Comics writer Karl Kesel and his wife recently adopted a baby whose parents were addicted to heroin. This is the sort of backstory that would normally land a kid in the foster-care system, which does not, statistically speaking, offer much hope at a full and happy life. The Kesels have seriously done some good here, but it's cost them. Their son Isaac racked up $67,000 in medical bills during his first few months of life (it's not clear yet how much of that will be covered by Myrna Kesel's insurance), and it cost another $25,000 to adopt him. Karl Kesel is selling off his collection of comic books to pay the bills, but some Redditors have set up a crowd-funding campaign to help out. You can donate for the next two days.

  • greybird

    does it usually cost $25,000 to adopt?

    • http://maggiekb.com/ Maggie Koerth-Baker

      Yes. Adoption of babies (between agency fees, legal fees, money you spend to help support birth parents during pregnancy, etc.) can run between 15k and 35k, depending on the state, whether you used an agency or a lawyer, etc. 

      It’s a lot cheaper to adopt kids out of foster care (in fact, that can often be free). But those kids usually aren’t babies (which is what most people want to adopt). 

      • http://maggiekb.com/ Maggie Koerth-Baker

        It’s worth noting that some of that money is eligible for a tax refund, though. 

      • Brainspore

        I see a lot of ignorant comments around the internet to the effect of “then why don’t you just adopt a BLACK baby, you racist jerk!” as if there’s a special discount bin and express checkout line for children of color.

        Adoption is great, I’ve got a few cousins who joined our family that way. But cheap and straighforward it ain’t.

      • greybird

        (revision: this comment should’ve been placed after/below Maggie’s note on taxes)

        ah okay. I’ve been reading about and discussing whether to begin the adoption process, but I’ve been interested in children, not babies.

        Some acquaintances of mine adopted 3 children from Ethiopia at a total cost of $25,000 (for travel, legal fees, etc), but they said US tax credits helped compensate for a lot of the expense. These were children also, ages 7-11, not babies.

        • http://twitter.com/fossilfuels Funk Daddy

          You have some exceptionally wonderful acquaintances.

          • greybird

            They are an inspiration.

            The children (siblings) were in an orphanage for 5 years following the death of their birth parents due to illness. They are great kids. I bumped into the father and one of the sons at a cross country ski area last winter; the son had just won the children’s race.

            I know that raising these kids presents some great challenges due to the children’s mistrust, shyness and lack of education, but when the parents say it is rewarding, I can tell they mean it.

      • Symbiote

        I was curious, and looked it up for the UK.  I’ve never heard of adoption being expensive.
        From what I can see, it’s essentially free.  There’s a £140 legal fee, but a charity will usually pay that, if you adopt through one. The child’s new parents receive “Child Benefit”, as every child in the UK does, about £20/week.

        White babies are apparently rare, but white young children don’t seem to be.

    • http://mychemicaljourney.blogspot.com The Chemist

      Yep. Apparently it’s more expensive to adopt babies, especially white ones. I looked into it with my fiance. She’s still interested, but to me there’s enough wrong with it that I don’t want to bother. (Not that I’m saying no one should adopt- but the way it’s structured, it’s really not for everyone.)

      • http://maggiekb.com/ Maggie Koerth-Baker

        It’s also cheaper to do overseas adoptions, but personally, those aren’t something I could ever do. For one thing, I’ve read too many horror stories about poorly regulated adoption industries that farm out kids as “orphans” when they actually aren’t … even cases where the parents didn’t intend to give the child up. I need more transparency than that.

        • Marc45

          Maggie, I would disagree.  It’s not about the adoption industry but where the kid was actually raised.  My son was adopted from Kazakhstan and the orphanage, out in the middle of nowhere, was very good to the kids.  They were lovely to us and seemed to genuinely care about the children.  There was no “farming” or clandestine activity at all.  A judge approved the adoption and everything was documented properly.

          When you talk about “horror stories” you inflict a bias amongst prospective adopting parents.  One of the benefits in our case was we got to travel to a really cool place and met a lot of wonderful people.  The other thing is adoption in the US is open, so the birth parents have rights to see the child.  In other countries, this is generally not the case.  Some people don’t want the birth parents involved.

          You should do some research before spouting off quasi-facts about adoption when you have no direct experience.

          I wholeheartedly recommend international adoptions but like anything, do your research first.

          Also, my son is white and there were no shortage of white kids waiting for their parents…and while I appreciate the plight of the Kesel’s, no one helped us with our adoption and subsequent costs, it was and still is a labor of love!

          • bcsizemo

            Not to roll out one of the standard BB lines, but correlation doesn’t imply causation.

            You may have had an excellent experience and known others who had as well, while Maggie might know people who have dealt with problem agencies.  Yes sometimes the bad apples make the whole bunch look bad, but if there are even a handful of verifiable cases then pointing it out is important. 

            Maggie maybe also implying that US laws and regulations help curb/prevent such things from happening, and that other countries maybe more lax.

          • Marc45

            Rob,
            I had to reply to myself because there was no “reply” button to your post.

            My point is that blanket statements about international adoption “horror stories” only serve to dissuade prospect parents from choosing a child simply because that child isn’t from the US. That’s not fair to those children and it’s not true. Yes, there are adoption problems in the world but why penalize some poor kid who’s already facing a bleak future because of a scare story. Why not keep an open mind and simply investigate the agency/orphanage and hopefully give a kid a chance for a better life?

            Words are powerful. It used to bother me when friends would ask about my son’s “real parents” right in front of him. We would respond with “We’re his real parents, you must mean his birth parents”. Anyway, if I had to do it again, I’d go international in a heartbeat with the appropriate due diligence of course :)

  • http://twitter.com/CousinBarnabas Cousin Barnabas

    If this is the writer I’m thinking of, his name is actually “Karl Kesel.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kesel

  • shiftdelete

     It is a noble act – to adopt a child with health problems. However, I believe crowd sourcing for medical bills is slightly odd.  Let DC Comics step up to the plate, or look into government aid, charities, etc.

    • http://twitter.com/Uplifting_News Uplifting News

      This isn’t crowdsourcing at all, rather coordinated charitable giving.  Karl didn’t initiate this and was only made aware of it yesterday.  This was purely goodwill by a bunch of like minded strangers (and a few fans of his).

  • haineux

    Apparently this guy is a comic book writer and inker, and not the “voice” of NPR’s “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me,” Carl Kasell.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m in for a few bucks, because, hey, this guy IS a superhero, even if he won’t voice a gratuitous answering machine message for me.

  • http://www.jimdraws.com Thorzdad

    I’m a bit shocked that whatever adoption agency they worked with approved the adoption of a baby from heroin addicts without confirming that the adoptive parents had the financial wherewithal to provide the care the baby very probably would need.

    My wife works in an agency and they do a very thorough financial vetting of every couple who wishes to adopt.

    • Tribune

      Having read this far through the comments it appears they do have the financial wherewithal. It appears that some kind group is trying to help with the (insert your favourite expletives) bill that American society has attached to the child. If no one helps then it appears it will get paid. 

      • CH

        I don’t think it’s “American society”. If the $25.000 is indeed right I would assume it’s a private adoption. That your legislation allows paying for the fees of the biological mother (it tends to become a preeeeeeetty gray area of what is consider a cost for the biological mother) is another matter.

        • Tribune

          I have no issue with the $25,000 (well possibly different issues) it is the$67,000 medical bill.

    • CH

      Yes… even though upstream there is a thread lambasting someone who apparently did a bad posting about “not being able to afford a child” (it was cencored away, so I don’t know what it said), that is the truth in adoption.

      Apparently the parents in this case do have the means to pay, but in general…. you should not be approved, and will not be approved (at least if you have a competent social worker) as an adoptive parent unless you are prepared both mentally and financially to take on the care of the child. Of course there can be surprises that you could in no way foresee, but in a case like this where they knew about the medical needs in advance the social worker should make sure that the child will be covered by insurance. A child should not go from one bad situation to another.

      • http://twitter.com/fossilfuels Funk Daddy

        Any prospective adopting parent that can come up with $25,000.00 in short order, whether from savings, loan or (in this case) asset liquidation, is WAY above the minimum financial considerations for adoption. Including for special needs children. 

        That poster was lambasted for being an idiot, which is also why they were censored.
        It is not the truth in the sense the idiot meant. “not being able to afford a child” is a loaded statement, especially in regard to adoption. Income requirements are low, very low, because it is not an indicator of what kind of home will be provided. 

        Financially, the agency or social worker will look at the income once, make sure it is above minimum and then concern themselves with things that -do- matter, like how well they pay the bills, what the income is used on. 

        In the US, the minimum requirement in 125% of the poverty threshold for the family size -after- adoption. So in the case of the Kesel’s, that’s $23,862.00 a year, for the whole family. 

        That’s low. That’s how it should be. People who can’t pay medical bills don’t lose their children for that reason, period. Other factors may be present, but that one alone is not any indication of negligence, a bad home, or an inability to provide.

        Thereby, it is untenable to restrict adoptions to families that can pay out of pocket the full costs of special needs children, and it would also curtail many, many adoptions of special needs children to loving homes.

        In no way should the $67,000.00 medical bill have been a consideration of the agency, or social worker in regard to the adoption, and it wasn’t. Placing the child in a home that could not pay that is not a bad situation, even a special needs child. Not by that metric.

  • giantasterisk

    I’m rather shocked at the cost of adopting a child, so I looked it up. The American Adoptions site has a page explaining why its so expensive, and while some of it sounds legitimate (legal expenses, etc.), a lot of it sounds like unnecessary bullshit to me (marketing packets, etc.):

    http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/article_view/article_id/3179

    • http://twitter.com/fossilfuels Funk Daddy

      It should be noted that is for private adoption, arranged from birth parent to adoptive parent pre-birth. All that marketing is related to finding both sides and bringing them together. 

      Public adoption is a tiny fraction the cost and costs consist of training classes and foster programs. It’s harder in some sense, but also has other goals. Some orienteering may involve foster care with the goal of reunification, which is emotionally trying, or you might say testing. Most adoptive & foster parents in this system accept a monetary adoption subsidy on the behalf of the child to offset some expense.

      Essentially, adoption is not necessarily reserved for those who can afford $25,000+ to complete the initial process, and it may sometimes require a greater commitment than one that can be represented in dollars, depending on your viewpoint. 

      • giantasterisk

         So what does public adoption typically cost?

        • http://twitter.com/fossilfuels Funk Daddy

          Anywhere from Zero to maybe two thousand to adopt through a public foster program. Some people don’t require training and that can be determined in assessments.

  • bcsizemo

    I kind of find it odd when certain things don’t work like everything else does…

    In this case “the state” basically has custody over this child, and Mr. Kesel is taking custody of it.  Nothing wrong with that.  Could be the same with a pet, or a used car.  But in this case the child has some pre-existing conditions, yet that hasn’t seem to affect the price of the adoption.  Where as if I purchased a new puppy I’d expect it be in sound medical health with all records and shots up to date (assuming I’m paying asking price.)  The same with a car.  (Obviously babies are not pets or cars, but this is a transaction regardless.)

    My issue isn’t that the baby needed medical treatment.  It is the fact that the state or some agency would have had to provide it if no one else stepped forward, or am I incorrect in believing that?  Would the state have let this child suffer and die?

    • CH

      You. Do. Not. Buy. Children.

      Or at least, not legally. Of course there is traffiked children, but that is totally another very sad thing.

      I assume that the money quoted is mostly what the adoptive parents are paying for the biological mother’s expenses. In my mind that should not be legal, it would in no way be legal in my country, but ok… in the US it is legal. Otherwise the cost comes from legal fees and fees to the agencies. But you do not buy children! That is incredibly offensive language.

      • bcsizemo

        I apologize.  It was not my intention to offend, or imply that children are items to be bought and sold.  Every way I kept thinking about the situation kept bringing me back to the fact if someone didn’t adopt this child then wouldn’t the state take care of it?  And if that’s the case then why should the parents (or any new parents) have to burden the entire cost of any medical issues created by the biological parents?

        -I think in my logical mind I was just distilling it to the basic components.  I’m sorry if that became offensive, that was never my intention.

        • CH

          No problem, the “buying children” is just one of those things that is thrown at adoptive parents way too often.

          What you are pondering is the difference between foster parenting and being adoptive parents. The exception here would be adopting from foster care. As far as I have understood, in the US there are some extra provisions when adopting a child in need from foster care. But otherwise, when you adopt you shoulder exactly the same responsibilities as if the child had been born to you.

          Now… you can ask why any parent should have to scramble for funds to pay for the medical care of their child. For me, coming from a country with “socialised medicine” it looks pretty barbaric.

  • http://eecue.com Dave Bullock / eecue

    Will he leave a message on my home answering machine?  (sorry couldn’t help myself, and yes I know it’s a different spelling)

  • Jazza

    When I read stories like this I think perhaps George Washington wasn’t such a hero after all and it would have been better if he had failed.  If this was in the UK the National Health Service would pay for all this child’s treatment.  This child and all the others like him deserves health as a human right, not as a  privilege, or a stoke of good luck. I do not understand how the richest country in the world dodges its obligations to the weakest and most vulnerable.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6LOJDBXCDHL5MVQQRLOCCJ35AY alexb

    I can’t understand the logic of a country containing states that would charge a woman for attempted murder if she took an action which might harm her unborn child, or which seek to ban abortion, on the basis of the “rights” of the unborn child, but which can coldly stand by and refuse to fund aid for sick children.

    • http://scavenger-ethic.blogspot.com/ scav

      Logic is absent. It’s just a straight conflict between the desire to *seem* to be supporting one set of cultural values (arbitrarily and inaccurately labelled “family” or “Christian” values) for political reasons, and the actual support of another set of political goals (less taxes for the rich, less economic freedom and self-determination for the poor).

    • Brainspore

      Short version: “GET A JOB, KID.”

  • retepslluerb

    They seem to like it. It’s either that or one of the greatest disinformation campaigns in the supposedly free world.

  • surreality

    I’d say most of the people who read the comments on Boing Boing would agree with you, at least if you’ve read any other healthcare-related threads. Sadly, retepslluerb is right in that a pretty big portion of Americans “like” our healthcare, or are too scared of the “socialist” bogeyman to think otherwise.

  • http://mychemicaljourney.blogspot.com The Chemist

    He adopted an orphan who deserves medical care as a basic human right, we’re merely stepping up when society will not.

    (Half this comment was expletives and fabulous insults, but I felt I had to cut it short. Don’t thank me, thank the moderators.)

  • Brainspore

    To be blunt, if one cannot afford a child (adopted or otherwise) one should not take on the responsibility.

    So in your view, only couples who have an emergency fund of at least $92,000 (and counting) laying around in their bank accounts should be allowed to have or adopt children? I’d rather that “raising a family” doesn’t become one of those luxuries reserved for the 1 percent, thank you very much.

  • http://twitter.com/Uplifting_News Uplifting News

    Us the initiator of the fundraiser, I’d like to clarify that Karl didn’t ask for any help, and would have raised the funds needed to adopt/support this child by selling his comics in the same way others sell their stocks or jewelry.  To imply he ‘cannot afford’ the child makes me believe you might not have read the article… 

  • Thad Boyd

    Oh dear, he’s selling off his comic books. To be blunt, if one cannot afford a child (adopted or otherwise) one should not take on the responsibility.

    Er, he CAN afford a child.

    He has a large collection of classic comic books which he can exchange for money, you see.

  • http://twitter.com/fossilfuels Funk Daddy

    A bit of both. My mom liked that she got around $168,000.00 in medical bills related to a car accident while under-insured, she liked that she got the bill instead of being left in the road to bleed to death.

    That’s what they are told the alternative is.

  • retepslluerb

    Hence “disinformation campaign”. 

  • http://twitter.com/Uplifting_News Uplifting News

    So I’ll ask you this:  How are they supposed to refuse this help?  We’re buying a number of comics just like any other collector browsing through his collection on the Blastoff site.  Karl gets the proceeds from all sales.  The only difference is that instead of us adding these comics to our collection(s), we are sending them right back to him.  It is a kind gesture, nothing more.  To make it anything other than that implies you might be missing the point.

  • http://twitter.com/fossilfuels Funk Daddy

    It may sound that way to you, no one can hear your inner dialogue, 

    but many people here probably found the phrasing to be commentary on the cost of medical care in the USA.

  • Brainspore

    So, again, are you suggesting that any couple that doesn’t have at least an extra 100 grand or so lying around in their bank accounts should not be allowed to have or adopt children? Because if so you’ve just disqualified the vast majority of human beings on the planet.

    This child would have had those medical costs whether or not Kesel and his wife had adopted him. The difference is that instead of being raised by a loving family, he would have been raised by a foster care system. To imply this couple was “irresponsible” for making that decision is beyond the pale, especially since they haven’t asked you for one red cent.

  • http://twitter.com/fossilfuels Funk Daddy

    The Kesel’s have insurance, it may be that it is not enough.

    but,

    afford children?

    What do they cost? And if born with complications, or in an accident later, or any number of calamities? What do they cost? 

    If your child today was in an accident and their costs rang up to six figures but your insurance wouldn’t pay or you were under-insured, and there were uninsured costs of 100,000.00? Or 1,000,000.00? And you didn’t have it, not even split between every relative you have?

    Would you terminate your parenthood?

    Right, gotcha. Thing is, you desire a crystal ball as well as an undisclosed financial low water mark to have children. Neither of these is possible, or human.

  • Brainspore

    @KitchenCookiesRock:disqus :
    What do you mean by “can’t afford?” 

    Number one, this couple is paying for the care of their child. Their friends and associates are simply trying to help shoulder some of the burden, because that’s what nice people do.

    Number two, I don’t know a single person who has enough money that they could comfortably bear any possible cost associated with raising a child. Any child, biological or otherwise, can develop a medical condition that leads to obscene medical costs (at least in the U.S.A.). ”I guess you shoulda thought of that before you became a parent” is a pretty freakin’ callous attitude toward parents dealing with chronic illness, serious injury, or cancer.

  • CH

    They adopted a child with a known need, they need to have a plan for how to take care of that need… and also afford in one way or another that need. Apparently they did, so that is not the issue here.

    A child in need should not go to a family who is not in a position to take care of it. That is pretty much one of the basic premise of adoption, and yes, it will exclude a lot of people from adopting. Adopting a child is not a right. My own country is pretty tight with their rules of who does and doesn’t qualify, in my opinion way too tight, the US rules of how they in practice work is way too lax, again in my opinion (in principle they are good, but people who one social worker won’t approve to adopt can just go social worker shopping until they find one who will approve them).

  • Antinous / Moderator

    Apparently you feel strongly enough that only ‘financially qualified’ people should adopt that you’re willing to let children fester in orphanages.