










































26 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii

Is Criminalizing Re-Homing the Best Solution? 
A Look Into Safe Adoption Policy

Yunqi Zhang 

This paper will examine existing state policies of  criminalizing re-
homing, and their potential benefits and costs. Recommendations are 
made to mitigate the potential costs of  criminalizing re-homing and to 
prevent families from reaching the point of  re-homing their adopted child.

Introduction of the Policy Problem: Re-Homing

On September 9, 2013, Reuters published a five-part article, The Child 
Exchange, (Twohey, 2013) to bring attention to a practice widely 

referred to as “re-homing,” in which parents transfer custody of  their 
unwanted adopted children to non-relative adults or families without 
informing any professionals or government systems. The article identified 
several social media platforms, such as Yahoo and Facebook, where parents 
post advertisements either of  children waiting to be re-homed or wanting to 
receive re-homed children. Because this practice intentionally circumvents 
authorities and professionals, it appears that the only statistics about re-
homing come from the Reuters article, which examined messages advertising 
261 children in one Yahoo! group. The analysis found that offers to re-home 
children occurred at a rate of  one child per week. About 70% of  the children 
offered were adopted internationally between the ages of  6 and 13 (Twohey, 
2013).

According to a report by the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 
(2015), families might choose to re-home a child for three main reasons: 
lack of  preparation to parent a child with special needs, such as post-
institutionalized behavior, attachment disorder, physical or mental health 
problems particularly for international adoptions; lack of  access to post-
adoption services to help them cope with those challenges or avoid reaching 
a crisis point in their adoption; and reluctance to seek help due to fear of  
repercussions and associated stigma. 

Re-homing is an unregulated practice, regardless of  the cause or level 
of  parent desperation, which has potentially damaging consequences for 
children. Re-homing creates new opportunities for child traffickers1 (Burdick, 
1As the definition on UNICEF’s website indicates, child victims of  trafficking are recruited, 
transported, transferred, harbored, or received for the purpose of  exploitation, while re-
homing is the behavior of  some parents transferring the custody of  their children to strangers 
without professional involvement and court approval. Re-homing usually happens when the 

stujourn
Typewritten Text
© 2016 Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits the user to copy, distribute, and transmit the work provided that the original author(s) and source are credited.

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text



Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii | 27 

Zhang

2015) and puts adoptive children in great danger for abuse and psychological 
damage (Kunz, 2014). Children are given to new parents without any 

protective measures in place,  such 
as extensive background, health, and 
financial screenings, or any other pre-
adoption trainings and counseling, which 
are required by federal or state law before 
prospective adoptive parents receive a 
referral (GAO, 2015). 

Adoption is a hard process for both the family and the child. Several 
required services before the adoption help the newly formed family units 
integrate and adjust. Background screenings are designed to ensure the 
eligibility and suitability of  the adoptive family. Screenings include a check 
for child abuse history and criminal history related to children. The process 
also ensures that the adoptive family is prepared emotionally and financially 
for accepting a new family member. The permanency and sustainability of  
an adoption is likely to be diminished without these prerequisite screenings. 
Pre-adoption trainings help families prepare for child-specific challenges 
experienced as a result of  adoption and provide information on post-
adoption services. These services could potentially reduce the risk of  failed 
adoptions and avoid traumatic experiences for adoptive children.

Re-homing bypasses these helpful steps. There is no effort taken to 
make sure the child’s best interests are met. Unregulated transfers of  custody 
could place children in risky situations. Media reports (Twohey, 2013; Hardy, 
2015) cite cases that include re-homed children being verbally, mentally, 
and sexually abused and exploited, involved in child pornography or child 
trafficking (Cousins, 2015).

History and Variation of Policy Addressing Re-Homing
Government, at both the federal and state levels, has worked to address 

re-homing since the media exposed this harmful practice. Several states 
modified, proposed, or enacted new laws and regulations, which include 
making re-homing illegal and restricting advertising children or potential 
homes for placement. 

In April 2014, Wisconsin was the first state to respond to the media 
exposure by passing legislation targeting re-homing (Kunz, 2014). Wisconsin 
criminalizes advertising related to adoption as well as the delegation of  the 
care and custody of  the child to a non-relative for a period greater than one 

parents feel incapable of  meeting the child’s need, without the intention to sell or exploit the 
child. But the stranger who receives the child might be a child trafficker with the intention of  
making a profit from the child.

“Re-homing is an unregulated 
practice,  regardless of the cause 

or level of parent desperation, 
which has potentially damaging 
consequences for children.”

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text



28 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vi Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vi | 29 

iS Criminalizing re-Homing THe beST SoluTion? zHang

year without petitioning a court. These criminal sanctions may include up to 
a $10,000 fine and 9 months in prison (WIS. STAT. § 48.979 (1m) (g) (2013)).

Colorado created new legislation on May 22, 2014 (Kunz, 2014). 
The state has not criminalized re-homing—that is, the actual transfer of  
custody—but it does prohibit advertisement on the Internet or through any 
other public medium to find a child to adopt or to find an adoptive home 
for a child. Authorized services (i.e. fertility clinics, adoption agencies and 
adoption attorneys) are exempt from the advertising ban. Violation of  the 
law, is a Class 6 felony (COLO. REV. STAT. § 19-5-213.5 (4) (2014)). In June 
2014, both Louisiana and Florida passed laws prohibiting the advertisement 
and the re-homing of  a child (Kunz, 2014). Violation of  the laws lead to 
criminal sanctions.

Arkansas moved to criminalize re-homing following a scandal in 
their state legislature. In early 2015, it became public that Arkansas State 
Representative Justin Harris re-homed his two adopted daughters, ages 3 and 
6, to a man who allegedly sexually abused one of  them.  The legislature 
quickly and unanimously passed a bill making re-homing a felony punishable 
by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine (Riben, 2015).

In June 2015, the Maine legislature unanimously overrode Governor 
Paul LePage’s veto of  a bill to prohibit the re-homing of  adopted children. 
Re-homing in Maine is a crime subject to the same penalties as abandonment. 
The legislation also includes an affirmative defense clause to protect people 
acting in good faith from penalty (Hickman, 2015).

No federal law specifically prohibits re-homing, although the issue has 
gained  traction with some members of  Congress. An adoption safety bill 
was introduced on April 28, 2015 that would make it illegal to “offer to 
engage or engaging in the transfer of  permanent custody or control of  a 
minor in contravention of  a required legal procedure” under the category of  
child exploitation (Langevin, 2015). The bill also promotes grants for and the 
provision of  pre- and post-adoptive support services. This bill was referred 
to the Subcommittee on Health on May 1, 2015, but no action has been taken 
since then.

In summary, six states enacted laws to criminalize re-homing, and some 
impose criminal penalties on the advertisement of  adoptive children or 
potential homes for placement. States’ definitions of  “re-homing” vary, but 
generally include transferring or assisting in a transfer of  physical custody of  
a child to a non-relative without court approval with the intent of  avoiding 
permanent parental responsibility.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Criminalizing Re-Homing



28 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vi Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vi | 29 

iS Criminalizing re-Homing THe beST SoluTion? zHang

Re-homing is a newly identified problem that will require more research 
into the impacts of  the policies implemented at state levels of  government. 
Data to measure the success of  these newly adopted laws are not yet available. 
This section will, instead, examine the potential costs and benefits of  passing 
legislation to criminalize re-homing.
Benefits

Several potential benefits are derived from the criminalization of  re-
homing. They include raising public awareness, deterrence, promoting legal 
ways to terminate adoption, and protecting children. However, there are 
some limitations that might diminish the benefits in terms of  the severity 
of  the punishment and whether the law addresses the underlying problem 
behind re-homing.

Public awareness is important because, before the Reuters article and 
subsequent state responses, governments and the public knew little about 
the practice of  re-homing children. Parents generally re-home their adoptive 
children, wishing to find them a more suitable home, but are unable to imagine 
the destructive results of  this practice. The criminalization not only alerts the 
adoptive families to the dangerous consequences the children might face, but 
also reminds child welfare agencies, social workers, school teachers, and the 
public at large to be aware that a child that might be a victim of  re-homing. 

Criminalization is also a symbolic denunciation of  the practice (Frase, 
2002). The labeling of  re-homing as a crime sends a message of  a social 
judgment and classifies the practice as something that is morally wrong 
because it harms children. This judgment might reinforce public sentiment, 
which increases the awareness of  this issue and creates a relatively safe 
environment to reduce the risk of  children being re-homed.

Public awareness and the criminal penalties associated with re-homing 
are expected to deter families from re-homing adoptive children themselves. 
Conviction and sentencing are likely to reduce the future incidence of  
the criminalized practice. Reductions will likely be achieved through the 
educational effect of  general deterrence (Frase, 2002). With the punishment 
of  fines ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 and/or up to 5 years in the prison, 
re-homing can be deterred and reduced. 

The penalties associated with criminalization help to promote legal ways 
to terminate adoptions. Even if  the goals for adoption are permanency and 
stability, support and services must be provided for families that decide to 
no longer parent a child. Past practices for terminating an adoption required 
families to either to re-home the child privately or find an adoption or other 
child welfare agency to help dissolve the relationship with the adopted 



30 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vi Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vi | 31 

iS Criminalizing re-Homing THe beST SoluTion? zHang

child. The criminalization of  re-homing will mean that the only legal way 
for parents to transfer custody of  an adoptive child is to inform proper 
personnel, such as a child welfare agency or family court, and to be involved 
in a legal procedure to terminate their parental rights. Agency participation in 
the termination process allows the child welfare system to monitor adoption 
disruption and dissolution, and provides a resource for data collection. A 
formalized system for adoption termination ensures the child’s best interest 
is met and gives researchers increased ability to analyze data and find ways to 
keep adoptions permanent. 

Protecting children is the primary benefit of  criminalizing re-homing. 
Reducing the incidence of  re-homing reduces the chances of  child 
exploitation, child abuse, and child trafficking, as mentioned above. While not 
all children will be exposed to such dangerous and negative situations, the act 
of  placing a child in a new and unfamiliar environment without proper care 
from the parents and intervention from a social worker or therapist might 
still traumatize the child, causing lasting impact on the child’s development. 
This is often the case with re-homing since there is no pre-training for the 
parents and no professional assistance involved. 

Despite the benefits that could be expected after the criminalization, 
there are some limitations. When the punishment is not severe enough, 
the effectiveness of  criminalization will be undermined. For example, 
according to Reuters, children with special needs are much more vulnerable 
than healthy kids to re-homing (Twohey, 2013). One major reason for this 
susceptibility is that the family invests more emotionally and financially on 
a child with special needs, and does so without much support. The average 
cost of  residential care in Tennessee is approximately $65,000 per year, 
compared with the average adoption subsidy of  $4,824 per year (The Evan 
B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2010). Although the fine is a maximum of  
$10,000, desperate parents might take the risk to re-home because the cost 
of  child care is much higher.

In addition, simply outlawing re-homing does not solve the underlying 
causes of  the problem. To prevent the family from re-homing, it is essential 
to have parents prepared for adoption and to make access to post-adoption 
services easier. The accessibility of  these services means that when the family 
finds itself  trapped in relational and functional crises during the process, 
they can quickly identify affordable and effective services that address their 
challenges, such as counseling and therapy, support groups, respite care, and 
educational and information resources (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 
2012). Moreover, it also means the parents feel comfortable reaching out to 
professionals or agencies when they are making a decision about whether to 



30 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vi Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vi | 31 

iS Criminalizing re-Homing THe beST SoluTion? zHang

continue to parent their adoptive child.
Costs

Despite the benefits criminalizing re-homing might bring, it is 
acknowledged that there are also substantial costs to the criminalization 
of  re-homing. Criminalization has the potential to scare away prospective 
adoptive parents and leave more children in the foster care system or worse 
situations, especially children with special needs. If  so, the potential decrease 
in prospective adoptive parents will result in fewer adoptions, which leaves 
more children in need in the foster care system and generates considerable 
financial costs for the government. 

The foster care reimbursement fee is higher than an adoption subsidy. In 
a 3-year study, Barth, Lee, Wildfire and Guo (2006) pointed out that in North 
Carolina, the average adoption subsidy cost is approximately $9,000. The 
average long-term foster care reimbursement, conversely, is about $14,893 
per child. In another study, the total maintenance (reimbursement fee) and 
administrative costs per child annually in the foster care system were $25,782; 
the total of  adoption assistance payments and administrative costs per child 
annually were $10,302 (Zill, 2011). Adoptive parents are more likely to work 
full time and are less likely to rely on public welfare (Zill, 2011), which costs 
the government less. 

Other public costs warrant consideration. Children who spend time in 
foster care are more likely to encounter serious challenges later in life. Children 
experiencing more time in foster care are at a higher risk for encountering 
teen pregnancy, homelessness, incarceration, mental health issues, and are less 
likely to complete their education or to find employment (Center for Family 
Representation, 2013), which can add costs to the government. A rule of  
thumb is that for every 3 months that a young child resides in an institution, 
the child loses 1 month of  development (Williamson & Greenberg, 2010). 
These all cost society more. If  criminalization discourages prospective 
adoptive parents, society will likely spend more on children in the foster care 
system who could have been adopted, although the exact number is not clear 
yet. 

Criminalization might also disproportionately affect poor families. 
The demographic information shows that a large proportion of  domestic 
adoptions from the foster care system are relative adoptions involving 
families of  lower socioeconomic status, who might have a higher chance 
of  re-homing their adoptive children due to challenges surrounding family 
capacity and condition (J. Schmidt, personal communication, November 13, 
2015).



32 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vi Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vi | 33 

iS Criminalizing re-Homing THe beST SoluTion? zHang

There are also direct costs to a community in enforcement expenditures 
and lost opportunity costs. The level of  enforcement will vary depending on 
the nature of  the crime, the pervasiveness of  the conduct, and the means 
available to detect it (Frase, 2002). However, it is obvious that these costs 
must include resources devoted to detection and punishment of  criminals, 
such as police surveillance, court costs, and imprisonment. Since re-homing 
is difficult to effectively track, it puts the burden on the police, child welfare 
system, and other related departments to investigate. 

The chilling effect of  criminalization is another potential cost that 
might drive people engaging in this behavior further underground. Families 
encountering severe problems might resort to methods outside the confines 
of  the law to re-place the children. They might take the children outside the 
United States to evade the law, sending them across the border to Canada 
or Mexico, making them harder to track as well as putting the children in a 
far more dangerous situation with few chances to be rescued. The threat of  
conviction might also make families afraid to seek help. Additionally, enacting 
criminalization laws could worsen the situations of  the children who have 
already been re-homed (i.e. confined at home), because the new family is 
afraid to let people know their child was re-homed to them. 

Another major cost of  criminalization is its effect on the family members, 
especially children, left in the home. As of  2010, 79% of  adoptive families 
have more than one child in the home. (Kreider & Lofquist, 2014). Arrest, 
prosecution, and conviction have disastrous effects on both an individual 
and a family unit (Thompson, 1989). Fines reduce whatever resources are 
available to support the family and care for the children. Imprisonment means 
that parents are not available to care and provide for the family. As such, the 
family’s children may need to resettle with relatives or the foster care system. 
Phillips and Bloom (1998) pointed out that children in the care of  relatives 
may have academic, behavioral, and emotional problems. Children whose 
parents are incarcerated may feel abandoned, angry, and worried for their 
parents, and be anxious about their own future.

Conclusion
 Adoption is intended to provide children a safe and permanent home to 

grow and develop healthily and happily. The practice of  re-homing potentially 
puts children in danger by exposing them to non-vetted families. Criminalizing 
this practice is an important step to prevent re-homing because it sends a 
message to the public, has deterrent and educative effects to regulate parents’ 
behavior, and protects children in the end. However, it also has substantial 
limits and costs. For that reason, I recommend that states that criminalize 



32 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vi Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vi | 33 

iS Criminalizing re-Homing THe beST SoluTion? zHang

re-homing take steps to mitigate the costs and target the underlying issue of  
how to improve the rate of  successful adoptions and establish strategies for 
parents when they encounter challenges. 

These additional policies could include expanded screening of  
prospective parents, increased pre-adoption preparation and family training, 
and increased access to quality post-adoption services. Strengthening the 
preparation and training that families receive prior to adoption finalization 
can improve parents’ ability to assess their readiness for adoption and build 
skills needed to meet the challenges of  raising children with special needs 

(Children’ Bureau, 2015). Affordable 
access to high-quality post-adoption 
services makes a critical difference in 
the long-term success of  adoptions 
(Congressional Coalition on Adoption 
Institute, 2013). Adoptive families 
benefit greatly from counseling 
services, support groups, and respite 

services (Jordan,2015). These pre-adoption and post-adoption services 
promote better outcomes for both the child and family and help them move 
toward permanency.

References
Barth, R. P., Lee, C. K., Wildfire, J., & Guo, S. (2006). A comparison of  the governmental costs of  long-

term foster care and adoption. Social Service Review, 80 (1), 127-158. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/stable/10.1086/499339?pq-origsite=summon&

Burdick, L. (2015). Five States Act to Prevent Dangerous Adoption ‘Re-Homing’ Practice. 
FOSTER COALITION. Retrieved from http://www.fostercoalition.com/#!Five-States-
Act-to-Prevent-Dangerous-Adoption-%E2%80%98ReHoming%E2%80%99-Practice/
c1oq3/5525ea5e0cf2aa1811934463

Center for Family representation. (2013) Foster Care Facts. Retrieved from https://www.cfrny.org/news-
blog/foster-care-facts/

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012) Finding and Using Postadoption Services. Retrieved from  
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/f_postadoption.pdf

Children’ Bureau. (2015). Responding to Rehoming: Protecting Children & Strengthening Adoptive 
Families. Retrieved from http://voice-for-adoption.org/sites/default/files/Final%20Joint%20
Statement_Responding%20to%20Rehoming-Protecting%20Children%20Strengthening%20
Adoptive%20Families.pdf

COLO. REV. STAT. § 19-5-213.5 (4) (2014).
Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. (2013). CCAI Response to Reuters “Re-homing” Series: An 

Opportunity for Reflection and Reform. Retrieved from http://ccainstituteblog.org/2013/11/15/
ccai-response-to-reuters-re-homing-series-an-opportunity-for-reflection-and-reform/

Cousins, C. (2015). Bill to outlaw ‘rehoming’ of  adopted children to become law. Bangor Daily News Maine. 
Retrieved from http://bangordailynews.com/2015/07/03/news/state/bill-to-outlaw-rehoming-
of-adopted-children-to-become-law/

Frase, R.S. (2002). Criminalization and Decriminalization. In Encyclopedia of  Crime and Justice. Retrieved 

“Additional policies could 
include expanded screening of 

prospective parents, increased pre-
adoption preparation and family 
training, and increased access to 
quality post-adoption services.”



34 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii | 35 

from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403000069.html
Hickman, C. (2015). Hickman’s Bill To Prohibit Rehoming Becomes Law in Maine. Retrieved from http://

hickmaninthehouse.blogspot.com/2015/07/hickmans-bill-to-prohibit-rehoming.html
Hardy, B. (2015). A child left unprotected. Arkansas Times. Arktimes. Retrieved from http://www.

arktimes.com/arkansas/a-child-left-unprotected/Content?oid=3691164
Jordan, J. (2015). There’s No Place Like Home: Overhauling Adoption Procedure to Protect Adoptive 

Children. The Journal of  Gender, Race & Justice, 18(237).
Langevin, J (2015). To ensure the safety and well-being of  adopted children. H.R.2068. 
Kreider R. M. and Lofquist D. A., (2010). Adopted Children and Stepchildren. U.S. Department of  

Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU. Retrieved from 
https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-572.pdf

Phillips, S., & Bloom, B. (1998). In whose best interest? The impact of  changing public policy 
on relatives caring for children with incarcerated parents. Child Welfare, 77(5), 531-41. 
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/
docview/213804632?accountid=10226

Riben, M. (2015). Is Criminalizing Rehoming the Best Solution? Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/mirah-riben/is-criminalizing-rehoming-the-best-solution_b_6980944.
html

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, (2010). KEEPING THE PROMISE: The Critical Need for Post-
Adoption Services to Enable Children and Families to Succeed. Retrieved from  http://aap.uchc.edu/events/
pdfs/keeping_promise_10_20_2010.pdf

Thompson, E. (1989). The Criminalization of  Maternal Conduct during Pregnancy: A Decision Making 
Model for Lawyers. Indiana Law Journal. Volume 64 | Issue 2. Retrieved from http://www.repository.
law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=ilj

Twohey, M., (2013). The Child Exchange. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/investigates/
adoption/#article/part1

Williamson J. and Greenberg A., (2010). Families, Not Orphanages. Better Care Network Working Paper. 
Retrieved from http://www.thinkchildsafe.org/thinkbeforevisiting/resources/Families_Not_
Orphanages_J_Williamson.pdf

WIS. STAT. § 48.979 (1m) (g) (2013)
Zill N., (2011). Better Prospects, Lower Cost: The Case for Increasing Foster Care Adoption. Adoption 

Advocate. No 35. National Council for Adoption. Barth, R. P., Lee, C. K., Wildfire, J., & Guo, S. 
(2006). A comparison of  the governmental costs of  long-term foster care and adoption. Social 
Service Review, 80 (1), 127-158. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/
stable/10.1086/499339?pq-origsite=summon&

Yunqi Zhang is an MSW student with a concentration in social welfare policy, at 
the School of  Social Work at Columbia University (CSSW). She is currently working 
as a policy intern at Hague Intercountry Adoption Department at Council on 
Accreditation. Yunqi is dedicated to promoting international students’ and Asian-
Pacific students’ rights, and improving their learning experience at CSSW. She is also 
committed to child welfare and minority rights in all contexts. She also worked at 
several human service agencies and NGOs both in China and the United States. She 
is interested in promoting social work education and a social welfare system in China.




