[mbbbb]

There are essentially zero kids "available" to adopt outside of foster care. And foster care is (correctly imo) focused on reuniting children with their parents when possible, so the typical case of adoption being possible is when the parents are truly unsafe.

[jvanderbot]

This. Foster agencies lead you to believe that fostering leads to adoption. It gets more people into the system (more $ for them!). But the state's goals are to reunite children with their parents or a relative. Even movies that feature fostering in a realistic way often end with adoption, which is completely unrealistic.

It almost never actually happens that children you foster will go to adoption, since it is literally a last resort. Even if a child ends up in adoption, it will be years later and probably with someone else since those children are the worst case scenarios and are routinely replaced with family before re-entering the system.

[aidenn0]

California, for kids under 3 is a bit of an exception. The laws have changed to favor permanency ASAP (which means about 2 years) and it's usually this order of priority:

1. Reunification

2. Adoption by Kin

3. Adoption by someone else

All 3 of the foster kids we adopted were under 3 when they entered the system. One reunified, and then was placed back with us a year later.