Blogpost #12, option A

I thought all the presentations were great, and they further developed our understanding of the breath of ethical issues in adoption. The topic of parents’ mental health state added a new dimension to adoption ethics that we have not talked about. Some presentations took conflicting sides, such as closed or open adoption. I thought it was great to see the different perspectives, and I respect each point. I enjoyed hearing Michael’s presentation about how adoption is generally an oppressive act. I thought it sounded harsh at first, but I can see his point after his presentation. In the Iris Young reading, powerless is one of the five faces of oppression. Adoption does put the adoptee at a powerless state. They do not have a say whether or not they want to stay with their birth families, whether or not they want to be adopted or who they get to be adopted by. To say that adoption is bad is wrong, but I do believe it does bestow a sense of powerlessness on the adoptee. However, the powerlessness is inevitable. It is part the situation in which the adoptee is in. 

Powerless seemed to be a major ethical issue in adoption because it was brought up in many presentation. For example, the presentation on open versus closed adoption included this form of oppression as an ethical issue. Another presentation topic that included powerless was transracial adoption. Transracial adoption is such a big category. I liked how the students who covered it had different aspects.

Overall, the presentations really showed me that adoption is a very ethical issue. Prior to the class, I did not realize or think about adoption as being a heated topic. From our class readings and class discussion, I have been enlighten to see all the areas within adoption that are controversial. I have also realized that there are so many sides to every ethical issue, and the criteria used to judge the ethical aspects are different in every scenario. 

Blog Post #12, Option 2

I would like to write this post as a feedback to Michael's ethics research paper idea.

I think Michael has a very good starting idea but he needs to be careful where he takes it. As we mentioned in class, he really needs to be careful with the language he uses to explain his side of it. After listening to his presentation in class, his argument seemed to come down to the main point that all adoptees are oppressed by their adoptive parents whether or not their adoptive parents intend to do so. The main question I have then is how can we be sure that it is the adoptive parents that are the oppressors? If adoptive parents don't really have control over the oppression of their child, could that mean that there is a third factor that is actually causing the oppression? Or is there a better option that would cause less oppression than the actual act of adoption?

In my opinion, every child experiences some form of oppression at some point in their life, regardless of whether they were adopted or not. We have all been powerless to some extent until we reach a certain age. Now, that is not to say that adoptees don't experience a different form of powerlessness, because I know they do, but is that really to be blamed on the adoptive parents, or is it more the responsibility of the birth parents or adoption agency? I know that Eldridge gives the impression that it is the adoptive parents who are to blame for this lack of voice, but I think it is important to address that there are some things that adoptive parents can do to lessen this oppression. Adoption inevitably oppresses the child right from the beginning by instating that first form of loss and it is the job of the adoptive parents to learn how to reverse some of that oppression and introduce a warm and loving environment. I do think that some adoptive parents fail to do this and that certainly can cause more harm than good, but most adoptive parents try to figure out how they can help to the best of their abilities.

That said, I think Michael has a good intention with this paper, but he just needs to be careful with the wording he uses for the accusations he makes against the adoptive parents.

Blog Post #11

                I have to admit; when I was younger I assumed foster care was a great thing. I remember at time when I was angry with my mother and I told her I was going to go find a foster family who loved me. My impractical perception was derived from the media. I watched films such as, Free Willy and I am Sam which demonstrated the positive side on foster care. The foster parents had demonstrated great hospitality and love. Now that I think about it, it was a ridiculous remark because foster care is not a great experience like the films indicated. Bess O’Brien’s film, Ask Us Who We Are: Foster Care in Vermont, does a great job in highlighting the positive and negative perspectives on foster care. A lot of these young adults had a bad experience; meanwhile a few did have the happy ending. I thought it was important that the film depicted the process that occurred with foster care. For instance, going into details on how the young adults were removed or how they felt living in a stranger’s house. These emotions accounted for the hardships and struggles that occurred when dealing with foster care.

                The two speakers in class presented different perspectives on foster care. Kaitlin’s foster care was a kinship one, and it was something that I can relate to because in my culture it is not common to see a child living with a stranger. Instead, they would end up being passed among the family members.  Jessie’s story was a great one. Although he had a bad experience when he lived with his permanent foster care, it was great to know that when he was younger he had witnessed the love and care he deserved from his first set of foster parents. The story of how he was placed with his permanent family was dreadful, and the experience he had when they moved to a different state. This makes me question how well the government is protecting these children. Roberts (2002) points out that “scholars interested in protecting families from state domination should acknowledge that foster care constitutes a form of state supervision of poor children and that adoption often involves a government disruption of their relationships with their parents” ( pg. 117). I agree with her because the relationship a child have with their parents is the most important thing, and if the government believes that the parents are not fit, they need to still achieve that relationship in children and foster parents. I think that the government should not only focus on who the bad parents are, but they should place an intensive procedure for foster parents. Just like what adoptive parents have to go through, these foster parents should be able to be questioned and screened to be the best of the best because they will be responsible for these vulnerable children.  

-          MAI NHIA.

Blog Post #11

In going through today's readings, I couldn't help but think about our two guest speakers from last week. Both Caitlin and Jesse had very interesting stories to tell which were significantly different from any story we have read about so far.

Jesse's story surprised me the most. First of all, I was surprised to hear that he had 8 other biological sisters. From the age of 2-11, he was in and out of his home, bouncing around to group homes and foster homes. I really like how he mentioned that even though he was constantly moving, it was still a functional family to him. There was always a familiar face wherever he went and he knew that he was loved. I connected this to part of our reading today when Roberts says, "Foster parents were described as 'loving caregivers' who are unfairly prevented by biological parents' rights from developing stable relationships with the children they take in" (113). Though he also did love his biological family, it seemed like his foster family was his true "home." It was interesting to then hear that he was not allowed to be adopted by his foster family since the parents were too old. Instead, he was adopted by a single mother in MN within a week. Roberts says, "Congress assumed that permanence and safety came from adoption, not from reunifying children with their parents" (113). Jesse's story is a bit different since his mother was dead and his father was no longer in the picture, but the adoption that he experienced was probably the worst option for him. I was mainly just surprised to hear that this woman was even granted the ability to adopt in thinking about all of the policies and procedures that need to be taken care of before adoptions today. Clearly, this adoption was not good for him and he would have been much better off staying in foster care.

Caitlin's story on the other hand is much different from that of Jesse's. She was only in foster care for the first 2 years of her life but it ended up working the way it was supposed to. I think her story can relate the most to Roberts's thoughts on terminating parental rights and losing patience with substance-abusing parents. The main problem with Caitlin's story is that her mom kept leaving her at foster care agencies while the rest of her family just wanted her to sign over her rights so that one of them could adopt Caitlin. Roberts says, "Terminating parental rights is seen, in the words of Senator Chafee, as ' the critical first step in moving children into permanent placements'" (150). Everything worked out in the end for Caitlin, but her family certainly went through some rough spots during that time.

The main question that I thought of after the speakers last class was about Caitlin's story. She mentioned at one point that her name used to be Haley. My question is why was her name changed, and at what point in her life did that happen?

Blog post #10

Today’s readings made me question Roberts’s point that the child welfare system is racist. I believe that the system is racist to some degree. However, now I believe that the systematic process of the welfare system is a significant factor as to why there are a large amount of black children are taken from their homes and placed in foster care or adoption. Roberts talks about how the welfare system has gone through changes and that the new focus of welfare is harmful. She states, “ Its orientation has shifted from emphasizing the reunification of children in foster care with their biological families toward support for the adoption of these children into new families” (105). Proponents of this way of thinking advocate that permanency is important to a child’s well being, even if it means taking a child away from his/her birth parents. Roberts writes about the amount of time allocated to parents to get their stuff together before their parental rights are terminated. Roberts believes the shift toward adoption has decreased the amount of time given to parents. She states, “Termination of parental rights is the most extreme measure judges an impose in abuse and neglect cases. It permanently severs the legal ties between parent and child, ending the parent’s physical custody, as well as the rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain custody of the child” (109). Roberts argues that the decision to terminate a parent’s rights to their child is often made too fast. This leads me to question is there a specific amount of time that parents should be given before their parental rights are terminated? What is considered too short of time or too long of time? My personal take on these questions is that there is no specific number because these cases are not black and white. Adoption is not the right solution for every situation, but it is not the wrong answer either. Each case is a different shade of gray. The focus needs to be on the child – not the biological parents, foster parents, prospective parents or the incentives offered to keep children in foster homes or place them for adoption. 

Blog Post 10, Option 1

I believe that Roberts did a very good job in supporting most of the claims that she made. She references many different studies and research professionals throughout her writing. She also doesn't just site one source but provides several examples for each new idea.

The first place I think she does very well with this is on pages 16-19 when she talks about the separation of children from their parents. She states, "The child protection philosophy that has reigned for the past three decades has served Black families poorly. The worst part of this punitive approach is that it unnecessarily separates Black children from their parents." Roberts supports this with a "national study of child protective services by the U.S. Departmetn of Health and Human Services [which] reported that 'minority children, and in particular African American children, are more likely to be in foster care placement than receive in-home services, even when they have the same problems and characteristics as white children'" (Roberts, pg. 17). She later states that "the most critical choice they (caseworkers) make is whether to remove the child from the home or to provide services to the family while keeping it intact" (Roberst, pg. 17). This separation causes a lot of pain and trauma to the child. Roberts quotes the director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, Richard Wexler, "Children do not oblige us by hating their parents the way we may think they should. Often, neglected children love their parents just as much as our children love us. Tearing children from their parents almost always leaves emotional scars" (Roberts, pg. 18). She also quotes Seth Farber, a psychologist, "One does not need to be a child psychologist to realize the devastating effect of removing a child from parents with whom he or she is deeply bonded" (Roberts, pg. 18). Though Roberts is making strong claims, she is successfully supporting them with numerous reliable sources.

I also really liked the way Roberts explains the relationship of poverty and the child welfare system. She explains it as a "parallel" or correlation, but not necessarily a causation. She says, "Why is the child welfare system filled with poor children? There are three types of associations between poverty and child maltreatment: maltreatment may be indirectly caused by parental poverty, detected because of parental poverty, or defined by parental poverty" (Roberts, pg. 27). Roberts then breaks them down into the three different types and explains them in more detail with her sources. 

Overall, I think that Roberts is very strong in supporting her claims. Nothing stuck out to me as questionable or unsupported within these first 3 chapters of Part 1. I like how she uses her own words but also pulls together countless outside resources to support what she says.

Blog Post 10: Option 2

         In her book, Shattered Bonds, Dorothy Roberts examined the child welfare system and points out factors that continue to increase racial disparities among it. Poverty is a factor that Roberts account to on numerous cases.  Roberts notes, “most children reported to the child welfare system are poor, and Black children are more likely to live in poverty than children of other groups” (Roberts, 2002, pg. 26). This exemplifies that black people are still located at the bottom in regards to both welfare system and poverty. In another case, Roberts points out that “the percentage of Black children who ever lived in poverty while growing up is about the same as the percentage of white children who never did” (Roberts, 2002, pg. 46). This is quite sad to know that Black children are commonly stuck in poverty as many White children are privileged. I definitely think that poverty is a strong issue in this situation and I think this is so because of the bad connotations with the term ‘poverty’. When we think of children in poverty we do not expect bright futures from these children, we expect gang involvement and/ or early parenthood. This bad image on poverty creates the government to narrow their interest in on lower income neighborhood and use their power to take these children away.

                Poverty continues to be a dominant factor as Roberts described another factor as neglect. Neglect and poverty are intertwined since she states “but the huge role of neglect in the child welfare system is a far cry from the public perception of the problem of child maltreatment –as mainly extreme physical abuse –and has much more to do with poverty than the public is willing to acknowledge” (Roberts, 2002, pg. 34). This idea of neglect is understandable in poverty because these parents may be unable to hire a babysitter or send a child to daycare; hence they reluctantly resort to leaving their child unattended. Negligence is definitely an issue that is not just prevalent in families living in poverty; however it is quickly associated with poverty because we assume that these parents are either drug abusers or alcoholics and thus are too busy for their child. The problem here that needs to be examined is moving beyond poverty, beyond our incomes and to identify other scenarios where negligence is probably another issue.  

-          MAI NHIA.