Is it wise for you to adopt when your daughter receives government services for early intervention?
/
I blogged a few weeks ago about receiving income-based government services for Zoe’s therapy needs. Given that we can’t afford Zoe’s therapy without financial support via early intervention, is it wise to even consider adopting again? Can we really afford three more children?
Before I tackle those questions, let me explain a bit about how disability services work in the US. Take autism, for example. Medical insurance companies try to classify most treatments as “educational;” meanwhile, public schools say, “no, that’s not covered, talk to your insurance company.” As they go back and forth without getting a “yes” from anyone, parents are spread thin, fundraising at times for their children’s behavioral therapy.
These parents usually would have no financial problems if autism wasn’t part of their world. They would be as solid on that front as you are, if not more so.
The problem isn’t their money. The problem is the gaps in coverage and lack of options.
In many states, parents don’t have the option of buying an insurance plan that would cover their child’s therapy needs. Not even a higher cost plan. They just don’t exist.
For us, if we stay at three children or increase to six, we would need the exact same support for Zoe’s early intervention program. We have enough money to care for three more children, but that’s simply not enough to pay for the portion of Zoe’s therapy costs that fall outside of insurance coverage.
In other words, while our services are income-based, the focal point isn’t our income, in the way that food stamps, WIC, or other welfare programs are. The focal point is our child’s disability.
One of our children in Uganda has HIV. Because that’s a clearly medical need, the care for that child will be completed covered by our private insurance. Easy peasy.
Disability services aren’t treated the same way, largely because of quibbles between insurance companies and educational systems.
So can we really afford three more children in our family?
Yes.
(Our social worker and agency require that, actually. So does the US Citizenship & Immigration Services office. We wouldn’t be approved for adoption if we couldn’t. Money will be tight, but we have a budget and, thankfully, no debt other than our mortgage.)
Is it wise?
Once again, I say yes. Because, really, while early intervention is an income-based program, it’s not the same as some of the other programs out there that support a family’s ability to meet basic needs. Almost every family with a child who has a disability receives some level of government program for support, be it early intervention or special education or Medicaid.
If we were receiving other types of support and were unable to financially (and emotionally) care for three more children, our current adoption would be unwise.
That’s not the case, though.
Finally, is it wise to turn our back on these children when God, the source of all wisdom, “executes justice for the fatherless” (Deuteronomy 10:18) and directs His people to provide for orphans (Deuteronomy 24:19)? When He calls Himself the “Father of the fatherless” (Psalm 68:4-6) and promises to uphold them (Psalm 146:5-9)? When He defines unfaithfulness, in part, as “not bring[ing] justice to the fatherless” (Isaiah 1:23) and defines pure and undefiled religion as “visit[ing] orphans…in their affliction?” And when He reminds us that the concept of adoption isn’t an earthly one but a God-orchestrated one, that of His promise not to leave us as orphans (John 14:18) and of His adopting us as children of God through salvation (Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 4:4-7)?
When we’re called to teach God’s word to our “children, that the next generation might know them… so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God” (Psalm 78), our willingness to not just share scripture but to apply it shows them that our hope is in God and that we trust in His works, even when that application means adding three more children to our family via adoption.
We know God is guiding us in this. And? Early intervention will happen either way for our Zoe, whether we bring home our three Ugandan children or not.
So, yes, it’s wise. It might be the wisest thing we’ve ever done.
(And the craziest.)
Before I tackle those questions, let me explain a bit about how disability services work in the US. Take autism, for example. Medical insurance companies try to classify most treatments as “educational;” meanwhile, public schools say, “no, that’s not covered, talk to your insurance company.” As they go back and forth without getting a “yes” from anyone, parents are spread thin, fundraising at times for their children’s behavioral therapy.
These parents usually would have no financial problems if autism wasn’t part of their world. They would be as solid on that front as you are, if not more so.
The problem isn’t their money. The problem is the gaps in coverage and lack of options.
In many states, parents don’t have the option of buying an insurance plan that would cover their child’s therapy needs. Not even a higher cost plan. They just don’t exist.
For us, if we stay at three children or increase to six, we would need the exact same support for Zoe’s early intervention program. We have enough money to care for three more children, but that’s simply not enough to pay for the portion of Zoe’s therapy costs that fall outside of insurance coverage.
In other words, while our services are income-based, the focal point isn’t our income, in the way that food stamps, WIC, or other welfare programs are. The focal point is our child’s disability.
One of our children in Uganda has HIV. Because that’s a clearly medical need, the care for that child will be completed covered by our private insurance. Easy peasy.
Disability services aren’t treated the same way, largely because of quibbles between insurance companies and educational systems.
So can we really afford three more children in our family?
Yes.
(Our social worker and agency require that, actually. So does the US Citizenship & Immigration Services office. We wouldn’t be approved for adoption if we couldn’t. Money will be tight, but we have a budget and, thankfully, no debt other than our mortgage.)
Is it wise?
Once again, I say yes. Because, really, while early intervention is an income-based program, it’s not the same as some of the other programs out there that support a family’s ability to meet basic needs. Almost every family with a child who has a disability receives some level of government program for support, be it early intervention or special education or Medicaid.
If we were receiving other types of support and were unable to financially (and emotionally) care for three more children, our current adoption would be unwise.
That’s not the case, though.
Finally, is it wise to turn our back on these children when God, the source of all wisdom, “executes justice for the fatherless” (Deuteronomy 10:18) and directs His people to provide for orphans (Deuteronomy 24:19)? When He calls Himself the “Father of the fatherless” (Psalm 68:4-6) and promises to uphold them (Psalm 146:5-9)? When He defines unfaithfulness, in part, as “not bring[ing] justice to the fatherless” (Isaiah 1:23) and defines pure and undefiled religion as “visit[ing] orphans…in their affliction?” And when He reminds us that the concept of adoption isn’t an earthly one but a God-orchestrated one, that of His promise not to leave us as orphans (John 14:18) and of His adopting us as children of God through salvation (Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 4:4-7)?
When we’re called to teach God’s word to our “children, that the next generation might know them… so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God” (Psalm 78), our willingness to not just share scripture but to apply it shows them that our hope is in God and that we trust in His works, even when that application means adding three more children to our family via adoption.
We know God is guiding us in this. And? Early intervention will happen either way for our Zoe, whether we bring home our three Ugandan children or not.
So, yes, it’s wise. It might be the wisest thing we’ve ever done.
(And the craziest.)