Person:

Bartholet, Elizabeth

Millions of infants and young children worldwide are desperately in need of nurturing homes. Many are living in institutions, and many on the streets, and almost all these children will either die in these situations, or if they survive, will emerge into adulthood so damaged by their childhood experience, and so deprived of parenting, educational and other essential childhood opportunities, that they will be unable to function in the worlds of family and work. International adoption could provide significant numbers of nurturing homes for these children. However current policy restricts international adoption, limiting its ability to provide such homes. Moreover most of the powerful organizations of the world that claim to represent children's rights and interests have joined with other forces opposing international adoption.

This article argues that effective child advocacy is a challenge, given the fact that infants and young children are unable to voice their views or promote their interests, and the related risks that adults will use children to further various adult agendas. True empathy is required to imagine what children would want were they able to think rationally and make informed decisions. But if we were to imagine homeless children capable of making such decisions, then it seems obvious that they would choose international adoption given the horrors of institutional and street life, and the limited options for any kind of adequate home care in their countries of birth. Opposition to international adoption cannot be justified based on any best interest of the child principle, despite the claims of many children's rights organizations. Instead it is grounded in a group of commonly shared but deeply flawed ideas about children and the role of the state, and driven by adult agendas that are not truly informed by children's interests.

This article addresses the issue of Racial Disproportionality in child welfare - the disproportionate representation of black children in the foster care system as compared to their representation in the general population. This is now the hot issue in the child welfare world, with a powerful coalition of groups known as the Casey-CSSP Alliance claiming that Racial Disproportionality is the central problem that state and federal policy makers should address. This Alliance includes the foundations which provide virtually all the private funding available for research and advocacy in child welfare, joined by organizations and individuals who with these foundations have played a major role in shaping policy over the past decades. The Alliance takes the position that Racial Disproportionality results from discrimination by child welfare decision makers. It argues for reducing the number of black children removed to foster care to achieve what it terms "racial equity" - the removal of black children at the same rate as white children. The Alliance has already had significant impact. Child welfare leaders proclaim that this is the major issue of the day. Many states have accepted the Alliance's lead in analyzing the Racial Disproportionality problem and seeking solutions. Important federal officials and agencies have endorsed the Alliance's approach, as have leading private child welfare organizations.

This article analyzes the issues central to this important issue in the child welfare world. It urges that we must understand the nature of the Racial Disproportionality problem before jumping to solutions. If black children are removed to foster care at disproportionate rates because they are disproportionately victimized by serious parental maltreatment, then the Alliance's proposed solutions will put black children at risk. If disproportionate maltreatment of black children is the underlying problem, then solutions must lie in early prevention efforts, providing greater support to families at risk of falling into the kind of dysfunction that leads to maltreatment. Careful review of the evidence reveals that black children are indeed disproportionately victimized by parental maltreatment. This is to be expected given that black families are disproportionately characterized by the risk factors associated with maltreatment, including severe poverty, problematic substance abuse, and single parenting. Prevention programs with a proven record of success like intensive early home visitation for new parents can be expected to reduce maltreatment. This should in turn lead to a reduction in Racial Disproportionality, without putting black children at undue risk. To date there has been no adequate debate on the issues at the heart of the Racial Disproportionality problem, because the Casey - CSSP Alliance has overwhelmingly dominated the discourse. This article is designed to give policy makers a full understanding of the issues so that they can take action addressing Racial Disproportionality that will protect rather than endanger black children.

This paper looks at our new technological ability to determine genetic paternity, in the context of legal and social developments related to the family, and tries to come up with some guidelines for figuring out how to decide parentage in the modern era. Many claim that since DNA tests mean we can now easily tell who the genetic father is, we should make that man the legal father and release any other who might be playing that role from parental responsibility. However the trend in law over recent decades has been in the direction of reducing the role that biology plays in determining parentage, with the law giving increasing deference to existing social parenting relationships and to the intent to create such relationships as factors to take into account when parentage is contested. This paper assesses the importance of the genetic link to parenting, considers it in comparison to a variety of other factors relevant to parenting, and sets out some guiding principles for choosing among possible parents, principles designed to serve children's interests in stable, nurturing, parenting relationships.

This article responds to Martin Guggenheim's book review of Bartholet's book, Nobody's Children: Abuse and Neglect, Foster Drift, and the Adoption Alternative (Beacon Press, 1999). Nobody's Children challenges the family preservation tradition that has dominated child welfare policy, and argues that we should take adoption seriously, for the first time in our history, as an option for abused and neglected children. It describes and critiques various reform moves that child welfare traditionalists are promoting, including family group decision making, community partnerships, and new permanency initiatives such as subsidized guardianships. It also describes reform moves that the author sees as moving in genuinely new and promising directions, which include early intervention in the form of intensive home visitation, and new adoption-friendly programs. Guggenheim in his book review attacks Bartholet's book and defends family preservation, arguing that she is too ready to give up on troubled families, to transfer children from poor black families to more privileged white families, and to sacrifice our nation's traditional respect for parental privacy and autonomy. Bartholet's reply, in turn, claims that Guggenheim mischaracterizes her arguments and misconceives the evidence and the issues.

International adoption is under siege, with the number of children placed dropping each of the last several years, and many countries imposing severe new restrictions. Key forces mounting the attack claim the child human rights mantle, arguing that such adoption denies heritage rights, and often involves abusive practices. Many nations assert rights to hold onto the children born within their borders, and others support these demands citing subsidiarity principles. But children’s most basic human rights, at the heart of the true meaning of subsidiarity, are to grow up in the families that will often be found only in international adoption. These rights should trump any conflicting state sovereignty claims.