Explain Something To Me Please...

This is only based on my own perception and I do not have anything to back my suspicion. Perhaps while adopting the child now becomes your full responsibility and then social services is really not involved in any future issues with the child after it is adopted. So therefore, the legal age for adoption is 18 as they feel at 18 a person can be able to take care of a child. Where as while fostering a child, the child is still under the protection and covet of the system, so therefore they must have the legal age of 21 in order for the state to consider sending benefits. However the more I typed above the less I can understand as even this being so it still makes no sense when it comes to age. But perhaps there is some sense to insurance and liability so that is why I believe that at least the fostering of my answers may be true. Most times I feel that our systems are whacky anyways.

I think it has something to do with the fact that many people that go for adoption of child are siblings or family. They make it possible for them to be adopted by family and many times it's a sibling and they have to wait until they are legally an adult. Also adoption is forever...fostering is for the most part temparary. People are an adult at the age of 18.

A person is a legal adult at 18, and you sometimes hear about older siblings or cousins adopting younger sibs or cousins for various reasons. But foster parents are something that can be licensed and that can have more rules attached.

You were looking at a Child Crises Center. To foster a child from a Crises Center would be more difficult than adopting. An adopted child becomes one of the family, while a Foster child is simply cared for, while waiting to be returned back to a family, or adopted into a new family.

That does seem odd... I have no idea why that is. It's the same in the state I live, as well has a handful of other states. I know that besides the minimum age requirement to adopt, you also have to be at least 10 years older than the child you're adopting (so an 18 year old wouldn't be allowed to adopt a 16 year old) So maybe the age limit to adopt is lower than the age limit to foster because the average age of children in the foster-care program is older than the average age of children that are adopted in the state? I honestly have no idea! That's the only reason I could come up with!

An adopted child MIGHT be a relative. A foster child might come with more baggage from a bad homelife and might need a more mature parent.

It does seem a little backwards. At least as a foster parent you would be checked on.

Imagine if parents were killed in a car accident and the children become orphans. If there is an 18 year old child, that person is then able to adopt the younger siblings rather than aunts, uncles or grandparents having to be brought into the picture. The children can stay together in the family home. I'm pretty sure no 18 year old is going to want ot adopt a child otherwise.

It seems backwards to me, too. Many rules are based on supply and demand. Many people are willing to foster-short time commitment. Few people are willing to adopt-long time commitment.

That seems backward to me also, I thought it would be the other way around. I actually think that both ages are too young though. I know that people can be successful parents at that age, but I think that most people are still not all that mature when it comes to giving their time selflessly to others at that young age. Perhaps 30 would be a more appropriate age? I think it would.

That is pretty backwards. I live in AZ as well, and as I'm sure you've noticed, not the only backwards thing about this state. did you know that there are NO sororities in AZ because there's a law still in effect not allowing more than 10 women to live together, or its considered a brothel! I just found this out recently! CRAZY! ;]