Children for Sale
Adoption should always be considered a last resort, pursued only when all other options to reunite a child with their biological family or place them with extended family have been exhausted. The primary goal should be the child’s well-being, and adoption must never be motivated by a desire to fulfill someone’s personal wish to have a child. Instead, fostering should prioritize the child’s reunification with their family, not create an opportunity for adoption. It is crucial to understand that children in foster care should never be viewed as means to satisfy a societal demand for babies, but as vulnerable individuals who need stability, love, and support.
Unfortunately, some people attempt to justify permanent removal with oversimplified and harmful statements like, “If these families are so great, why are their kids in foster care?” This argument ignores the deeper issue: adoption has increasingly become an industry, driven by profit rather than the best interests of children. Parents, especially those from low-income backgrounds, often do not have an adequate opportunity to prove they can become fit parents, and children are taken from them due to circumstances rooted in poverty rather than true abuse or neglect. The motivations that push children into being placed for adoption often have little to do with the well-being of the children themselves.
Take the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Alito and Justice Barrett referenced the “domestic supply of infants” in their argument, pointing out that in 2002, nearly 1 million families were seeking to adopt while the number of infants available had “virtually disappeared.” The desire for adoptable infants has become a market-driven issue, one in which children are commodified to meet the needs of prospective adoptive parents, rather than addressing the root causes of family instability. This framing makes it clear that children are not viewed holistically, but as a resource to be traded or distributed based on demand.
Even the liberal retort, “Well, those right-wingers better be ready to adopt all those extra babies!” missed the mark. Both sides fail to grasp the issues driving adoption and its commodification.
As someone who was adopted, I know firsthand the complexities of the system. I remember the day my siblings and I were taken from our home. I wanted to feel safe, but nothing prepared me for the heartbreak of being separated from my siblings. I was placed in a safer environment, but the trauma lingered. I missed my siblings deeply and often wondered, “Was I not good enough? Could my mom have tried harder?”
In my case, adoption may have been necessary, but not every parent is given the chance to prove their capacity for parenthood. And even when adoption is the best option, it doesn’t erase the pain, loss, and identity struggles that often come with it.
For infants, the situation is even murkier. Many poor, expectant mothers are pressured to relinquish their babies under the guise of providing them with a “better life.” There are documented cases where social workers pressure mothers to give up their babies and, if they resist, open cases against them based on poverty alone.
The companies and organizations that profit from “safe haven” baby boxes, adoption agencies, and other elements of the adoption industry have financial incentives to encourage more people to surrender their children. These industries thrive on the relinquishment of infants, feeding a profit-driven cycle that ultimately harms vulnerable families and children.
At any given time, around 1 million U.S. families are waiting to adopt, far outnumbering the babies available for adoption. This high demand creates pressure. Historically, unmarried mothers, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, have been coerced into placing their babies for adoption due to economic pressure, and in many cases, have been told that they cannot provide the life their child deserves. These families are often facing multiple challenges: poverty, lack of housing, and inadequate support networks. Instead of receiving resources to help them remain intact, they are pushed into a system that incentivizes the removal of their children for profit.
In the United States, there has been a disturbing and underreported phenomenon known as “rehoming,” which involves the illegal swapping or trafficking of children in foster care. This underground market allows potential adoptive parents to essentially choose children in a manner similar to a marketplace, often by viewing a “lineup” of available children. In some cases, parents can even have a trial period with a child before committing to adoption. This practice is not only a severe violation of children’s rights but also highlights the deeply problematic ways in which children are treated as commodities within the adoption system. Rehoming usually occurs outside of formal adoption processes, often without any oversight, and can lead to further trauma and abuse for the children involved.
The high cost of adoption in the United States, ranging from $45,000 to $65,000 or more, adds another layer of commodification. Adoption has become a lucrative business, with adoption agencies and private organizations profiting from the supply of children to wealthy families. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 compounds the issue, as it ties federal funding to increased adoption rates, further incentivizing states to remove children from families without offering sufficient services to help those families stay together. States often receive financial bonuses for each child adopted, particularly those from low-income families, but they do not receive funding for reunification efforts. This creates a financial motive to sever family bonds, especially for vulnerable families, in favor of adoption.
The foster care system should address the root causes of family instability — poverty, lack of resources, trauma — but instead, it often funnels children into a profit-driven adoption pipeline. Removing children without addressing systemic issues doesn’t solve the problem; it creates lifelong trauma for children and families.
While adoption can have positive outcomes, it is critical to approach it with sensitivity and prioritize the well-being of children above all else. Adoption should serve the needs of the child, not the desires of adults or the interests of an industry.
We need to rethink how we approach adoption. Support struggling families instead of penalizing them for being poor. Provide comprehensive resources like counseling, housing, and financial assistance to help keep families together whenever possible. And when adoption is necessary, ensure it is done with the sole focus of providing a stable, loving home for the child — not meeting quotas or fulfilling societal demand.
Children are not commodities to be bought and sold based on who can afford to adopt them. Their futures should not be shaped by an industry that profits from their pain, nor should their worth be determined by their adoptive family’s ability to pay for them. Adoption must always be about what is best for the child, and nothing else.
