Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness

«DSS¹ and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families»

[ 1. Department of Social Services. ]

Read the original article by Nev Moore for Massachusetts News, May 5, 2000 here.

«The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees.»
— Nev Moore

An enlightening, eye-opening article describing the money game of adoption in the United States, how it’s possible to boost your income considerably by adopting any number of children, rewarding you social benefits above and beyond anything the original parents could have even dreamed of!

It boggles the mind, but it makes me wonder, how about if parents adopted their own natural children, in order to get enough benefits to make by and raise their children themselves? No, I’m pretty sure they’ve ironed out that specific loophole. Spending money on actually helping people help themselves is utterly out of the question. We can’t have that!

«What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are.»
— Nev Moore

It’s important to note, though, that this article is from May 2000, 14 years and several presidential terms ago. I have looked, but not found, so if anyone can provide pointers to information stating that these practices no longer exist, I would appreciate if you would leave a comment with updates to that effect.