Investing in Families

Some thoughts from my all things adoption group today –

The state pays struggling families welfare benefits and the federal government also pays hundreds of billions in welfare and Medicaid benefits and subsidized housing and food stamps for poor families. The federal and state governments don’t enjoy financially supporting poor people’s children, they don’t find it to be a good investment. They think children raised on public funds grow up in large part to have more kids raised on public funds.

The federal government tasks states with promoting adoption of children whose parents get public assistance or whose parents qualify for public assistance. That means everything from fresh from the womb infants of uneducated unmarried girls who would qualify for welfare if they applied, to already born children of parents who are either on welfare or make so little as to be statistically likely to qualify for benefits at some point.

The federal government invests hundreds of millions of dollars in adoption incentives to save hundreds of billions on welfare benefits which also artificially sterilizes the poor by taking their children away and giving them to wealthier families who can afford to support them either totally on their own or with subsidies amounting to less than would have been paid to the parents on welfare.

The federal government requires states to hit a certain quota of adopting out special needs kids and pays $6,000 to $12,000 for every adoption of a child whose parents are on welfare or who qualify for welfare and states are mandated to increase the number of children on welfare adopted each year.

The state has zero incentive to return a child to a parent who has been meeting the state’s demands for return of their child, if that parent is on welfare. Returning the child to that parent literally costs the state money and so, there you go. Our judges work for the states that financially benefit from the adoption of welfare dependent children. There is a grave conflict of interest, when the arbiter is working for and paid by the state – who has a financial stake in the child being moved from the welfare dependent parent to a financially solvent adoptive home.

blogger’s note – The reality is that our society does not support struggling families well enough and is even a danger to many of them, causing the break-up of that family structure. It really is only about the money and our government would rather give it to the wealthy, who don’t need it but might donate to the politicians re-election campaigns, than help struggling families get on their feet and live dignified lives. Sadly, this is the reality.

Like An Avalanche

“The point was, I didn’t deserve my son to be taken.”

When my two sons were young, I had a constant fear of losing them to the state without cause. Thankfully, they are 19 and 22 and have never spent a day without at least one of their parents. Others are not so lucky. Today, I read a story in The Guardian about a mother who could not believe how fast the tables turned on her. LINK>’No matter what I do, I’m not in control’: what happens when the state takes your child.

All she wanted was change for bus fare but the store clerk copped an attitude, so she left (that’s her side of the story and I’m not here to question it). I do find what happened next tragic. The clerk made a “keep the peace” call to the police. When the police confronted her, she was on her way to work, pushing her young son’s stroller across the street. They arrested her for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction. Basically, they didn’t appreciate her challenging their authority. In their report, they indicated that they would have let her go, if she had not protested.

It could have been worse, since Child Protective Services (CPS) initially placed her son with her brother. However, not informally as a temporary caregiver while she was locked up but formally, with the intention of allowing the state to take legal custody. This was even though, the doctor who examined the little boy wrote that he showed no concerns for neglect or injury. Nevertheless, the doctor authorized CPS to hold him for 72 hours, while the agency prepared to petition the court for custody. That’s how fast it happened. CPS hadn’t been in her life that morning but the situation didn’t just snowball; it came down on her like an avalanche.

From jail, her phoned her brother only to discover it was worse than at first believed. He told her that CPS had taken her son. “They said I couldn’t see him,” she later recalled. “I don’t have custody. I don’t have rights. Nothing.” So even though her criminal case was closed when the charges were dropped, the involvement of CPS wasn’t so easy to leave behind.

Forcible family separation – among the most extreme and intrusive of government actions – occurs much more often than many realize, particularly among Black and Native American families. One in eleven Black children and one in nine Native American children will be placed in foster care by the age of 18. Families come to CPS’s attention due to issues such as substance misuse, domestic violence, mental health needs, and homelessness. Most lack sufficient resources to address their challenges. Family separation essentially punishes parents and children for their poverty and adversity.

Foster care traumatizes children; forcible family separation generates immense pain and trauma for their parents. People’s everyday experiences as they interact with the state – whether public benefits programs, police, and schools, etc – fundamentally shapes what they know and think about government, inequality, and justice. Taking children has always been a political act that targets marginalized racial/ethnic groups to maintain power over them. Family separation teaches affected mothers that the state is an adversary, working against them, given their marginal social positions. CPS gives parents, especially mothers, first-hand experience with an antagonistic, controlling government. Caseworkers, attorneys, and judges claim to help, but in most of these mothers’ experiences, those officials are working against their interests. Mothers don’t see anyone on their side.

For the woman in this story, the path for get her son home became long and arduous, with CPS repeatedly adding obstacles. CPS wanted her to demonstrate “progress” – as they defined it – in her ability to parent. The clock was ticking: per federal law, once children have spent 15 of the last 22 months in foster care, states are supposed to start the process of terminating parental rights permanently. Parents with limited resources face substantial, often essentially insurmountable, burdens to meet CPS’s requirements. It felt like as soon as mothers met one request, CPS added another. Their cases kept getting continued in court. Meanwhile, their kids were growing up.

Finally, a judge ordered that her son could go home – even though as far as she could tell, her situation hadn’t changed. What had changed was she had simply been assigned to a different judge, one who saw no reason her son couldn’t go home. And she figured her caseworker had grown tired of dealing with her. “I can’t even believe they took two years of my life,” she sighed. “They took two years of my son’s life that I can’t get back.”

In the US, CPS puts hundreds of thousands of parents each year through this devastating experience. Certainly, these parents are often experiencing substantial adversity; they cannot always meet children’s needs in their current circumstances. Nevertheless, all deserve to be treated with dignity; all ought to have a say.

Neglect Is A Vague Term

Today’s blog started with a news item. A Black couple traveling from Georgia to Chicago for the funeral of the mother’s uncle were stopped in Tennessee for having a “dark tint” on their vehicles windows and for “traveling in the left lane while not passing.” Yikes, I often drive in the left lane, feeling it is safer as cars in the right lane are exiting or entering. If a car approaches behind me, I move over to the right to allow them free space to go on ahead. Upon searching their vehicle a small amount of marijuana was found. Currently, recreational marijuana is now legal in 21 of the 50 United States – though not in the couple’s home state of Georgia or the state of Tennessee, where they were stopped.

The father was arrested and the mother followed with their 5 children to await his release on bond. During the time she was waiting, state officials arrived to take custody of the four children ages 2-7 and the couple’s four-month-old baby, who was still breastfeeding. The Tennessee’s Children’s Services Department (DCS) had received an incorrect report that both parents were arrested. Had that been the scenario, it would have required the involvement of DCS to ensure the children were cared for. An emergency custody petition was obtained based on the allegation that “the children were neglected and there was no ‘less drastic’ alternative to taking the children from their parents.”

Court records related to the removal show a state case worker brought in after the stop had “discovered only the father had been arrested.” Since then, the parents have been subject to multiple drug tests as they seek to reunite their family. Their children are in foster care and they travel frequently from Georgia to Tennessee to visit them. The children are incredibly distressed by the separation. Their mother says they “cry when she speaks to them on the phone, and grab onto her when she ends her visits with them.”

US child welfare services have a historical pattern of separating the children of Black and Indigenous families on the grounds of alleged neglect and abuse. Racist stereotyping influences the way child welfare workers and policymakers approach the investigations of families of color, finding that one in 10 Black children are forcibly removed from their families and put into foster care by the time they are adults. More than half of US Black children would face some form of a child welfare investigation by the time they are 18, while fewer than a third of white children would.

Tennessee’s DCS is not doing a good job taking care of the children they have already taken away from their families. Children are subjected to poor living conditions with some children sleeping in offices and staffing shortages. Millions of parents and caretakers who have been placed on state-run child abuse registries across the country. “Neglect” is often cited but it is a vague term for which there is no fixed legal definition. Being placed on a registry can cast a decades long shadow, ending careers, blocking the chance of getting hired for new jobs, and people of color (especially if they are living in poverty) are several times more likely to be placed on these registries and suffer the consequences. People can be placed on these registries on the sole judgment of a caseworker and a supervisor from a child protective services agency, without a judge or similarly impartial authority weighing the evidence.

Related Issues

Two articles came to my attention yesterday that I believe are related. One was titled The Baby Bust: Why Are There No Infants to Adopt? The subtitle was – Declining birth rates and other factors make it difficult for hopeful adoptive parents to create their forever families. In my all things adoption group, it has become obvious to me that many prospective adoptive parents have become more than a bit desperate.

I actually do believe that the Pro-Life movement is driven by the sharp decline in women either not carrying a pregnancy or choosing to be single parents. Our society’s norms have changed since the 1930s when my parents were adopted.

The other article was Why is the US right suddenly interested in Native American adoption law? In this situation, laws meant to protect Native Americans who have been exploited and cheated out of so much, including their own children, is being challenged by white couples wanting to adopt as being a kind of reverse discrimination against them.

So back to the first article –

The number of adoptions in general has been steadily declining over the years. U.S. adoptions reached their peak in 1970 with 175,000 adoptions tallied. That number had fallen to 133,737 by 2007. Seven years later, the total sank further to 110,373, a 17% decrease.

Reports of a 50% or more decrease in available birth mothers are coming from adoption agencies all over. As a result, some agencies have folded. Those still in operation are compiling long waiting lists of hopeful adoptive parents.

Even so, the demand for infants to adopt remains high. The good news is also that fewer teenagers are becoming pregnant. Teen birth rates peaked at 96.3 per 1,000 in 1957 during the post-war baby boom. However, with the widespread acceptance and use of birth control, there has been a dramatic decline in the teenage pregnancy rate. This rapid decline in teenage birth rates was seen across all major racial and ethnic groups.

Estimates indicate that approximately half of the pregnancies in the United States were not planned. Of those unintended pregnancies, about 43% end in abortion; less than 1% of such pregnancies end in adoption. Adoption is a rare choice. The pandemic shut-down also reduced places where meetings could occur that tend to lead to casual encounters, which often result in unplanned pregnancies.

On to that second article –

A 1978 law known as the Indian Child Welfare Act or ICWA tried to remedy adoption practices that were created to forcibly assimilate Native children. Last April, an appeals court upheld parts of a federal district court decision, in a case called Brackeen v Haaland, that found parts of ICWA “unconstitutional”. The non-Indian plaintiffs (mostly white families wanting to foster and adopt Native children) contend that federal protections to keep Native children with Native families constitute illegal racial discrimination, and that ICWA’s federal standards “commandeer” state courts and agencies to act on behalf of a federal agenda.

The thinking that non-Indians adopting Native children is as old as the “civilizing” mission of colonialism – saving brown children from brown parents. In fact, among prospective adoptive parents there is a dominant belief that they are actually saving children. Native families, particularly poor ones, are always the real victims. A high number, 25-35%, of all Native children have been separated from their families. They are placed in foster homes or adoptive homes or institutions. Ninety percent are placed in non-Indian homes. Native children are four times more likely to be removed from their families than white children are from theirs. Native family separation has surpassed rates prior to ICWA according to a 2020 study.

The fact is that there is a dark side to foster care. Some state statutes may provide up to several thousands of dollars a child per month to foster parents, depending on the number of children in their care and a child’s special needs. Why doesn’t that money go towards keeping families together by providing homes instead of tearing them apart?

They Are Not Orphans

If anyone cared about children and adoption, they would be focused on changing the things that lead to a child being taken away from their parent or a parent not feeling adequate to parent their own child.

Things like poverty, addiction, mental illness and abuse.

Most “adoptable” children are NOT actually orphans. That is a myth.

Poverty plays a huge role in how children end up in foster care and through that in the adoption system or end up going straight into adoption without the parent ever trying to raise their own child.

Society needs to focus on the inequities that destroy a stable family unit.

Focus of those aspects that disrupt children’s lives.

At the maternity ward level, every adoption takes place in a tragic situation where the birth mother actually wanted her baby – that is the main reason any woman would devote 9 mos of her life into the creation of a new human being in her own womb. This is a huge sacrifice and commitment on the part of any woman.

Here’s the honest truth – there actually is ENOUGH money in this world to HELP people – instead of jerking their precious children away from them in order to make a profit from another couple who desperately believes that is their only path to parenthood.

Choosing One’s Ancestors

Because I didn’t have any genetic ancestors most of my lifetime, knowing who they were and where they came from filled a void in me that my two adoptee parents were never given the opportunity to receive. They both died knowing next to nothing and within a year of my dad dying (four months after my mom died), I knew who all 4 of them were – including my dad’s unnamed father (his mother was unwed and he was given her surname at birth).

Because thoughts about race and identity are currently prominent in the United States and because of the horrendous injustice that has occurred here all too often (so that even in other countries, the protests have also grown in awareness of the issue), I was drawn to a conversation that took place between James Baldwin and Margaret Mead in 1970 as shared by Brain Pickings.

During the week I spent in Jean Houston’s home in Oregon, she spoke frequently about her dear friend and mentor, Margaret Mead. She even has a larger than life portrait in her front door drawing room that she suggest’s Margaret insisted be painted and delivered to her after Mead’s death. Houston writes about the influence of Mead frequently in her book A Mythic Life.

In this conversation between Baldwin and Mead, Margaret says – “I think we have to get rid of people being proud of their ancestors, because after all they didn’t do a thing about it. What right have I to be proud of my grandfather? I can be proud of my child if I didn’t ruin her, but nobody has any right to be proud of his ancestors.”

She goes on to add – “The one thing you really ought to be allowed to do is to choose your ancestors. We have a term for this in anthropology: mythical ancestors… They are spiritual and mental ancestors, they’re not biological ancestors, but they are terribly important.”

Mead notes that there are very few black people in America who don’t have some white ancestors, with which Baldwin agrees, and they go on to explore why the “melting pot” metaphor is deeply problematic in honoring the actual architecture of identity.

Before I knew who my parents biological/genetic parents were, I made up my racial identity. Since my mom was born in Virginia, I thought she ended up being given up for adoption because she was half-black. I find it interesting now as I steep myself in issues of racial identity, that I believed my dad was half-Mexican because of his coloration and how well he related to the people in that country when he crossed the border at Juarez/El Paso.

Neither of these was actually the truth. Turns out my mom does have a bit of Mali in her DNA and that on her mother’s Scottish side there were slave owners, a fact that I am not proud of. Yet, until I knew better, I would say I was an Albino African (and said it quite proudly as I tried to recover a sense of identity that adoption had robbed me of).

My dad’s father was a Danish immigrant and quite dark complected. I don’t know enough about the Danish people to know why that was their skin color or why their eyes were brown. Maybe someday, I will explore that aspect of my own racial identity.

I found this story which Baldwin conveyed in that discussion quite illuminating –

“I remember once a few years ago, in the British Museum a black Jamaican was washing the floors or something and asked me where I was from, and I said I was born in New York. He said, “Yes, but where are you from?” I did not know what he meant. “Where did you come from before that?” he explained. I said, “My mother was born in Maryland.” “Where was your father born?” he asked. “My father was born in New Orleans.” He said, “Yes, but where are you from?” Then I began to get it; very dimly, because now I was lost. And he said, “Where are you from in Africa?” I said, “Well, I don’t know,” and he was furious with me. He said, and walked away, “You mean you did not care enough to find out?”

“Now, how in the world am I going to explain to him that there is virtually no way for me to have found out where I came from in Africa? So it is a kind of tug of war. The black American is looked down on by other dark people as being an object abjectly used. They envy him on the one hand, but on the other hand they also would like to look down on him as having struck a despicable bargain.”

So it is for adoptees who’s rights are second-class, some basic rights of knowing where they came from often denied them. Over decades worth of time, they have been robbed of that sense of identity that so many people take for granted. However, as a woman who’s skin is white, I am grateful that racial identity was not emphasized in my childhood home and that as a white person growing up on the Mexican border, I was definitely part of a minority race. I will admit that I didn’t suffer the slings and arrows that the black race has in this country but I could not fully embrace any idea that I was somehow superior because of the color of my skin. I consider that one of the few blessings of being ignorant for most of my life about my racial identity.

Let’s Get Real

I know what I am going to write about here, will seem like shocking hyperbole to the average non-adoptee, to anyone who hasn’t spent time listening to the stories of adult adoptees, who has seen adoption only through this beautiful adopter lens, and the seemingly happy adoptees in their own community.

Adoption is not heroism. It does not fight poverty, disease nor the root causes of inequality.

Adoption doesn’t even raise awareness about the real causes of poverty, inequality, parent-child separations, disease or social immobility. Instead it creates an idolatry of those who seek to adoption to counter a world that stigmatizes infertility, disease, poverty and poor access to education.

Adoption publicity silences the voice of adoptees, trapping them in a pernicious web where they are expected to show only gratitude.

The outcome of showcasing a false savior-ism in adoption is to make adoption fashionable and highly desirable to the upper and middle classes and wannabe saviors.

Anonymising family history is at the center of the process. This creates a commercial market for baby farms, coercion and kidnapping and provides a kind of diplomatic immunity and witness protection for all agencies and families under the magic umbrella of adoption.

The false story about adoption, that adopters are saving children, disguises the reality of parenting adopted children. Children who’ve experienced the trauma of separation from their natural family cannot replace the missing biological children of infertile couples.

The failure to address this grief by all parties and to instead speed towards wishing for the separation of babies from families, helps no one. Instead, the process leaves everyone having to repress forbidden feelings. That never ends well for anyone.

In the context of adoption, people frequently confuse being pre-verbal with being pre-feeling and pre-memory. It is the myth of the blank slate. In truth a baby comprehends without words. In children raised by their natural parents, there is a sense of safety and connection that lays a foundation for the forming of strong attachments, robust relationships and resilient immune systems.

It is time for a good change in how society handles these situations.

Gender Inequality

Somehow, in my own family’s experiences, it seems to me that the financial and real life burdens of parenthood fall mostly on the mothers.

Both of my grandmothers conceived my parents with the help of men 2 decades older than them and yet the burden fell solely upon my grandmothers. Until the marriage I am presently in, for myself and each of my sisters, our ability to parent the children we conceived was directly impacted by our ability to provide for them, therefore, we were robbed of that joy in life.

There continues to be a huge inequality in how women are paid and in the costs they must bear as mothers in regards to their careers and their ability to create enough financial strength to provide for all the basics in life.

No wonder women experience so much dissatisfaction and no wonder many of them do not feel that marriage is a beneficial situation, even if they are also dependent upon the male half of their couple for their financial support. Many times the male half refuses to provide that support or in some way, if the woman has any qualities to offer, will exploit her contribution or wealth for his own comfort and success.

I don’t know how, as a society, we fix this imbalance and make economic support more equal for the majority of people, and especially for the parents of children – but I do know we are not there yet.