In an EXCELLENT post by Coco, a natural mother of a child in an open adoption, recognizing that her good fortune was not devine intervention, but just the luck of the draw.
In "The Question of God in Adoption" Coco challenges the belief that God ordained for some to be parents of a child born to another and paid for by them via baby brokers or adoption agency businesses, albeit (not-for-profit but making enough to remain in business and pay salaries by redistributing children).
In doing so, she of course must question how a God who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient would allow for such adopted parents He hand-selected to abuse or even kill children placed in their care? After all, these kids were not born to them by "accident."
A bottom line for me, not mentioned by Coco is this: If God wanted these people to have children. why not simply give them the gift they really want: fertility (after all, God is said yo have "opened the wombs" Sarah, Hanah and of several other previously barren woman) and allow them to have a child truly of their own and give the mothers of every child born to them what they need to remain together?
The religiosity of God's hand in removing bastard children from one mother and handing them over to another, is about punishing immorality and rewarding the righteous. It entails buying into puritanical, Victorian beliefs of purity and judge poor, husbandless women as unfit, which of course is totally contrary to Jesus' teachings. (I have only just begun reading "Of Sluts and "Bastards" (1995) by Louise Armstrong and cannot recommend it highly enough. More on that as I work my way through it.) But I wanted to thank Coco for her thoughtful view on this subject.
More on religion and adoption here.http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/2010/07/update-on-religion-and-adoption.html