U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2012, 06:28 PM
 
11,151 posts, read 14,154,562 times
Reputation: 18796

Advertisements

Here are some stats (from Institute for Women's Policy Research) regarding single women on public assistance before and after "Welfare Reform" in the late 1990's:



So, you're correct. According to these data, the percent of single mothers on welfare (AFDC/TANF) dropped from 36.3% in 1996 to 19.6% in 2000. The average amount of aid also went down almost $40/month. Single women receiving food stamps dropped from 52.3% to 40.3% during that same time.

I'd like to see some more recent numbers to see how things are today.
Attached Thumbnails
Official Adoption Reform discussion thread-welfare-stats.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2012, 06:33 PM
 
11,151 posts, read 14,154,562 times
Reputation: 18796
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
And I said teen mothers, because mark specifically gave them in his original scenarios. I NEVER said that there are less births out of wedlock. But there ARE less birth out of wedlock to women on welfare.
Fair enough. The post you quoted didn't specifically mention teenage births, so I assumed that's what you were referring to. I apologize for the confusion.

And, yes, given the high percentage of births to single women overall, I think it's highly likely that more births are happening among women NOT on welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2012, 07:42 PM
 
9,215 posts, read 9,286,664 times
Reputation: 28891
Quote:
You (and I) have no idea how much coercion is and has gone on because there are no reliable numbers. Therefore the assertions about much coercion is or is not going is are baseless. You really have no idea.
I'll accept that statement. Therefore, for you to assert that coercive adoptions are a problem is a statement you made without any evidence to support it.

Go back and read what I wrote. I said that out-of-wedlock births overall had increased by more than 400%. Read this. I stand by that statement. Actually from 1930, onward the rate of increase appears to be more on the order of 600%.

Babies - Out of Wedlock - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors

Quote:
The number of women/single parents on welfare has also steadily declined.

The Census Bureau
Phyllis Schlafly Debunked: Single-Parent Household Share of Welfare Recipients on the Decline | The People's View

Sorry but I am going to go with the Feds on this over you.
In 1995, almost 60% of mothers on AFDC were never married mothers.

American Poverty and Welfare Reform

Quote:
So you can judge all you like but it isn't based on reality in the slightest.
Its a question of years and trends. In recent years, the number of births to single women may have declined. However, they remain very high and increased by huge percentages from 1930 to 2000.

Quote:
No I expect that women who are pregnant be given all of the available information, including that regarding services available to them before being told they are unworthy to parent because they are not as wealthy as a white two parent family.
Nowhere have I suggested that any mother be forced to place her child for adoption. That's my whole point in arguing over your unsubstantiated claims of coercion. I don't subscribe to the view that adoption should always be "the very last option". I think, in fact, I think it can be a better option for many children than to grow up in an impoverished household. Information about adoption should be presented to single mothers and it should not be presented by someone who is inherently biased against it.


Quote:
Strawman. I never said it was a major problem I just said it was a problem. No one knows how wide spread it is. And it doesn't matter. If it exists at all IT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. End of story.
What you fail to do is weigh problems. If I find that one homicide is occurring in a city that is one too many. However, whether it may make substantial difference in whether I advocate legislative change with respect to homicide laws or just try to make the existing system work a little better.

Quote:
Again, the needs of the adoptee outweigh the wants of the APs. If that means it is harder to adopt, than that is the RIGHT thing to do.
I agree that they should outweigh adoptive parent needs. However, we can disagree on what those needs are and how they are best served.


Quote:
Disingenuous at best. If you are as knowledgeable about adoption as you claim to be you would know that not only don't any such number aka "empirical evidence" exists but that even if it did the secretive nature of many adoptions means it would be under reported as to make it meaningless.
I don't know that at all.


Quote:
I have no regulations in mind. I am not an adoptee nor an expert in adoption. But I know who should have no input with regards to regulations, PAPs.
I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion. However, I am wondering where your interest in adoption comes from. I would appreciate some enlightenment if you don't mind.

FTR, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Its guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Corporations frequently lobby Congress and state legislatures for action. I know very few adoptive parents who are out there lobbying legislative bodies. However, we have as much right to do so as adoptees and birth parents.


Quote:
It is a legitimate question. When parents give a child up for adoption they need to be prepared to "never speak to them again". It happens, APs claim they want an open adoption, and then close it. And when birth parents are dealing with lawyers, they are the lawyers of the PAPs not lawyers with their interests at stake. Many and probably even most, APs who go into an open adoption honor that, but there are numerous cases where that has not happened and birth parents in most states have no recourse available to them. So yes, they need to be prepared to "never speak to their child" again.
Well, congratulations, you just ignored the question I asked. I'll ask it again: If coercing a mother to place a child for adoption is wrong, is it also not wrong to coerce her to keep the child? Or, is that different or somehow justifiable to accomplish your perception of a "greater good"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 04:21 AM
 
16,611 posts, read 14,091,160 times
Reputation: 20572
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'll accept that statement. Therefore, for you to assert that coercive adoptions are a problem is a statement you made without any evidence to support it.
Flawed premise,and intellectually dishonest, to claim that coercion of borth parents is acceptable in certain amounts before it is a problem. ANY coercion is a problem and the fact that you claim otherwise is a little bit disgusting as a sentiment.

Is it ok for parents to abuse their children a certain amount before it is a problem? It is ok for someone to be raped a bit before its a problem? Is it ok for ANYONE TO BE COERCED INTO GIVING UP THEIR CHILD?

The answer to all off the above is a resounding NO, both morally and legally. Yet, what you are suggesting is that a certain amount of coercion is acceptable in the adoption industry.

Coercion exists and is therefore A PROBLEM

Aside from the recent cases in South America and Africa already discussed in other threads...

Church Spent Decades Stealing or Coercing Babies from Unwed Mothers
Adopted or abducted? - Yahoo! News

The list could be endless.

If you are remotely pretending that adoption is about what is best for the baby, that idea does not stand up in the face of accepting ANY coercion in the adoption industry.



Quote:
Go back and read what I wrote. I said that out-of-wedlock births overall had increased by more than 400%. Read this. I stand by that statement. Actually from 1930, onward the rate of increase appears to be more on the order of 600%.

Babies - Out of Wedlock - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors


In 1995, almost 60% of mothers on AFDC were never married mothers.

American Poverty and Welfare Reform
And in the last almost 20 years? The proportion of single mothers AND the numbers of people on welfare over all has gone down.

So you can argue semantic all you want but you clearly tried to make the point that adoption prevents single mothers from being a tax burden because they all (or most) go on welfare. That is not true.



Its a question of years and trends. In recent years, the number of births to single women may have declined. However, they remain very high and increased by huge percentages from 1930 to 2000.



Quote:
Nowhere have I suggested that any mother be forced to place her child for adoption. That's my whole point in arguing over your unsubstantiated claims of coercion. I don't subscribe to the view that adoption should always be "the very last option". I think, in fact, I think it can be a better option for many children than to grow up in an impoverished household. Information about adoption should be presented to single mothers and it should not be presented by someone who is inherently biased against it.
What a hypocrite. I proved coercion exists, and never made an claims to be "unsubstantiated" about its numbers. You on the other hand are making the unsubstantiated claim that it is better to grow up adopted than lower income. Yet, adopted kids have a greater likelihood for poor outcomes on the same order or higher than most low income kids (excluding those being abused and unless you are now claiming all low income families abuse their children?).

Adoption History: Outcome Studies

A pretty decent review of the lit, showing the statistically supported poor outcomes for MANY adopted children.


Quote:
What you fail to do is weigh problems. If I find that one homicide is occurring in a city that is one too many. However, whether it may make substantial difference in whether I advocate legislative change with respect to homicide laws or just try to make the existing system work a little better.
Fallacy. Homicide rate is not equivalent to coercion, stealing babies, etc in adoption. Adoption is supposed to be based on the premise about what is best for a child. STEALING or COERCING from the birth mother is NOT what is best for the child.

At least you are honest enough to admit that for you adoption is about what is best for infertile families. And in that scenario stealing babies, and coercing birth mothers is acceptable because it is not longer about what is best for the child.

Especially when you believe fantasies like the idea that adoption is less traumatic than growing up in a loving but lower income family.



Quote:
I agree that they should outweigh adoptive parent needs. However, we can disagree on what those needs are and how they are best served.

I don't know that at all.

I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion. However, I am wondering where your interest in adoption comes from. I would appreciate some enlightenment if you don't mind.
Obviously you are trying to find a way to marginalize my opinion but it will not work. I am not an adoptee, nor am I an adoptive parent. I am the only person without "a horse in the race" so to speak and I represent the society that has to judge whether or not adoption should continue to exist as it does now. Based on your comments, as well as a few other people, I now realize that there is a subset of adoptive parents who believe adoption is about giving babies to infertile couples.

Well, that is not what adoption was established for in this country. It was meant as a last resort and only when in the best interests of the child in question. YOUR wants and needs do not matter to me at all NOR SHOULD THEY.

You can bet that I am going to be actively involved in my community, and in my state to reform adoption laws so they represent what is best for the ADOPTEE and not what is best for you. And that is what this forum and your comment in particular has done.

Quote:
FTR, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Its guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Corporations frequently lobby Congress and state legislatures for action. I know very few adoptive parents who are out there lobbying legislative bodies. However, we have as much right to do so as adoptees and birth parents.
Maybe legally you do. But not ethically and certainly not morally. There is a conflict of interest here. You have stated that you believe adoption has the purpose of supplying babies to infertile couples. Well, I have shown those statements to my local state senator assemblyman, and he was as shocked as I was.

So thank you for showing many people like me what adoption is REALLY about, at least for small but significant portion of APs.




Quote:
Well, congratulations, you just ignored the question I asked. I'll ask it again: If coercing a mother to place a child for adoption is wrong, is it also not wrong to coerce her to keep the child? Or, is that different or somehow justifiable to accomplish your perception of a "greater good"?
Another flawed premise. Maybe you do not know what coerce means?
co·erce/kōˈərs/

Verb:
  • Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
  • Obtain (something) by such means.
Making sure that birth mothers know that they have no rights to the children they give up is not using force, or threats, it is reality. AND THUS IT IS NOT COERCION.

Last edited by lkb0714; 10-11-2012 at 04:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 05:14 AM
 
1,516 posts, read 1,849,314 times
Reputation: 3121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
You can bet that I am going to be actively involved in my community, and in my state to reform adoption laws so they represent what is best for the ADOPTEE and not what is best for you. And that is what this forum and your comment in particular has done.
If you are going to get involved in adoption reform, I would suggest that you further expand your horizons from what you've been reading on these forums. Getting fired up over the comments of a few people really doesn't represent the greater majority of adoptees or adoptee parents. If you let these forums cloud your judgment and obviously you see a great injustice being done, I don't think that you are seeing the big picture. There is so much anger in your posts that you probably need to take a break before you do get involved in adoption reform.

My only advice is attend some adoption conferences, read some books, talk to BOTH adoptee and adoptee parents, visit some other forms, read some blogs. Hear both sides of the stories because nothing in this world is black and white. I would caution you though---if you come across an adoptee parent like that couple sitting in the restaurant with their adopted children who may not look like them, please be kind. Making an unkind comment may result in a reaction that you may not be looking for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 05:19 AM
 
16,611 posts, read 14,091,160 times
Reputation: 20572
Linmora I fully accept the idea that the members here are a small subset of the larger adoption community. But that really doesn't matter. There is no amount of decongestants that is acceptable in adoption So if adoption get harder for the good people because of a few bad apples that's just the price that has to be paid to protect the adoptees.

I find it sort of ironic that you are cautioning me not to hurt adoptees with these comments I am making online meanwhile there's an entire other thread talking about how adoption was the second choice at best for many families. Don't you think that would be incredibly hurtful for adoptees to come across?

Anyway I have no real interest in speaking to adoptive parents and adopted children, whao I'm interested in talking to are the adult adoptees. They're the only ones who have a truly neutral opinion the matter.

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 10-11-2012 at 09:21 AM.. Reason: No "calling out" other members
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 06:19 AM
 
1,516 posts, read 1,849,314 times
Reputation: 3121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
I find it sort of ironic that you are cautioning me not to hurt adoptees with these comments I am making online meanwhile there's an entire other thread talking about how adoption was the second choice at best for many families. Don't you think that would be incredibly hurtful for adoptees to come across?
In your future efforts to reform adoption, you just need to be careful. What I'm cautioning you about is not making remarks to people that you may come across in real life. You know that couple sitting there in the restaurant with a Chinese or Korean child for example. There is a big difference to having an opinion and being very vocal about it on an internet forum. It is completely different if a snarky comment is made to a parent in front of their kids. I'm not saying that you personally would do this but just be careful. If someone asked me "How did you feel about stealing those kids away from their real parents?" in front of my kids, you can be assured that there would probably be a scene--a big scene.

I will have to go back and look at this other thread you keep mentioning. I'm sorry if any adoptee parents came across as adoption being a second best choice and said anything that put their children down in anyway. A reality is that many folks do struggle with infertility and look to adoption as another means to bringing a child into their family. Both of my children know that I couldn't have children but I tell them that they are the biggest blessing of my life. If you find something wrong with that, I don't know what to tell ya.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 06:37 AM
 
10 posts, read 10,229 times
Reputation: 25
ik0714,

I am new here. Although I may not understand all of the history, I do not read Mark's post the way you do.

When I read your post, I read a lot of emotion, but I have a hard time pinpointing what you are proposing to effectuate the changes you seek.

What do you recommend? governmental action? In what form? And how on earth can the government regulate what you call "social coercion" from families and religious groups?

Mark makes some valid points. Our nation is currently facing unprecedented recession, a strained Medicare and social security system, risks of imminent and dramatic climate change, and the alleged development of nuclear weapons by hostile nations.

Now, more than ever, is the time to prioritize where we expend our energy and money. ,Approximately 14,000 domestic adoptions occur each year. You allege that some unknown percentage of them involves some type of coercion. To be honest, that is a rather small impact relative to the other aforementioned challenges.

If you are advocating government intervention, would you agree that it is necessary to evaluate the scope and impact of the issue in relation to the other issues our nation faces before diverting government resources from another issue to address it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 06:56 AM
 
9,215 posts, read 9,286,664 times
Reputation: 28891
Quote:
Flawed premise,and intellectually dishonest, to claim that coercion of borth parents is acceptable in certain amounts before it is a problem. ANY coercion is a problem and the fact that you claim otherwise is a little bit disgusting as a sentiment.
Wow....you've just engaged in some of the most twisted and dishonest rhetoric, I've ever seen. Let's recapitulate. You first state that coercion in adoptions must stop. I than challenge you to provide evidence that coercion in adoptions is still occurring. You than state that it is impossible to prove either coercion in adoption or its absence. I than state the obvious conclusion to YOUR logic: That if you are correct, you've failed to prove that coercion exists in modern day adoption. You than reply that ANY coercion is a problem and its "disgusting" for me to say otherwise.

Other than proving how angry you seem to be, you've shown me little else.

Go back and read my earlier post. I actually didn't deny coercion existed. I said either directly or by implication that the primary coercion which exists today, long after the sexual revolution of the sixties has ended, are attitudes. Some grandparents may feel "put out" at the notion that their unmarried daughter wants to bring and infant home and expects the family to cooperate in raising it. I also said that some churches may continue to express adherence to standards which they have vocalized for decades or even centuries. If those attitudes anger some people, I'm sorry.



Quote:
Is it ok for parents to abuse their children a certain amount before it is a problem? It is ok for someone to be raped a bit before its a problem? Is it ok for ANYONE TO BE COERCED INTO GIVING UP THEIR CHILD?
No. Absolutely not. However, those expecting reform or change in the system had better be able to provide concrete documentation about (1) what they are talking about when they use a broad word like "coercion"; and (2) the scope or extent of the abuses. Anyone seeking any other legislative change is expected to do the same thing. One example that I can think of would be legislation denying collective bargaining rights to public employees. Some assert that unions have resulted in huge pension liabilities that a state cannot afford. I think every public employee has a right to make their case that this is not what has occurred or that the scope of the problem is overstated before the legislature abolishes the right of public employees to bargain collectively.


Quote:
The answer to all off the above is a resounding NO, both morally and legally. Yet, what you are suggesting is that a certain amount of coercion is acceptable in the adoption industry.
Its amazing what you read into what I say.


Quote:
Aside from the recent cases in South America and Africa already discussed in other threads...

Church Spent Decades Stealing or Coercing Babies from Unwed Mothers
Adopted or abducted? - Yahoo! News

The list could be endless.

Jezebel is less than an ironclad source. I was struck by continued use of four letter words and lack of references in its articles. I don't dispute the basic point though that in the past some single mothers were forced to place their babies for adoption. That was wrong and you'll get no argument about it from me. However, both articles you cite primarily dealt with foreign countries and in both cases, the articles admitted the problems stopped in the 1980's. That's somewhere between 25 and 30 years ago.


Quote:
And in the last almost 20 years? The proportion of single mothers AND the numbers of people on welfare over all has gone down.
You seem to miss my point entirely. Yes, its gone down. After first reaching astronomical levels. Therefore, its still high, its just that its not quite as bad as it was because the system finally said "enough is enough" and passed welfare reform. Otherwise, the sky would have been the limit.

Quote:
So you can argue semantic all you want but you clearly tried to make the point that adoption prevents single mothers from being a tax burden because they all (or most) go on welfare. That is not true.
I didn't say all or most single mothers were on welfare. I said something like this: I said there is a very high correlation between single parenthood and receiving governmental assistance because being a single parent has a strong causal connection with poverty. Do you want argue that one with me? Do you think having a baby when one is young is not challenging from the standpoint of getting education, job training, and landing a job that pays more than minimum wage? You filtered what I said through your own set of biases and decided what I was "really saying" was that all single mothers were on welfare.



Its a question of years and trends. In recent years, the number of births to single women may have declined. However, they remain very high and increased by huge percentages from 1930 to 2000.



Quote:
What a hypocrite. I proved coercion exists, and never made an claims to be "unsubstantiated" about its numbers. You on the other hand are making the unsubstantiated claim that it is better to grow up adopted than lower income. Yet, adopted kids have a greater likelihood for poor outcomes on the same order or higher than most low income kids (excluding those being abused and unless you are now claiming all low income families abuse their children?).

Adoption History: Outcome Studies
Do you actually read the sources you post? I did. I'll make just a few points:

1. The source is obviously a group that had problems with adoption before they collected the material.
2. The most recent outcome studies appear to have been conducted in the 1970's. Honestly, claiming anything that old is relevant to adoption today is questionable on its face.
3. Some of the studies don't seem to reach definite conclusions at all.
4. Studies about adoption of Native American children are dated because adoption of Native American children by Caucasian couples has pretty much ended because of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Quote:
A pretty decent review of the lit, showing the statistically supported poor outcomes for MANY adopted children.
Hardly. See above.


Quote:
Fallacy. Homicide rate is not equivalent to coercion, stealing babies, etc in adoption. Adoption is supposed to be based on the premise about what is best for a child. STEALING or COERCING from the birth mother is NOT what is best for the child.
Once again, you run from the basic issue. The issue is that those seeking any major reforms in any area should be prepared to answer a few questions. First, define what they mean by coercion. Second, provide some documentation of the scope of the problem. Three, propose legislative changes that are tailored to fixing those problems while creating as few new problems as possible.

Quote:
At least you are honest enough to admit that for you adoption is about what is best for infertile families. And in that scenario stealing babies, and coercing birth mothers is acceptable because it is not longer about what is best for the child.
Once again, you completely misrepresent my position. I've stated adoption fulfills dual purposes of:

1. Providing homes for children who need them.
2. Allowing infertile couples (and others) to build families.

Quote:
Especially when you believe fantasies like the idea that adoption is less traumatic than growing up in a loving but lower income family.
It can be the case. No woman should be forced to place a child for adoption (except for those proven to be abusive and neglectful to the extreme). The "studies" you cite don't make your point very well. Got any information about adoption after 1990 or the year 2000? That would be a lot more relevant.



Quote:
Obviously you are trying to find a way to marginalize my opinion but it will not work. I am not an adoptee, nor am I an adoptive parent. I am the only person without "a horse in the race" so to speak and I represent the society that has to judge whether or not adoption should continue to exist as it does now. Based on your comments, as well as a few other people, I now realize that there is a subset of adoptive parents who believe adoption is about giving babies to infertile couples.
I'm trying to assess your biases. I can make room for a person who has no connection to adoption who simply believes there have been abuses with it. You obviously have a very high level of interest in this subject and I have trouble believing that you are not in some way connected with adoption. I've found generally in life, that personal bias, goes a long way in explaining not only the opinions that people hold, but how adamant they are about those opinions. You obviously have a considerable personal investment in this issue that stems from something.

Well, that is not what adoption was established for in this country. It was meant as a last resort and only when in the best interests of the child in question. YOUR wants and needs do not matter to me at all NOR SHOULD THEY.

Quote:
You can bet that I am going to be actively involved in my community, and in my state to reform adoption laws so they represent what is best for the ADOPTEE and not what is best for you. And that is what this forum and your comment in particular has done.
Well, I'm glad I motivate people to get active. Even if they don't come down on my side of issues.

Quote:
Maybe legally you do. But not ethically and certainly not morally. There is a conflict of interest here. You have stated that you believe adoption has the purpose of supplying babies to infertile couples. Well, I have shown those statements to my local state senator assemblyman, and he was as shocked as I was.
Oh goodie. The legislative process is specifically designed for every person and organization to give their opinion. The legislature than decides what to do about the laws. I've spoken out on a number of issues over the years that affect my profession, our community, and families in general.

Quote:
So thank you for showing many people like me what adoption is REALLY about, at least for small but significant portion of APs.
I'll stand by my comments. I won't stand by your distortions of what I have said. One of the things I'm learning about discussing adoption is that people don't read what you are saying. Instead, they read and hear what they want to extrapolate from your posts. There's not much you can do, other than try to keep the record straight. If you truly support adoption, sooner or later you are bound to be called things like "baby stealer" from a small, but vocal segment that is out there.


Quote:
Another flawed premise. Maybe you do not know what coerce means?
co·erce/kōˈərs/

Verb:
  • Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
  • Obtain (something) by such means.
Making sure that birth mothers know that they have no rights to the children they give up is not using force, or threats, it is reality. AND THUS IT IS NOT COERCION.
[/quote]

Wow...thank you for providing me finally, at long last with your definition of coercion. Force or threats have pretty specific meanings. I would suggest that by this strict definition there is very little coercion going on in domestic adoption in the USA today.

Now back to my question which you have now ducked twice. Is it coercion when a family tells a child that if she places her baby for adoption that they will never speak to her again? Perhaps, the very definition you have just supplied answers my question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 07:45 AM
 
10 posts, read 10,229 times
Reputation: 25
Mark,

From what I have read, I agree completely. It looks like your words have been misinterpreted and your points have been distorted.

You are clearly a logical and linear thinker.

ib0714, it is true that your sources do not seem to support your claims as seem to think they do and I also question whether such old information really applies to adoption today. You do come across as someone who is extremely passionate about this issue. How did you become interested in adoption?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:58 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top