This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/race-matters-not-bar-adoption

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Race matters but it should not be a bar to adoption Race matters – but it must not be a bar to adoption
(1 day later)
The children and families bill, which had its first reading on Monday, delivers on this government's determination to radically and permanently reform adoption so that neglected and abused children get the stable and loving homes they need. I'm very proud that much of the bill flows from recommendations I have made to Michael Gove and, until recently, children's minister, Tim Loughton.The children and families bill, which had its first reading on Monday, delivers on this government's determination to radically and permanently reform adoption so that neglected and abused children get the stable and loving homes they need. I'm very proud that much of the bill flows from recommendations I have made to Michael Gove and, until recently, children's minister, Tim Loughton.
It has been a difficult road and undoubtedly a controversial one. Sometimes that controversy has been the natural result of the government tackling genuinely sensitive issues – contact between children and birth relatives, placing children with their would-be adopters but in a fostering capacity while the legal processes unfold, or offering adopters personal budgets to allow them to buy in support, all included in this bill.It has been a difficult road and undoubtedly a controversial one. Sometimes that controversy has been the natural result of the government tackling genuinely sensitive issues – contact between children and birth relatives, placing children with their would-be adopters but in a fostering capacity while the legal processes unfold, or offering adopters personal budgets to allow them to buy in support, all included in this bill.
But much the most controversial issue has been the move to reduce the emphasis given to ethnicity, culture, linguistic background and religion when matching a child to adopters. That there is a problem is not in doubt. Black children wait a year longer to be adopted than white children, and some black children simply grow out of the chance of adoption, losing for all time the chance of the love and stability that every child needs.But much the most controversial issue has been the move to reduce the emphasis given to ethnicity, culture, linguistic background and religion when matching a child to adopters. That there is a problem is not in doubt. Black children wait a year longer to be adopted than white children, and some black children simply grow out of the chance of adoption, losing for all time the chance of the love and stability that every child needs.
It is frequently – sometimes mischievously – suggested that in changing the law on ethnicity and adoption, the government is suggesting that ethnicity doesn't matter. That is simply not true. What the government is doing – and partly as a result of my urging – is ensuring that ethnicity and cultural considerations do not unnecessarily veto an otherwise satisfactory adoption. There is an important history here. In the immediate postwar years, black and mixed-race children in care were extremely unlikely to be put forward for adoption. Children's case files were stamped as "unadoptable" reflecting a belief that predominantly white adopters would not countenance the adoption of a black child. This attitude persisted well into the 1960s until the adoption of black children into white homes became commonplace.It is frequently – sometimes mischievously – suggested that in changing the law on ethnicity and adoption, the government is suggesting that ethnicity doesn't matter. That is simply not true. What the government is doing – and partly as a result of my urging – is ensuring that ethnicity and cultural considerations do not unnecessarily veto an otherwise satisfactory adoption. There is an important history here. In the immediate postwar years, black and mixed-race children in care were extremely unlikely to be put forward for adoption. Children's case files were stamped as "unadoptable" reflecting a belief that predominantly white adopters would not countenance the adoption of a black child. This attitude persisted well into the 1960s until the adoption of black children into white homes became commonplace.
But by the end of the 1970s race emerged again as a factor, this time based on a belief that it was not in a black child's interests to be adopted by a white family. Transracial placements, as they become known, were frowned upon. In 1983 The Association of Black Social Workers told a commons select committee:But by the end of the 1970s race emerged again as a factor, this time based on a belief that it was not in a black child's interests to be adopted by a white family. Transracial placements, as they become known, were frowned upon. In 1983 The Association of Black Social Workers told a commons select committee:
"Transracial placement as an aspect of current child care policy is in essence a microcosm of the oppression of black people in this society … it is in essence a form of internal colonization … a new form of slave trade.""Transracial placement as an aspect of current child care policy is in essence a microcosm of the oppression of black people in this society … it is in essence a form of internal colonization … a new form of slave trade."
Government guidance at that time was – remarkably – pretty close to the Black Social Workers' view. But evidence first emerging toward the end of the 1990s demonstrated that there was no basis for the belief that ethnic matching was vital to the success of an adoption. By 1998 Paul Boateng, destined to become the UK's first black cabinet minister, was critical of local authorities who "still refuse to place children for adoption because one of the prospective parents … is deemed the wrong colour."Government guidance at that time was – remarkably – pretty close to the Black Social Workers' view. But evidence first emerging toward the end of the 1990s demonstrated that there was no basis for the belief that ethnic matching was vital to the success of an adoption. By 1998 Paul Boateng, destined to become the UK's first black cabinet minister, was critical of local authorities who "still refuse to place children for adoption because one of the prospective parents … is deemed the wrong colour."
Labour's 2002 Adoption and Children Act made plain that avoiding delay in adoption was the priority and that children should not wait in order to be adopted by parents of the same ethnicity, culture, religion or linguistic background. But local authorities have been slow to change, although some, at last, have begun to adjust their policies. Others appear unmoved and continue to emphasise race above other considerations.Labour's 2002 Adoption and Children Act made plain that avoiding delay in adoption was the priority and that children should not wait in order to be adopted by parents of the same ethnicity, culture, religion or linguistic background. But local authorities have been slow to change, although some, at last, have begun to adjust their policies. Others appear unmoved and continue to emphasise race above other considerations.
For example, Sheffield's adoption website today refers to children who "may be of black or dual heritage and need to be placed in families which are able to meet their ethnic and cultural needs".For example, Sheffield's adoption website today refers to children who "may be of black or dual heritage and need to be placed in families which are able to meet their ethnic and cultural needs".
It is not that race does not matter. The advice I have given to Michael Gove is that if there are two sets of adopters interested in adopting a black child, black adopters have an advantage. But when, as is so often the case, there are not enough black adopters available, then to continue to emphasise race is cruelly disadvantageous to black children. In a recent issue of Be My Parent magazine, which essentially advertises children waiting for adoption, a little boy, T, who has significant developmental delay, is described: "T was born with spina bifida … and will need continued [medical] support, including from a neurosurgeon for hydrocephalus. Professionals monitor his kidney function, orthopaedic needs and developmental progress. It is not known how much mobility he will have in the future."It is not that race does not matter. The advice I have given to Michael Gove is that if there are two sets of adopters interested in adopting a black child, black adopters have an advantage. But when, as is so often the case, there are not enough black adopters available, then to continue to emphasise race is cruelly disadvantageous to black children. In a recent issue of Be My Parent magazine, which essentially advertises children waiting for adoption, a little boy, T, who has significant developmental delay, is described: "T was born with spina bifida … and will need continued [medical] support, including from a neurosurgeon for hydrocephalus. Professionals monitor his kidney function, orthopaedic needs and developmental progress. It is not known how much mobility he will have in the future."
There are adopters willing to meet the challenge of bringing up children with complex needs. But the advertisement goes on to say that the family needed for T must be able to develop a sense of T's ethnic and cultural identity. And this is not simply about black children. In the same magazine a white brother and sister with Downs are featured. But in this case again, they should not do so unless they can reflect or actively develop the ethnic and cultural identity of these two children. That's what I mean when I talk sometimes about an obsession with ethnicity. There are adopters willing to meet the challenge of bringing up children with complex needs. But the advertisement goes on to say that the family needed for T must be able to develop a sense of T's ethnic and cultural identity. And this is not simply about black children. In the same magazine a white brother and sister with Downs are featured. But in this case again, adopters should not take them on unless they can reflect or actively develop the ethnic and cultural identity of the two children. That's what I mean when I talk sometimes about an obsession with ethnicity.
Local authorities have been commendably brave in supporting the adoption of children by gay parents. And they are right to do so, because the evidence is clear that the disadvantage of a child growing up in a home where they are unlikely to share the sexuality of either of their parents is easily overcome. The evidence that white parents can, with sensitivity and support, similarly compensate for a difference in ethnicity between themselves and an adopted child is just as compelling. This bill, will, I hope, ensure that social work practice responds to that reality.Local authorities have been commendably brave in supporting the adoption of children by gay parents. And they are right to do so, because the evidence is clear that the disadvantage of a child growing up in a home where they are unlikely to share the sexuality of either of their parents is easily overcome. The evidence that white parents can, with sensitivity and support, similarly compensate for a difference in ethnicity between themselves and an adopted child is just as compelling. This bill, will, I hope, ensure that social work practice responds to that reality.