The sister of an adoptee posts this question – If a child is “available” for adoption through the state, are there ways to become involved and support them outside of adoption? Queer couple living in an extremely conservative state and would love recommendations on supporting queer youth in the system. If kiddos are adoptable is it too late to step in as a guardian so their identity isn’t legally erased? Is it even needed?
The first response was this – LGBTQ people who are eligible should adopt LGBTQ kids who have been thrown away and have no family. I say this as a person in the LGBTQ community.
Another noted – Just because you adopt a child doesn’t mean you’re erasing their identity. This is refuted by others – unless you are in a state where you can retain the person’s factual birth certificate, you are. And even still, adoption severs them legally from their family and ancestors. And this – Adoption is a legal construct only. One that erases true identity in perpetuity. This is what adoption is. The irony of modern adoption is that it’s based on archaic “as if born to” legal secrecy. However, modern day DNA / ancestry sites now show the genealogical truth. They expose the legal lie.
But another has a different point of view – my family is black and the ones who have been adopted don’t feel like their identity was taken and love that they are in the family. I often wonder if it is a cultural feeling with identity. Blacks Americans have lost their true identity for hundreds of years, so I wonder if that is why the ones adopted in my family feel so different. I bring up topics from this group and they get offended and tell me to shut up. I just bring it up because I don’t want my niece to feel any type of way.
A foster parent notes – Depends on their age, but if kids are available for adoption, it probably means that they want to be adopted. However, if you want to be supportive, there are a number of gay teens who need foster homes and the support provided there. They are probably too old for adoption, but will need guidance and support as they age out of foster care into independent living. Apply to become foster parents. Older teens are the ones who begin to understand that they are part of the LGBTQ community. That is what this post is about—providing support for those older teens. Though another noted – You certainly don’t need to be an older teen to be queer. An adoptive parent who adopted out of foster care comments – queer teens are absolutely overrepresented in the system, guardianship or long-term foster care/age out plan with queer and affirming adults might be helpful. It is up to the individual youth, if that would be helpful or not, but in my experience many youth with trauma backgrounds appreciate location stability.
Yet someone else who spent time in foster care notes the reality – not all states allow guardianship as a permanency option after Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) has occurred. This is something those with foster care experience in their youth have been trying to change for years. In many states, if we are legally adoptable, that’s the outcome the state pushes for because it’s more cost effective for them and they ignore the fact that many youth adopted from care re-enter care at least 1x after adoption. In my home state, guardianship was only a permanency option, if it was a kinship placement. Otherwise, adoption or remaining in active care were our permanency outcome goals. So for kids under the age of 8, by the time of TPR, typically they were adopted out, those of us over that age tended to end up in restrictive environments.
Today, I read this post – I’m currently a 4th year doctoral candidate and I study family communication specifically on the intersection of family, adoption, and race. So, the intricacies of adoption and fostering are definitely not lost on me. Everyone asks if we’re “considering adoption” and it’s made me realize more and more that I don’t even accept the thought of adopting. I’m also trying to work through the complexity of possibly not being able to birth children and not adopting while still wanting to be a parent.
A queer adoptee answers – I can’t do that to another child. I can’t put another child thru that willingly. So instead, going back to school to be Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor and work with those in adoption/first parents/adoptive parents. But I cannot put another child thru that in good conscience.
Another said similarly – I have talked to a lot of same sex couple about adoption and many of them have changed their minds after talking to me.
Yet another adoptee notes – I wish this had been the case for me. I lost a friend who mattered a lot to me because he is gay and feels that his only path to parenthood was adoption. He centered himself so much and even years later, he occasionally makes a post tagging me to poke at my adoptee status and how “wrong” I am. The previous one just above responded – I think I’ve gotten lucky. I’ve been pretty loud and active in my local community with not just family separation stuff but other issues too. I think that has helped with people actually listening to me.
Another who is an infant adoptee and late realized queer says – I have major anger at how society conceives children and parenthood through a heteronormative and parent-focused lens. Adoption and anonymous donor conception and surrogacy are deeply upsetting and triggering to me. I feel like I either have to be highly avoidant of those topics OR be highly selective of how I am in community with queer people. I look forward to a future where we prioritize children and reject social prescriptions, so that everyone (but especially queer people) can build families in ways that honor a child’s right to know their ancestors and ancestry. There are so many ways to have a family and care for a child.
An adoptive parent who has a teen writes – there are a lot of LGBTQ foster kids that are not understood or accepted the way they should be and would find solace in a home like yours, especially kids that are aging out. They face homelessness and trafficking. If you’re willing to consider kids that are old enough to consider their orientation, you could be a great resource to them in a world that is often not friendly or encouraging.
One writes from experience – I’m what’s known as a “half adoptee”/NPE (not parent expected), I was lied to about who my father was and kept away from him and his family, and the trauma from this isn’t comparable to full adoption but still informed my family planning decisions. I want my children to have access to their entire family.
My wife and I asked a good friend of ours to be our known donor, and take on a semi-parent role where he doesn’t really have any responsibility except to be in their lives. It’s been great, his parents are amazing and doting grandparents, our daughters have so much love and know exactly who they are, where they come from, where all their features and personality quirks came from, all with no confusion. They have a mommy and daddy who agreed a new person should exist and made them together, and their mommy who did not help make them, has raised them with us out of pure love and happiness.
Their dad lived with us off and on at first but unfortunately has to live out of state now, which I regret, but I pack up our eldest and send her to him and the grandparents every time she gets a long school break and the little one will do this as well, when she’s old enough for extended (weeks long) stays.
Blogger’s note – that’s probably enough “perspectives” – just some thinking on this topic that has become quite visible in recent years.
On Dec 3 2023, Emily Bazelon published an article in the NY Times – LINK>Why Anonymous Sperm Donation Is Over, and Why That Matters. She notes that while activists are trying to end secrecy for sperm and egg donors — it is a campaign that troubles some LGBTQ families.
The article begins with this story (and blogger’s note – I’ve read quite a few others with similar trajectories) –
A few years ago, when he was in his early 30s, Tyler Levy Sniff took a home DNA test he received as a gift. The results revealed a staggering truth: His father wasn’t biologically related to him. Levy Sniff confronted his parents, who explained that after years of trying and failing to have a baby, they turned to a sperm donor. Following the standard advice at the time, they decided not to tell him for fear of driving a wedge into their family.
Levy Sniff felt as if he’d found a key to his identity that he was looking for. “It made sense of why I felt different from my family,” he said recently. He wanted more information about the person he called his “bio father” to understand his genetic heritage. “It was so important to me to know my bio father’s life story, his personality and talents and struggles,” Levy Sniff says.
But by the time he found his donor, through relatives on two genealogy websites, the man had died — another revelation that shattered him, he says. To Levy Sniff, the value of knowing where you come from is self-evident. “A lot of influence comes from your biology,” he says.
Recent findings in behavioral science show the role of genetics in shaping certain individual characteristics. Questionnaires from doctors routinely ask for generations of family medical history. And learning about your genetic ancestry can be emotionally powerful — one reason millions of people buy inexpensive at-home DNA tests and sign up for genealogy websites.
Blogger’s note – in my own roots discovery journey, both Ancestry and 23 and Me, contributed invaluable assistance in my finding my own genetic, biological heritage and connecting with people that I am thus related to, though for over 60 years, neither they nor my self knew of one another. Adoption (both of my parents were adopted) robs us of important knowledge.
Lesbian couples and single parents make up 70 percent of the people who now use sperm donors, according to a 2022 study of an assisted-reproduction clinic. Some of these families fear that disclosure laws will open the door to recognizing biological donors in some way as parents — possibly granting them parental rights and more broadly undermining the legitimacy of LGBTQ families.
In sperm and egg donation, secrecy was the old-school choice — the one that seemed easier to many heterosexual couples as they raised their children. But now it’s nontraditional families who are most nervous about ending the practice of anonymous donation. It’s one thing for parents to choose transparency, but it’s quite another for the state to mandate it — enshrining into law, some fear, the notion that genetics are an essential part of being a family. In many states, if you are part of a couple raising a child, and you never marry or you get a divorce, and your partner wants to sever the connection, you can be deemed a legal stranger to a child you helped raise but with whom you don’t share a genetic tie.
Blogger’s note – Being honest about how one’s children were conceived tends to strengthen parent-child relationships. My family chose that strategy. My husband, our egg donor, and my sons all did 23 and Me DNA testing. That site allows for private communications (should my sons want that) with a donor they have had only minimal physical contact with in the past (several times we have had the opportunity to get together with her and at least one of her children). Thanks to Facebook, I have been able to show my sons photos of the donor and her genetic, biological children over the years – so that they have some sense of these other relationships that may someday be important to them (or not). They seem well adjusted to the reality.
I’ve not actually read this book but learned about it today. It comes highly recommended by many and who have actually read it and is rated right up there with The Primal Wound and Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew. Also Being Adopted: The Lifelong Search for Self. So, I thought I should share it. I was happy to see that the book also covers Third Party Reproduction (in fact the book includes donor insemination and surrogacy).
Originally published in the 1980s, it was ahead of it’s time. One adoptee says, it is something that I wish my adoptive parents had read. The new edition has been updated and was released in 2019. The seven core issues are loss, rejection, guilt and shame, grief, identity, intimacy, and mastery/control.
One person familiar with this book said it was “A classic and foundational to the way I think about these issues and the importance of reform in adoption practices.”
At Amazon it is said – “the first conceptual framework of its kind to offer a unifying lens that was inclusive of all individuals touched by the adoption experience.” It is further noted that – “Attachment and trauma are integrated with the Seven Core Issues model to address and normalize the additional tasks individuals and families will encounter.” The book also claims to access “a range of perspectives including: multi-racial, LGBTQ, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, African-American, International,” as well as those that cover openness, search and reunion.
Penny Callan Partridge, Co-founder in 1973 of the Adoption Forum of Philadelphia, wrote – “For decades, I have been responding to these ‘seven core issues’ as an adopted person, as a parent by adoption, as a poet. Now I imagine myself as a therapist trying to help someone in the adoption constellation. I would definitely want this book close at hand.”
Another, Keith Silverstein, a voice actor and adoption advocate, noted – “As an adopted person, I’m very familiar with the seven core issues, both comprehensively and experientially. Yet even with my prior knowledge, there was a deeper understanding to be attained through the pages of this book. Having had the pleasure to work with and consider both Sharon and Allison my friends, I’ve seen first hand the passion they have for adoption and helping children find permanence. Their collective expertise, contained here, is, in my opinion, the gold standard for understanding and working towards permanence in adoption.”
One of the facts of misogynist mindsets is that women are judged differently than men. Within communities that make adoptee voices the privileged commenters, it is often pointed out that having children really is not a necessity (and given the world’s population and issues of sustainable resources and quality climate factors, I do agree). It is often suggested that infertility should be as accepted by those who find themselves unable to procreate as the sun coming up every morning.
Yesterday, I stumbled on a reference to an article that Rebecca Solnit wrote, which was published in Harper’s Magazine titled – The Mother of All Questions. She had given a lecture on Virginia Woolf. The subject that seemed to most interest a number of people was whether Woolf should have had children. I answered the question dutifully, noting that Woolf apparently considered having children early in her marriage. Over time Woolf came to see reproduction as unwise for whatever her reasons were. She quoted Woolf’s description of murdering “the angel of the house,” that inner voice that tells many women to be self-sacrificing handmaidens to domesticity and male vanity.
Solnit writes, that the line of questioning was familiar enough to her. A British man interviewing her had hounded her about “why I didn’t have children. No answer I gave could satisfy him. His position seemed to be that I must have children, that it was incomprehensible that I did not, and so we had to talk about why I didn’t, rather than about the books I did have.”
She notes “there are many reasons why I don’t have children: I am very good at birth control; though I love children and adore aunthood, I also love solitude; I was raised by unhappy, unkind people, and I wanted neither to replicate their form of parenting nor to create human beings who might feel about me the way that I felt about my begetters; I really wanted to write books, which as I’ve done it is a fairly consuming vocation. I’m not dogmatic about not having kids. I might have had them under other circumstances and been fine — as I am now.”
Solnit goes on to say, “The interviewer’s question was indecent, because it presumed that women should have children, and that a woman’s reproductive activities were naturally public business. More fundamentally, the question assumed that there was only one proper way for a woman to live.”
She goes on to say, “. . . mothers are consistently found wanting, too. A mother may be treated like a criminal for leaving her child alone for five minutes, even a child whose father has left it alone for several years. Some mothers have told me that having children caused them to be treated as bovine non-intellects who should be disregarded. Other women have been told that they cannot be taken seriously professionally because they will go off and reproduce at some point. And many mothers who do succeed professionally are presumed to be neglecting someone. There is no good answer to being a woman; the art may instead lie in how we refuse the question. . . . These are questions that push you into the herd or nip at you for diverging from it, questions that contain their own answers and whose aim is enforcement and punishment.”
“Questions about happiness generally assume that we know what a happy life looks like. Happiness is understood to be a matter of having a great many ducks lined up in a row — spouse, offspring, private property, erotic experiences — even though a millisecond of reflection will bring to mind countless people who have all those things and are still miserable. We are constantly given one-size-fits-all recipes, but those recipes fail, often and hard.” And adds, “There are entirely different criteria for a good life that might matter more to a person — honor, meaning, depth, engagement, hope.”
“The conservative ‘defense of marriage,’ which is really nothing more than a defense of the old hierarchical arrangement that straight marriage was before feminists began to reform it, has bled over into the general culture, entrenching the devout belief that there is something magically awesome for children about the heterosexual two-parent household, which leads many people to stay in miserable marriages.”
Solnit points out – “I have done what I set out to do in my life, and what I set out to do was not what the interviewer presumed. I set out to write books, to be surrounded by generous, brilliant people, and to have great adventures. Men — romances, flings, and long-term relationships — have been some of those adventures, and so have remote deserts, arctic seas, mountaintops, uprisings and disasters, and the exploration of ideas, archives, records, and lives.”
“Society’s recipes for fulfillment cause a great deal of unhappiness, both in those who are stigmatized for being unable or unwilling to carry them out and in those who obey but don’t find happiness.” She notes, “People lock onto motherhood as a key to feminine identity in part from the belief that children are the best way to fulfill your capacity to love, even though the list of monstrous, ice-hearted mothers is extensive. But there are so many things to love besides one’s own offspring, so many things that need love, so much other work love has to do in the world.”
“. . . all the ways of tending to the world that are less easily validated than parenting, but which are just as fundamentally necessary for children to flourish. I mean here the writing and inventing and the politics and the activism; the reading and the public speaking and the protesting and the teaching and the filmmaking. . . . Most of the things I value most, and from which I trust any improvements in the human condition will come, are violently incompatible with the actual and imaginative work of childcare.” ~ Christina Lupton
Solnit recognizes that “Other eras and cultures often asked other questions than the ones we ask now: What is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life? What is your contribution to the world or your community? Do you live according to your principles? What will your legacy be? What does your life mean?”
I bought a t-shirt today that reads “Girls Just Want To Have Fun-damental Human Rights.” In fact, if Roe v Wade is overturned, a lot of the basic moral, just, ethical and fair “rights” we take for granted in human society today that actually at NOT codified in the Constitution will also come under threat by the same logic the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are using in this very polarizing issue.
It caused me to think about how adoptees are treated – no right to know who the parents that conceived them were, no right to their original birth name or original birth certificate, no right to the records associated with the decision to allow them to be adopted and which they never consented to. No right to their personal medical history information. Adoptees are treated like second class citizens.
The rights of Black people, the rights of women generally, the rights of those who identify as LGBTQ – all is under threat now . . . My husband recommended an article to me in The Guardian today. I will read it as soon as I have a few minutes. It is by Laurence Tribe. The subtitle reads – If the high court adopts Alito’s draft opinion, it will be a legal tidal wave that sweeps away a swath of rights unlike anything America has ever seen.
Whether it gets through or not, it is a step in the right direction. New legislation authored by California Rep. Karen Bass (D), would drastically change that standard: Under the 21st Century Children and Families Act, states could not even attempt to permanently sever children from their parents until they’d been in foster care for two full years consecutively, barring extreme circumstances — and even then it would be up to the states, and no longer a federal mandate. The reason that this is important is that the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires states to terminate parental rights when a child has been in foster care for 15 of 22 consecutive months. Granted this is just a tiny step.
“This bill is an important first step in moving away from cookie-cutter timelines that have caused devastating harm to children and families for decades,” said Kathleen Creamer, managing attorney of the family advocacy unit for Community Legal Services in Philadelphia.
Existing exemptions would be maintained for certain “aggravated” circumstances, such as when parents have committed sexual abuse or have been involved with the death of another child. But the legislation would free parents from the federal timeline when their custody rights are threatened due to incarceration or immigration detention — or in cases where they are actively working with the court to overcome hurdles in their lives to successfully bring the family back together. Parents are not subjected to the federal timeline if their children are placed with relatives.
Under the bill, if a state so chooses, it could eliminate all timeline requirements, except in cases involving aggravated circumstances.
Bass announced her landmark legislation in a news release Thursday. “It’s time to update old child welfare laws,” she said. “More needs to be done to improve foster kids’ options for stability in their lives. Premature modification of parental rights too often leaves children in foster care with no legal family.”
The legislation is at the earliest possible stage, and far from guaranteed, with many elements that could lead to controversy, including strengthening the rights of prospective LGBTQ parents. The bill could also be challenged by representatives of the adoption industry, policy watchers said.
“With respect to the timelines, we’ll be looking at those proposed changes carefully and considering how they affect children and families involved in foster care, especially BIPOC children and families, given the systemic discrimination they face,” said Mary Boo, executive director of the North American Council on Adoptable Children.
Children removed from their homes following allegations of abuse or neglect remain in foster care while their parents address the issues that landed them there, issues typically arising from extreme poverty. Under family and dependency court oversight, local child welfare systems must mitigate the circumstances that led to the child’s removal into foster care, offering the parents therapy, anger management, parenting classes and drug treatment, as well as the time necessary to overcome situational crises such as homelessness or illness.
Charles Redding barbecues for his two children last Easter at the home of a relative in St. Paul, Minnesota. The family is now in dependency court fighting to stay together.
But that time is often not enough. The pandemic has brought heightened scrutiny to the “cruelty” of federal timelines. Parents such as Charles Redding of Minnesota have fought to regain custody of their children when circumstances are stacked against them to no fault of their own. Redding, for instance, had emerged from jail with no computer to attend court-mandated hearings and online classes, and the local center where he needed to go for drug testing suspended services. Earlier this year, Redding’s two children sobbed through a virtual court appearance, imploring a Hennepin County juvenile court judge to give their dad more time to secure stable housing for them to live together.
David Kelly, a former official in the U.S. Children’s Bureau, called the bill introduced this week “a critical, long overdue step toward justice for families,” adding: “I hope it proves a galvanizing moment for realizing the family children need most is their own.”
Bass is a longstanding champion of children and parents caught up in the foster care system — families who are disproportionately Black and Native American. She is among those emphasizing that the bar for reunification is often too high, and the impact of permanent family separation too damaging to continue the federal standards as they currently exist.
“The changes that I’m proposing today focus the foster care system on the child and the idea that children should be at the center of our efforts,” Bass stated.
Her legislation would require that before moving to terminate parental rights, states must describe the steps they took and services they provided to help keep a family together. It would also mandate data collection on the accessibility and availability of those services.
Shanta Trivedi, director of the Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children and the Courts at the University of Baltimore said that while states are already required under law to provide services under a “reasonable efforts” standard, the proposed law will ensure that protocol is followed for every family.
“This puts teeth into the ‘reasonable efforts’ requirement that were previously absent,” Trivedi said.
The bill has another key element: It adds sexual orientation, gender identity and religion to federal nondiscrimination protections that previously only included race and ethnicity. Under the proposed law, states and agencies they contract with could not “deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent” based on those additional factors. The provision would directly challenge laws in nearly a dozen states that permit faith-based providers to exclude members of the LGBTQ community by following religious ideology in choosing which foster and adoptive parents, or even which youth in foster care, they will and will not serve.
The legislation proposed by Bass retains current legal requirements that adoptions cannot be delayed to match children with families of the same race, gender, culture and religion. But it instructs states to consider such factors if that is requested by the child or their birth parent.
When the Adoption and Safe Families Act became law decades ago, nearly a third of all foster children had been in the system for at least three years. The timeline was designed to push those cases in the direction of adoptions or guardianships so that children didn’t languish with uncertain futures.
Since then, adoptions from foster care have more than doubled — from 30,000 in 1998 to 66,000 in 2019. Over the past decade, federal statistics show that the number of children awaiting adoption has also increased, by more than 20%.
The attempt to rewrite ASFA comes at a time when some are pushing for its outright repeal, including Jerry Milner, the Trump-era head of the U.S. Children’s Bureau. Along with Kelly, his former deputy, Milner now leads a consulting group helping state and local systems interested in significant reforms of their child welfare systems, including the strengthening of family bonds so children can avoid permanent family separation.
Critics of the current timeline that pushes for termination of parental rights after 15 months describe it as arbitrary and unjust to the families who mostly come from communities of color where daily life and the weight of historic and systemic injustice can bear down on home life. Advocates for parents say the federal timeline also penalizes people in recovery for substance abuse or seeking treatment for mental health challenges — complex healing that can take time and involve relapse and setbacks.
In a February 2021 op-ed, Creamer and Chris Gottlieb, co-director of the NYU School of Law Family Defense Clinic, described the social context around the original law: “Passed in the wake of the now-debunked ‘crack baby’ scare, and at the same time as nefarious federal laws on crime and welfare, it reflected the racial and class biases that were ascendant at the time and that to this day continue to inflict harm on children, youth and families.”
Under the proposed legislation, a 24-month timeline was selected to align with the Family First Prevention Services Act, a 2018 law that overhauled the federal child welfare system to decrease reliance on group homes and emphasize foster care prevention. But as it is currently worded in the Bass bill, states could choose not to abide by the two-year timeline — the legislation as written uses the word “may” — not “shall” — while continuing to receive federal funds for the children who remain in foster care.
“We are hopeful that this is just the beginning of making sure that states have the flexibility they need to embrace and uphold family integrity,” said Shereen White, director of policy and advocacy for the national nonprofit Children’s Rights.
Child welfare policy consultant Maureen Flatley, who helped craft both the original Adoption and Safe Families Act and Bass’ new bill, said the additional protections for parents would not only help more children reunify with their families, it could reduce the number of young adults who leave foster care alone and disconnected from stable housing, income or a support system.
Flatley said while the timelines can succeed at creating a greater sense of urgency around permanency for foster youth, roughly 22,000 youth still age out of foster care each year with no legal family ties. Meanwhile, many of their parents may simply have needed more time to complete court-ordered service plans.
“By maintaining those family connections and those relationships, we may be able to mitigate and limit the number of kids who are aging out alone,” Flatley said.
Under the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, states have received financial incentives to push foster children along the adoption path, despite critics’ objections. Bass’s bill does not address adoption incentives, instead taking aim at timelines that lead to the termination of parental rights — a critical first step for children to be adopted.
Still, even staunch detractors of the existing law applauded Bass’s attempt to update it through a social justice lens.
“I don’t know what the chances are for passage, but the fact that we can even have this discussion shows that the racial justice reckoning finally is reaching child welfare,” said Richard Wexler, an outspoken foster care critic and executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “If it passes, it will improve the lives of, ultimately, millions of children.”
Missing Mom 