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.

Blog Post 9 Option 1

First of all, Dorothy Roberts is very critical of the foster care systems in America today.  She brings forward extremely relevant arguments, but what I dislike most about her writing is that she sheds no light on things that the foster care system does right.  Yes, I agree with her that the foster care system punishes poor black families, and she uses many examples and statistics to support this claim, however, I believe that there must be something that the foster care system is doing right in order for it to exist. 

Roberts points out that “child maltreatment in poor families is more likely to be detected than those of middle class families” (pg. 32).  The proportion of single black mothers living in poverty significantly outweighs the number of Hispanic and white mothers that also live in poverty.  Also, the families living in poverty are highly monitored versus families who are not.  She uses a great example of the racism in the welfare system by telling a story about a woman who was living in an apartment with her children and suffered the unexpected death of one of her children.  Since the woman was living in such poor conditions, and beer cans were found in her apartment, along with her children occasionally going to school without having eaten breakfast, her other children were taken from her.  She goes on to state that if a white family were to unexpectedly suffer the loss one of their children, the state would sympathize with the family.  I remember plenty of times growing up and wanting to sleep in as late as I could and skipping breakfast before school.  I do not believe this is neglect.  Good enough example?

Roberts also points out black children often remain in foster care twice as long as white children do.  She also says that the language around how Americans view poverty is corrupt.  So far, her reading has exposed me to a lot of negative functions of the foster care system and how it is highly racist towards blacks.  A lot of the statistics that Roberts uses are very complex and hard to understand though.  I find myself re-reading many of them to comprehend the overwhelming imbalance of blacks in the foster care and welfare systems.  Overall, I enjoyed the reading.     

Brandon Kasper

Blog post #9, Option 1

Roberts’s book is constructed of strong claims. Roberts does a satisfying job at supporting her claim with numerous case studies and statistics. The facts come from credible sources, like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and state studies. Roberts provides statistics of foster care to show that the child welfare system is designed to monitor, regulate and punish poor black families. She states that black children make up practically half of the foster care population, remain in foster care longer, receive fewer services and are less likely to be returned to their home or be adopted by families compared to white children (vi). Roberts is a believer that the child welfare system focuses on black children. She states that “Clearly, child welfare authorities consider foster care a last resort when it comes to white families” (9). Instead, child welfare services handle white family problems with less disruptive measures than foster care. I think that this is a valid statement, but Roberts fails to explain why this is so. Why is it that the child welfare system is designed for black families? She attempts to answer the question by saying that “government authorities appear to believe that maltreatment of Black children results from pathologies intrinsic to their homes and that helping them requires dislocating them front their families” (17).  But why is those so? Roberts does a good job showing HOW the welfare system is designed for black families. The story of a case in Iowa where a child was placed in foster care because the home was too filthy (37). Roberts points out that if it were a white family, the court would have provided the mom with services to help clean the house, rather than taking the child away. This case shows Roberts’s strongest evidence – that the child welfare system fails to solve the underlying causes that tend to face black families, which are poverty, housing problems and lack of child care (21). Instead, child welfare’s solution is to place the child in foster care, which is something that happens to white children far less often. 

Blog Post #8

1)     I am interested in looking further into the perspective of the adoptee on “powerlessness” in response to the book I read by Sherrie Eldridge called “Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew.” I am interested to see if this feeling of powerlessness is fairly common among adoptees. Eldridge had a very negative outlook on adoption so I am interested in seeing if that is a shared feeling or if she is over exaggerating.

2)     I think the main ethical concept for this topic would be oppression, specifically powerlessness. I could also look into the rights of the adoptee in regards to different issues like open adoption.

3)     I know a few different people who were adopted, so I was thinking of interviewing them to get their perspectives and then possibly trying to find a few other memoirs from adoptees on the same topic. I also know some families who have younger kids that they adopted so I could also ask them about different ideas that their children have shared with them.

4)     5. I think this would be very interesting to look into more, but it could be a bit too broad.

5)     If I don’t end up with this as my topic, I was also possibly interested in transracial adoption.

Blog post #8

1)   I am thinking about writing about the ethical issue of transracial adoption for my final research project. This is an interesting topic because we’ve heard many perspectives of transracial adoption in class. Adam Pertman believes that transracial adoption is a good thing, while Kim Park Nelson paints a bleak image of transracial adoption. The book that I read for my book report took a negative approach on transracial adoption. The book raised some good points about the downfalls of transracial adoption which inspired me to search for the benefits and positive aspects of transracial adoption. Negative viewpoints on transracial adoption that I’ve read about thus far include that it results in identity confusion for the adoptee, that it’s “cultural genocide,” that it’s a selfish act of American adoptive parents who are looking to culturally enhance their families, that white parents aren’t equipped with the knowledge and experience to raise a child of a different race, etc. I hope to find more research to counter these arguments.

2)   There are many ethical concepts that are relevant to this topic. The five faces of oppression can be used to describe the power of white adoptive parents and the powerlessness of adoptees. Cultural imperialism also can be incorporated to describe transracial adoption. I also plan to include the “Best Interest Standard” to show that transracial adoption is beneficial to the adoptee because he/she will be raised in a healthy and safe environment and will receive guidance necessary to develop in to a self-sufficient adult. I will also use the guidelines of the Hague Convention to show that transracial adoption is beneficial if those rights are obeyed.

3)   I’m thinking about using the book “Beyond Good Intentions” to show the counter arguments of my thesis and build off of that. I also plan to use Adam Pertman’s book, as well as the book “Outsiders Within: Writings on Transracial Adoption” to find support of transracial adoption.

4)   On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate myself as a 9 in terms of how likely I am to write about this.

5)   I would like some more suggestions to counter-argue the statement that white adoptive parents transracially adopt for their own personal reasons to culturally enrich their families. I would also like suggestions on more resources about the benefits and positive aspects of transracial adoption.