in this clip is shocking, that women wanting to 'get a baby' says it all really. I don't feel sorry for them getting scammed, they should have learned a salutary lesson.
Lucie in this case NO, they birth mother was fully aware of the situation and the time and risk the couple was taking, so was the agency and its ok to tryna talk some sense into her as she'd initially made the promise knowing full well the couple shelled out 50k for the whole process. she should be made to pay half of it.
You're absolutely right. Women and babies being preyed on. It's disgusting.
No one has the right to a baby, especially not someone else's baby.
The way she acts all upset and snooty is infuriating. Leave that mother and baby alone ffs.
This is disgusting charging ppl for babies, it's illegal here in the U.k
Where were the tears when mama was telling you how she has no one to support her and help her raise this baby. That part was so sad. There were no tears then…. so selfish. There were only tears when “adoptive mom” didn’t get what she wanted.
Exactly!! 💯💯 It's ALL about the adoptive mom, even the dad is pushed to the side. Adoptive mother's are some of the most selfish people on earth.
"Someone give me a baby!! I deserve one!!"
The thing is, adoption can be a great process for mothers who are not able or willing to care for a child. Though when anything becomes a billion dollar industry, there will be those who are exploited. Like the man said, pain is inevitable in this process.
Systems that impact vulnerable ( financially and otherwise) women who can't afford children so that wealthy families can essentially "shop" for the child they want. I'm not with it.
Exactly!
We aren't "shopping" for the baby we want. We are waiting for the baby whose mother chooses us to parent her baby. Adoption is born from loss for all those involved. Those of us who choose this path work hard to save and fund raise so we don't go into debt to fulfill our call to become parents.
What a stupid thing to tell their son all about a new baby girl coming in before the baby is actually there
Adopt foster children, I wish someone had loved me enough to do that.
Ah bless you sweetheart,I agree with you,all the money involved takes away from what it's all supposed to be about,this is more about the couples needs and not the child xx
Bless you but the choice is an individual decision. I think some of you need to actual parents or at least one parent that's been adopted/fostered , you guys want to foist things onto people who clearly do not want to or aren't ready. a young couple in their early 30s ain't willing to be a foster parent but rather and adoptive parent. fostering is suited for folk at the less pressured staged of their lives with maybe kids of their own already.
Lechiffresix six lmao what, your paragraph makes no sense
open adoption is amazing for the adoption for homeless at risk mothers.
i proudly adopted to a gay couple when state adoptions would never have allowed them to talk to me.
no its no for every one but for homeless women its amazing to able be supported when all ready down.
if i had not made choice i would have had my child taken from arms at birth and not had a say in the family.
I wish that you and other natural mothers in your situatuon could have had support to have a home, stability, and resources to parent your child.
Jesus you swear they didn't already have a kid.. Have to complete the collection I guess
fumbles 12 guess they were hoping for that girl
Wow, he’s an incredible journalist. I just watched this episode on hbo max. In this TH-cam clip when the potential adopter is telling us the birth mother just changed her mind etc...in the full episode he replies back “you know she does have that choice”. Like imagine you having to give up one of your sons???!! Regardless what circumstances the birth mother is currently in....in that moment-it’s her right to have those 30 days to confirm after giving birth. Period.
Although this was heartbreaking for the adopters I think the mother did the right thing in keeping her kid. My friend gave hers up as she was lone parent without support and she aches for that child every day of her life. It's heart breaking to see. She thought she was doing best for the child and maybe she was but it's destroyed her.
Of course it's heartbreaking. It's trauma. Severing the mother baby dyad is absolutely traumatizing. To the mother and baby. So so sad that we encourage adoption as an option as if it's easy and wonderful. All it does is make everyone else happy, everyone forgets the baby and mother that long for each other. Praying for your friend to find peace and healing 🙏🏻
Can anyone clarify if the housing/medical costs to the expectant mom stay with the mom once the mom changes her mind last minute? That seems more like fraud to me.
Because the threat that she would have to pay back the money if she changed her mind would be blackmailing and literally buying a child more than it already is.
I agree, Erica. I'm sure there are people that would use the adoption system with no intention of adopting the baby to someone. I think that if there are any doubts, they would be less likely to go through the process, which would save a lot of heartache for the other couple (and money). There are good reasons why people decide to put their babies up for adoption, so it shouldn't be so easy to flip flop on that decision. I can understand not forcing someone to give up their baby, but you can force them to be financially responsible for their own bills if they decide to keep the baby just like everyone else.
I think those babies shouldn't be promised to anyone before the baby is born, and the woman is actually giving it away. There could be waiting lists, and yes the baby would then be offered suddenly, but at least the families wouldn't have to lose money and get hugely disappointed (and taken advantaged of) in the end.
Yes and why should the bio mom have all that pressure on her not to disipoint someone else. Better to find the baby a family when the baby is born.
No way in hell am i paying 10s of thousands for a surrogate, when there is countless other kids in the system already waiting. I find that abit mad to be honest with you.
I thought this was a documentary about an Alice Cooper song.
Wow. Unbelievable. I think the mothers should have to sign a contract so they would have to stick to their promises. Yes I understand why they change their mind when they get the baby in their hands but paying 50 thousand dollars for nothing is absolutely ridiculous.
What if you have made a genuine mistake and want to keep your baby but it's property of somebody else? Also, how can you be the owner/guardian/legal parent or whatever of something that hasn't fully formed yet and is biologically attached to somebody else. Where would we draw the line? Could people sign away there next baby even if they weren't currently pregnant? Imagine knowing the next child you have is not going to be yours because you signed a contract? Na na na bad idea dude rethink, go back to your drawing board.
They should at least get at least 40 thousand out of the 50 thousand refunded. I understand the the documentation/legal fees are high, but you should get the majority of it back if the adoption falls through.
@@FreeRsGuides Ok, how about this? The mother should have to sign a contract stating that IF she changes her mind, which she has every right to do, then she is responsible for repaying all costs incurred by the couple or person she made the agreement with.
@@darkkiss7247 That would mean hardly anyone would commit to giving a baby up prior to birth, meaning parents would wait until they give birth then give their baby up - meaning it'll be looked after by foster parents / passed around more before finding a home. Arranging things before birth helps put a good home in place. I agree 50k is outrageous btw and there has to be a better way im just not sure what way.
I just think of how sad it would make the adoptive mommy, and if I was not positive, I would not commit to putting my baby up for adoption. There has got to be some sort of consideration given to the adoptive parents as well....I'm sure it would be heartbreaking if i could not have had my own children, trying to adopt then having that ripped from me😖
Louis Theroux went from bbc 2 to bbc 3
Not sure if that’s punishment or promotion
the question that must be asking, why must adoption exist in the first place? in an ideal world, a child is born from the love of a father and and a mother. however, inequality, financial struggle, abusive relationship, and various other thing happened. so shouldn't the effort and financial support go to resolve these issues first???????? adoption, let alone transforming it into an INDUSTRY, should NOT happened in the first place.
how about the cost of the impact of loss and trauma to the mother and her family and future family, and to her child displaced by adoption. oh, yes, that doesn't matter does it...Those people's lives are disposable.
funny how Louis Theroux fails to cover the impact of loss on the mother and her family and future family, and the legal construct where the mother is utterly disempowered and stripped of all rights (and will be placed in jail if she breaches those rights) and that if she wishes to revoke her "ill informed and premature consent" post lapse of cooling off period there is NOTHING she can do and even if she takes it to court, she will have no hope of having her own born returned. And even if she tries to revoke in the revocation period it is unlikely she will get her baby back (depending on who she has on her side to fight for her legal rights, which is usually no one or no one of substance) . Nor does he cover the percentage of adopters who promise open adoption and then close the adoption deliberately after they have the baby. In fact adopter and sociopath Susan Burns outlines how to befriend and con mothers into open adoption in her book . The mother of the child she coerced and lied to get committed suicide. but again , Louis Theroux never talks about the suicide rate and mental health impact of and PTSD and disassociative disorders caused by relinquishment , on the mother and the trauma on the newborn, because. Well I guess that would actually mean valuing the well being and rights of mothers and their newborns. And at the end of the day Louis works for those who have , not the have nots.
100% agree with you. Adoption industry is an awful business. I haven't watched the full doc, but knowing Louis, I would guess that he absolutely covered the impact on the mother.
Of course the birth mother should have the right to change her mind once the baby is born. However, I think the couple who's planning to adopt the child should get most of the money back if she chooses to keep the child. Of course some things still have to be paid for (towards the agency who set this up and did all the work), but they should not have to pay any medical expenses or anything to the woman who kept the child.
One thing most agencies and lawyers do is put the mother on Medicaid. And pocket the difference for so called medical expenses. Thus, they are defrauding both the PAPs and the tax payers.
You know, I get where you are coming from, but think about it in more practical terms. These birth mothers are generally already poor people in dire circumstances. Where are they going to get the ~50.000 dollar to pay back the adoptive couple if they change their mind? In effect, choosing to keep the baby at the last minute wouldn't be a viable option for them because of the cost. It would force a lot of women to give up babies that they wanted to keep. It's not like I don't have sympathy for the prospective adoptive parents who also loose immense amounts of money, but it seems to me like if you have the funds to try and get adopt a child in the first place, you're likely in a better financial place to deal with that loss of money. The fact that adoption seems like such a racket in terms of costs is a problem, but I do not think that the way to solve that is by forcing this debt on birth mothers in vulnerable situations, when they decide to keep their child.
@@yltraviole But they should not have to pay for her medical bills, she should be treated like any other mother who gives birth to a child. Of course she should not have to pay back everything and it should be as fair as possible for both parties.
@@fridal5218 I see what you are saying. The adoptive parents paying for health care creates an incentive for women to put their children up for adoption, even if that's not actually what they want to do. And they would benefit too from giving their prospective child the best pre-natal care possible, not to mention the child, so this is a bit of a dilemma for me. However, this of course wouldn't be a problem if the US had a functioning health care system.
@@yltraviole Very true, that wouldn't be such an issue if the healthcare system was different
Awww this is sad.
Isaiah is the cutest...but damn that must have hurt the adopted parents to see him with his birth mum...heartbreaking
That woman should pay the couple back. Disgusting behaviour on principle, and doesn’t help the adoption system as a whole. Criminal charges should be considered.
Alex Berry criminal charges if she fails to pay the couple back - perfectly reasonable. I don’t see the problem if you commit to it.
It should be the agency that refunds, not the mum, she has the right to change her mind and it's the third party that's taking in most of the money anyway
@@je6874 She had the right to change her mind and the adoptees were aware of this and chose to take the risk. Forcing her to give money back would be blackmailing.
Alex no it’s not blackmail. It’s simple - if she has the $50,000 then she needs to return that money. If she doesn’t she might as well have stolen the money because the couple got nothing out of it.
She has the right to change her mind but she has absolutely no right to keep the money and walk off.
@@je6874 Uhm, yes it is? Because there's an 'if' in there. If you don't give away the baby then you have to pay back money you don't have for things you desperately needed. That's so obviously blackmailing, which is why this type of adoption is incredibly illegal were I live. here we try to help mothers and that has resulted in adoptions being rare, which is what every country should strive for.
This is 100000% a scam at its finest.
History repeats it self. Im so divided on this issue. I can see the dark side of this but also the positive side. Did you know aadoption was a big thing in ancient rome? The way other nations looked at it was well if ny country was conquered and a rich family wants to have my baby and pay for it. Then why not. I know we cant compare and im totally stream lining it but this is an amazing topic.
because you have bonds and a relationship and deep connection with your baby and this is your baby, not theirs. You're not talking about a sack of potatoes that you're unsealing. It is not an amazing topic. It is something that has been created and conducted for the benefit for adopters for decades.
@@kimqueen324 with all due respect its an amazing topic for discucsion and debate, how else is there going to be anytype of reform or discord in the subject to pass through a legislative body. Many times the problem lines in defining the definition of adoption adn the parameters on witch it operates, defining is key to passing legislative action to reform or limit Its not black and white, nothing ever is. There is everything from pdophile rings to sex traffiking thats a fact, if you read the UNSC yearly report of human traffikng it lists many adoption agencies involved in that buisness, but like i mentioned befored its not all black and white. and again 1 person opinion doesnt outweight the opinion of many, that is exactly why discorse and dialogue on this amazing topic is required.
@@pedroferia1988 it's always 'fascinating" when it's happening to someone else. It's not fascinating when it's your child and your family caught up in adoption law, politics and deception. The entire process is geared to streamline the removal of the mothers newborn at birth. It is entirely dependent on the integrity of the person conducting the adoption as to how much information they give the mother in protecting herself and her newborn. Why and how a "procedure" in the 21st century that risks causing great trauma and damage is promoted as a wonderful thing , and can be conducted and proceed with the persons involved being kept ignorant of all the risk and impacts, until it is too late, is beyond me. I can only surmise it is because at the end of the day it is a practice still entrenched in misogny and discrimination against women who conceive outside of marriage, and poorer women. And look at how psychiatry, medicine and social work has pathologised such women, but never investigate those who would seek to remove and withhold their children (ie social workers, adoption workers and infertile women).. It is fascinating to a eugenicist, it is fascinating to a sociopath, it is NOT fascinating to a mother or child kept apart and it is not fascinating to families who have suffered the loss to adoption. Is it fascinating to watch infertile women/perimenopausal women take other peoples children, lock them out of their life and then gaslight and belittle the mother, reneging on promises of contact. Is it fascinating that a mother who cannot live without her child and finds the whole loss harrowing that she commits suicide? Perhaps do a google into mental health impact on mothers and adoptees and then see how fascinating it is. How indulgent to call entrapment and brainwashing and mother abuse fascinating.
I'm a dumb american I know, and this is confusing to me....this is about birth moms, who get pregnant for 9 months and then have to just hand it over for 10-20k? No one saw the flaws in this? No one thought of hormones and emotions...especially when the birth mom is an ex drug addict who I wouldn't want that baby if YOU paid me...weird. next.
What do you expect from the USA where everything is treated as a commodity and available at a price. Very disappointed in Louis Theroux continental film making in the USA, why not film in a more well adjusted county.
Why not have more discussions with grown up adoptees then you will understand the true cost of adoption.
What the fuck did we get into???? What is wrong with us??
Awful very sad
Some things are just not meant to be.
Auntie christine , like WHAT !!!
Ushalee
That family just got con. Lol. At least they've adopted a baby girl from someone else.
So I'm happy for them.
Why did they want to adopt the baby when she was healthy to give birth by herself????????
Good question.
You don’t know the circumstances in which those children were made or conceived (ie. IVF she may have used up all her frozen embryos on those boys) she may have gone through early menopause after she had her sons, cancer, accidents, surgery. All of these things affect fertility and could have stopped her from having more children.
The woman that changed her mind should be made to pay the money back x
Joanne Tiffany You mean the agency? If the birth mother did receive money it wouldn’t have been cash. The agency MAY have put some of that $50k into her emergency housing (if she were homeless), basic food and energy bills and medical screens and tests. They only would have covered some of these costs, literally to the point she delivers a healthy baby. Make no mistake these agencies don’t care about the birth mother or her wellbeing, or even that the kid ends up with the adoptive family, because either way they get to keep the money.
2nd
1st
They should have to give away their baby if they promise it to someone else
Does anyone want mine? X