Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will say that there's also a federal law--the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)--that explicitly allows the consideration of race in some adoption and placement cases.
In my experience as an adopting parent, social workers have been mostly liberal for decades -- and I think this is especially true for public agencies (i.e., county departments of human services).
From what I have read, I would think it would be virtually impossible for strongly conservative people to adopt from a government-run agency these days. I have read that perspective parents are now questioned about their attitudes toward the LGBTQ community in some counties, to name just one example, although I do not know if this is actually true. What I do know is that 25 years ago, any prospective parent had to agree to allow the birth parents to continue to be in their children's lives to at least some extent, no matter who "bad" the birth parent was; this policy had extremely bad ramifications both for us andfor our kids. (So bad that if we had known what would happen, we never would have adopted at all.)
I think it was well-intentioned, but that it sometimes hurts more than it helps. Ultimately, though, I argue that it's unconstitutional, regardless of whether one supports the act or not from a policy perspective.
I used to work in Indian Country and am intimately familiar with ICWA, including how it operates in federal and state courts as well as within tribal courts. It was very interesting to see the act up close and personal in operation.
What I do know is that 25 years ago, any prospective parent had to agree to allow the birth parents to continue to be in their children's lives to at least some extent, no matter who "bad" the birth parent was; this policy had extremely bad ramifications both for us andfor our kids. (So bad that if we had known what would happen, we never would have adopted at all.)
There are reasons why we adopted internationally. This is one of the big ones.
Maybe I'm missing something, but to me this sounds like two different issues. As I understand it, MEPA is designed to ensure that race is not a factor in adoption placements. For example, an agency can't say "You're white, so we will not allow you to adopt this black child." But surely it doesn't prohibit an agency from saying (again, for example), "You're white, so here are some resources that we believe will help you to parent your black child." Surely MEPA would not preclude this second scenario, would it?
In my experience as an adopting parent, social workers have been mostly liberal for decades -- and I think this is especially true for public agencies (i.e., county departments of human services).
From what I have read, I would think it would be virtually impossible for strongly conservative people to adopt from a government-run agency these days. I have read that perspective parents are now questioned about their attitudes toward the LGBTQ community in some counties, to name just one example, although I do not know if this is actually true. What I do know is that 25 years ago, any prospective parent had to agree to allow the birth parents to continue to be in their children's lives to at least some extent, no matter who "bad" the birth parent was; this policy had extremely bad ramifications both for us andfor our kids. (So bad that if we had known what would happen, we never would have adopted at all.)
One of the factors in our adopting internationally.
In my experience as an adopting parent, social workers have been mostly liberal for decades -- and I think this is especially true for public agencies (i.e., county departments of human services).
From what I have read, I would think it would be virtually impossible for strongly conservative people to adopt from a government-run agency these days. I have read that perspective parents are now questioned about their attitudes toward the LGBTQ community in some counties, to name just one example, although I do not know if this is actually true. What I do know is that 25 years ago, any prospective parent had to agree to allow the birth parents to continue to be in their children's lives to at least some extent, no matter who "bad" the birth parent was; this policy had extremely bad ramifications both for us andfor our kids. (So bad that if we had known what would happen, we never would have adopted at all.)
Its been well over twenty years since we last adopted. I am liberal rather than conservative. However, even than I was disturbed by some behavior that I observed with social workers in the adoption process. I concluded that many who worked in this field were quite opposed to adoption even when it is conducted in the most ethical way possible. I believe social work is a field that is too guided by personal opinion and not guided enough by actual hard concrete data. However, I observed situations where social workers guiding the adoption process would deliberately set after couples that they didn't like for one reason or another and attempt to drive them out of programs. I could never put my finger on why they took a dislike to certain people, but if they did they could make your life pretty difficult.
I suppose we were fortunate in that the birthparents for both our children were actually good people who just didn't want to raise children. I never minded talking to them and having them in our lives to some degree. We still correspond with one another now that the kids have grown up and left home. Both our kids are doing well. My son got his degree in accounting and works for a local firm. My daughter lives with her spouse in San Antonio, works, and is enjoying herself immeasurably.
None of this negates the fact though that many contacts I had with social workers during this process seemed mean, condescending, and judgmental. I long for a system that is not only considerate of adoptees and birth parents, but of adoptive parents as well.
I see this as another way adoption agencies control who adopts. There are a large number of couples that would like to adopt, but the agencies does NOT want to sign off. They continue to prefer long term foster care as a permanency solution over adoption.
Agencies insist that it's in the child's best interest to remain in their local community where they experienced abuse/neglect. As a result very few foster adoptions happen across state line. Agencies/social workers insist they need to rate hopeful adoptive couples as to how culturally sensitive they are or rate communities for their number of cultural mirrors/resources. Lastly, there is a fundamental conflict of interest in the foster care system. Their funding is directly tied to the number of children in care. More children in care, the more social workers, group homes, etc. they can fund via their budgeting process.
You are so right! We adopted 35 years ago. For three years we tried to work with the State of Kansas. We would ask about those children portrayed on TV and the Sunday newspaper as looking for a family. It was impossible, despite how determined I was, to break one of those children out of foster care.
We finally adopted an infant with Down syndrome from a private agency in KS using a combination of two agencies and a facilitator.
Several years later, again in KS, we saw a boy, about 10 or 11 at the time, slightly younger than our son at that time, and we asked about him. We got information, but the foster parents didn't want to let him be adopted. The mother wanted to adopt him, but the father did not. Well, the State decided to put him in permanent foster care with the family. We had an approved homestudy and experience with a child with Down syndrome!
We once asked about a 4 year old child whose mother's rights had been terminated, but not the father's rights at that time. We were told we could foster him, but he would need weekly visits with his father who was in prison. They said with the reason the father was in prison, it was unlikely that he would be allowed to keep his rights. We passed on that. The child had Fragile X syndrome, and was so cute.
I asked about so many of the children. We did not specify a race, were willing to take a child up to age 10, and with developmental and/or physical disabilities. It was heartbreaking to understand that work count was more important than placing a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
In my (vicarious) experience, this is true, but the main reason foster children are not adopted is that the courts refuse to terminate parental rights. The deadbeat, abusive, addicted parents are given chance after chance to "clean up" and "shape up" while their kids stay in foster care permanently. As you said, it's all about the money.
I do have friends whose whose two foster children (siblings) were removed from them and given to another family. These little girls' brother was also taken from his previous foster and given to the third family. My friends had offered to take the boy as well, but they were denied. The reason given was that it was better for the group to be adopted by a family who was "new" to all three of them. My friends suspect that part of the reason they were denied is that they are Asian but the kids are white. But at least, they actually were all adopted.
There are racists everywhere. We told our first social worker that we were fine with adopting a child of any race. She went crazy. She was black and said that her son was dating a white woman, and then she went off the deep end.
When we were called about our son being available, we didn't even ask about race as we had said it didn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
Which is a good thing. The ICWA, I mean.
For the most part yes, but not when it interferes to the point that a child sits in foster care for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis
In my experience as an adopting parent, social workers have been mostly liberal for decades -- and I think this is especially true for public agencies (i.e., county departments of human services).
From what I have read, I would think it would be virtually impossible for strongly conservative people to adopt from a government-run agency these days. I have read that perspective parents are now questioned about their attitudes toward the LGBTQ community in some counties, to name just one example, although I do not know if this is actually true. What I do know is that 25 years ago, any prospective parent had to agree to allow the birth parents to continue to be in their children's lives to at least some extent, no matter who "bad" the birth parent was; this policy had extremely bad ramifications both for us andfor our kids. (So bad that if we had known what would happen, we never would have adopted at all.)
I do bet it has really changed, and not for the better of the majority of children. Our son's birth parents were not interested in remaining in his life, and we would not have adopted if that were the case. I did not want to be raising a child with all the ups and downs to have birth parents drop by for the good times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
There are reasons why we adopted internationally. This is one of the big ones.
Yes, I can understand that. I know some that adopt internationally get some static, but I doubt it would rarely come from anyone that tried to negotiate "the adoption maze" in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Its been well over twenty years since we last adopted. I am liberal rather than conservative. However, even than I was disturbed by some behavior that I observed with social workers in the adoption process. I concluded that many who worked in this field were quite opposed to adoption even when it is conducted in the most ethical way possible. I believe social work is a field that is too guided by personal opinion and not guided enough by actual hard concrete data. However, I observed situations where social workers guiding the adoption process would deliberately set after couples that they didn't like for one reason or another and attempt to drive them out of programs. I could never put my finger on why they took a dislike to certain people, but if they did they could make your life pretty difficult.
I suppose we were fortunate in that the birthparents for both our children were actually good people who just didn't want to raise children. I never minded talking to them and having them in our lives to some degree. We still correspond with one another now that the kids have grown up and left home. Both our kids are doing well. My son got his degree in accounting and works for a local firm. My daughter lives with her spouse in San Antonio, works, and is enjoying herself immeasurably.
None of this negates the fact though that many contacts I had with social workers during this process seemed mean, condescending, and judgmental. I long for a system that is not only considerate of adoptees and birth parents, but of adoptive parents as well.
I think some of the issue is that sometimes a family isn't in the social class that the social worker finds suitable. One of our good social workers said that a family she placed with didn't really look like front cover material, but they were the absolute best parents. A lot of social workers would have blocked them out.
Our first social worker said that the children we were choosing were not right for us, because we needed a child that could put on his own coat and run out and play. I saw her one day in the library as I pushed my toddler son with DS in a stroller. She didn't say a word. She stared at me.
It is unfortunate, but many people have prejudices that they cannot get past, even against the children that they are supposed to be working for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
