Standards
For The Payment of Allowable and Appropriate
Expenses of Birth Mothers Under
California Penal Code Section 273
(Updated September 13, 2003)
The Statute: California
Penal Code Section 273 provides in pertinent part:
(a) It is a misdemeanor
for any person or agency to offer to pay money or anything
of value, or to pay money or anything of value to a parent
for the placement for adoption, for the consent to an adoption,
or for cooperation in the completion of an adoption of his
child. This section does not make it unlawful to pay the
maternity-connected medical or hospital and necessary living
expenses of the mother preceding and during confinement as
an act of charity, as long as the payment is not contingent
upon placement of the child for adoption, consent to the
adoption, or cooperation in the completion of the adoption.
(b) It is a misdemeanor for any parent to obtain
the financial benefits set forth in subdivision (a) with the intent to receive
such financial benefits without completing the adoption or without consenting
to the adoption.
Rules or conditions of payment may be extracted
from this statute. Those conditions of payment are that each expense must be:
Maternity-connected;
Necessary;
Of the mother;
Preceding and during confinement;
An act of charity; and
Paid unconditionally.
The Problem: Interpreting
these conditions is often difficult, for the statutory standards
are less than clear. The result has been confusion, misunderstanding,
and abuse of the adoption process. The Academy of California
Adoption Lawyers (ACAL) has created the guidelines
which follow, in order to create an atmosphere of greater legal
certainty, discourage abuse of the adoption process, and to
establish a yardstick of ethical conduct to which the courts
may refer in order to determine whether the facts of individual
cases suggest inappropriate conduct or abuse. These guidelines
are based upon many years of experience and common sense. In
the view of ACAL, the ultimate purpose of the statute is to
make adoption a financially neutral option for the birth mother she
should not realize financial gain from the act of placing her
child for adoption, nor should she suffer significant financial
hardship as a result of that decision. There are some inherent
inequities in our current statutory scheme, as is discussed
below, but until the legislature addresses those inequities,
the parties to an adoption must comply with the law in its
current form.
The statute refers
to expenses of the mother, therefore any financial
assistance provided must be for her support. By extension, if
a birth mother is under a legal duty to support another person,
such as a child or a disabled husband, the amount of assistance
provided to the birth mother should reflect that legal obligation.
This is assistance to her, not to the third party she is supporting.
In the absence of a legal obligation of support on the part of
a birth mother, it is improper to support her boyfriend or other
persons. If a birth mother is cohabiting with another person,
the other person ought to be expected to pay an equitable share
of common expenses such as rent, groceries, or utilities.
The statute provides
that assistance may be provided for the period preceding
and during confinement. The terms confinement is
undefined, and has never been interpreted in an reported decision.
However, in all likelihood, a court would define confinement as pregnancy
related disability or unemployability. Obstetricians generally
consider a woman disabled for two (2) to six (6)
weeks after delivery in the case of a normal vaginal delivery,
or four (4) to eleven (11) weeks in the case of a caesarian delivery.
Therefore, it is legally appropriate for adopting parents to
assist with a birth mothers expenses until her medical
disability is ended, in the professional judgment of her physician.
Absent unusual and compelling circumstances, prenatal support should be limited
to three (3) months. If a birth mother is employed, she should be encouraged
to continue her employment until her treating physician recommends that she
commence her maternity leave. If a birth mother is unemployed, and unable to
obtain employment due to her pregnancy, it might be necessary and appropriate
for financial assistance to start more than three (3) months prior to her expected
delivery date. Discrimination against pregnant women in employment may be illegal,
but it is rampant nonetheless, and these guidelines need to be flexibly applied
to reflect this reality. The legality of the retroactive payment of maternity
related expenses shall be scrutinized by an adoption attorney.
Under the statue,
only expenses related to the pregnancy may be paid.
These would include maternity clothing, and the cost of such
clothing will be dependent to some extent upon the state of the
womans wardrobe at the time of conception. However, maternity
clothing purchased or reimbursed by the adopting parents for
the birth mother should not exceed $500.00, absent some compelling
reason for a greater expenditure.
It is also appropriate
for adopting parents to assist with groceries and sundries, the
cost of which should not exceed $400.00 per month for a woman
living alone, or $500.00 per month if she has a child to feed
as well.
Transportation
expenses may be payable as well. If a woman is to travel to California
to give birth and place a child for adoption, it is appropriate
for adopting parents to pay her travel expenses, including a
return ticket after the adoption. A birth mother also needs transportation
to and from doctor and counseling appointments; thus assistance
with a bus pass or payment of actually incurred taxi fares is
permissible.
An adopting parent
may not under any circumstances buy a car for a birth parent,
since the purchase of a car is not a maternity connected expense
under the statute. However, if a birth mother is making payments
upon a pre-existing car loan, the adopting parents may assist
with those payments for the limited duration sent forth in Section
B, above. This assistance may also extend to her gasoline, automobile
insurance expense, and car repairs necessary to keep the vehicle
safely operable, provided it can be characterized as a minor
repair and not an improvement or enhancement of the vehicle.
It is also proper to rent a car for a birth mothers use
for the limited time set forth above. Generally, transportation
expenses are payable only for the birth mother and those persons
she is under a legal obligation to support, and the adopting
parents ought not to be asked or expected to pay or reimburse
for transportation for other persons. However, if a birth mother
is traveling a distance to give birth it is appropriate to assist
with travel expenses for her mother, older sister, or other individual
who is the birth mothers primary emotional support person.
Routine dental
care may properly be provided to a birth mother during her confinement at
the expense of the adopting parents. This does not extend to
bridges, crowns, orthodontia work, or other corrective dental
work unrelated to the pregnancy.
If a birth mother
needs furniture, this should be dealt with through rental of
furniture. It is not proper to give a birth mother tangible long-term
assets such as furniture or a car, for this is clearly beyond
the allowed scope of expenses under the statute.
If placement
of a child for adoption necessitates a move by a birth mother,
reasonable moving expenses may be properly be paid by the adopting
parents, but only when the move is one of necessity rather than
of convenience. This applies to storage of a birth mothers
belongings as well.
A
loan is something of value, and the statute applies to payment
of anything of value, therefore a loan to a birth
mother is proper only if it meets all of the tests set forth
in the statute. The loan also must be disclosed in the Account
Report filed with the court pursuant to Family Code Section 8610.
Loans to a birth mother ought to be avoided as it is highly undesirable
to create a debtor/creditor relationship between the parties
to an adoption.
Penal
Code Section 273 allows assistance with expenses;
loss of income is not an expense. Therefore, adopting parents
may not reimburse a birth mother her loss of income occasioned
by the pregnancy. In most cases, the income would be used to
pay necessary living expenses anyway, so if adopting parents
pay the living expenses of a birth mother as well as reimburse
her loss of income, they will in effect be reimbursing her twiceonce
for her living expenses and once for her lost income which would
amount to double payment. However, if a birth mother is earning
substantially more than she spends on living expenses, nonpayment
of her loss of income may have an inequitable impact which is
unfortunately unavoidable under the current wording of the statute.
The
Academy of California Adoption Lawyers (ACAL) has
prepared these guidelines to discourage abuse of the adoption
process and create a greater degree of certainty as to the application
of Penal Code Section 273. The Academy urges the courts to examine
closely the Adoption Expenses Report filed in every adoption
in compliance with Family Code Section 8610. Variations from
these guidelines may be necessary or warranted by the facts of
an occasional case.
The Adoption Request/petition ought to be granted if the Court is satisfied
that doing so is in the best interests of the child. The membership of the
Academy of California Adoption Lawyers takes ethical adoption seriously and
invites the Court and others interested to the member nearest you with any
questions or input.
The
information you obtain at this site is not, nor is
it intended to be legal advice. You should, and must
consult an attorney of your own selection for individual
advice regarding your particular situation.
All
potential clients are advised to carefully select
their own legal counsel. Neither the officers,
directors nor any members of the Academy take
responsibility for or are involved with the separate
law practices of the other ACAL and ACFFL ATTORNEYS.