Letter from Adoptive Parents Captures a Common Lack of Trust

The Lack of Genuine Dialogue in the Negotiation of Adoption Assistance

We will get back to adoptions that are interrupted by the adopted child returning to foster care. But first, I want to reprint an email letter from an adoptive parent to an Ohio county agency during the course of negotiating adoption assistance. I have made some edits to shorten the letter and to maintain the confidentiality of the parties.

The Adoptive Parents’ Letter is Representative in Important Respects

Obviously, specific circumstances differ from family to family. Perceptions of parties to negotiations, also might be expected to differ, at least to some degree. The letter captures some common features of the negotiation of adoption assistance that adoptive parents have frequently expressed to me.

A. Breakdowns in communication. The point of contact is an agency representative who has no authority to negotiate. Agency decision makers do not engage the parents in a dialogue regarding their most pressing concerns as they relate to the central challenge of integrating the child into a healthy, permanent family.

B. The adoptive parents lack of trust in the agency. The absence of a genuine dialogue weakens the adoptive parents’ trust that the agency is conscientiously attempting to address their concerns and to work constructively with them in arriving at a adequate plan of support. .

The purpose of publishing this letter is not to portray all Ohio county agencies in an unfavorable light or to claim that all agencies employ the same practices. The letter reflects the perceptions, feelings and experiences that so many adoptive parents have conveyed to me over the years. State and county officials may sincerely believe that these perceptions are exaggerated. They may believe that adoptive parents’ expectations often are unrealistic. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that negotiation of adoption assistance will achieve its intended purpose, if one party to the negotiation often feels that the agency does not take them seriously.

The Adoptive Parents’ Letter

Thank you for your response. Your email raises several concerns for us:

When Mr. Smith called to tell us the number, we were shocked that it was $50 below the amount covered by the federal and state governments. When we asked how that was possible, the response was something along the lines of, I'm not sure, I'm just letting you know the number. 

There was no disrespect intended at all toward Mr. Smith. Our point is that we would like to speak to the person who came up with the proposed amount of $300 and Mr. Smith implied he was not that person. We would expect someone who is an “equal partner of the committee in the process” to be empowered and have knowledge of how and why an amount below the federal and state amount was acceptable to propose to us.  Mr. Smith gave the impression he had no idea how that number was determined. Quite frankly, for the children’s adoption worker and “equal partner of the committee” to not know this information is incomprehensible.

It would seem that the person or persons who determined that number did not read our letter, otherwise, they would have known that the amount of adoption assistance proposed is entirely inappropriate for the Jonathon’s and Janet’s specific situations, not to mention, for any adoptee, given that it is below the federal and state financial participation rate.

It is concerning that you have mentioned the tool again. As we stated in our original letter, the adoption assistance is NOT a defined benefit. The tool that we were presented with would essentially frame this as a defined benefit, which is not appropriate (see original letter for citation). This is another reason we think it is unlikely that the person or persons who determined $300 to be an appropriate amount even read our letter.

It is concerning that you are not aware of the current foster board rate for the children. It is $875 for Janet and $900 a month for Jonathon. It feels like $300 might be the standard amount that you offer for each negotiation, without seriously considering the circumstances of each individual child which would be completely inappropriate.

These children have been in the custody of the agency for almost two years. When we started the process of the CSI [Child Study Inventory], we participated in a meeting where we answered many questions about the children and watched as the answers were recorded. When we got the CSI back and found a large number of important pieces of information were either incorrect or entirely missing, it raised red flags. Not only did we answer the questions in detail and watch them being recorded, but these are children who have been IN THE CUSTODY OF THE AGENCY! The agency, above all parties, has all information related to the children. It is shocking that even though this information is readily available to the agency, it was not filled out correctly. It again makes us feel like the children] are just a case number to the agency and not human beings.

You may not know this part, but it is important that you understand where we are coming from. Last year, while Jonathon was in the hospital we were not sure if his condition was life threatening. Jonathon had just come to our home a few months prior, and now we were in the hospital hearing doctors talk about horrible, life-threatening, and life-altering diseases that he could have.

Bill and I are advocates for the Jonathon and Janet. Without question, we will do what it takes to get them what they deserve. However, this does not mean that we should have to fight the agency for this to happen. The agency should be fighting for the boys—not against them and against us. 

Can you understand why, from the beginning, Bill and I have felt like the agency was not a partner with us for the children’s interest, but rather, seemed to work against us every step of the way? Can you understand how frustrated we are, knowing that our precious children have been in the custody of the agency, yet multiple agency workers across multiple departments have been unaware of basic information about them?

I have attached our original letter. We implore you, please read it thoroughly before coming back to us with your new offer. We are asking for an amount that reflects them as individuals and deserving of more than a "boilerplate $300," and an amount that shows that the agency is aware of the needs of the children in their custody.

We intend to continue negotiations in good faith, but negotiations require a mutual understanding of what we are negotiating, not just throwing dollar amounts at one another. This means that as we continue, we expect the committee to read our letters. Please read our first letter and now this second letter with our counteroffer. Both are attached to this email.

I have copied Tim O'Hanlon to this email thread. is an advocate who works with foster families for adoption assistance negotiations.

Thank you,

Note: I would appreciate any feedback readers would like to provide at tpohanlon@gmail.com