Interracial adoption

Interracial adoption (also referred to as transracial adoption) refers to the act of placing a child of one racial or ethnic group with adoptive parents of another racial or ethnic group.

Interracial adoption is not the same thing as transcultural or international adoption though in some circumstances an adoption may be interracial, international, and transcultural.

Statistics

Based on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) in the U.S., the fiscal year of 1998 showed that approximately 64% of children waiting in foster care were of non-Caucasian background; 32% were white. Out of all foster children waiting for adoption 51% are black, 11% are Hispanic, 1% are American Indian, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5% are unknown/unable to determine. Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) in the U.S. show that adoption of an unrelated child was most common among childless white women and those with higher levels of income and education. The most recent estimate of interracial adoption was performed in 1987 by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and it found that 1% of white women adopt black children, 5% of white women adopt children of other races, and 2% of women of other races adopt white children (estimates include foreign-born).[1]

The US Census 2000 found that "White (and no other race), not Hispanic children made up the majority of all categories of children of householders under 18: about 58 percent of adopted children, 64 percent of biological children" and "Of the 1.7 million households with adopted children, about 308,000 (18 percent) contained members of different races."[2]

Between 2008 and 2009, approximately 2,700 white children were adopted compared to only 410 mixed-race children and only 90 black children in the UK. Approximately 1 in 10 children in care is black and 1 in 9 children in care comes from a racially mixed background. Black, mixed-race and Asian children typically wait to be adopted on average three years longer than white children. Children of mixed ethnicities are more likely than other children to be placed for adoption. The Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act 2002 state that in England and Wales an adoption agency must give due consideration to a child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background; this requirement was repealed for England in the Children and Families Act 2014.[3] Adoption placement of children of mixed ethnicities is difficult because it is influenced by values, ideology and anti-oppressive practices that need to be considered within the practice. Mixed ethnicity children are subject to racism and complete inclusion of both parts of their heritage. Mixed children will struggle with discrimination from both parts of their ethnicity, desiring solidarity from both parts of their ethnic backgrounds.[4]

Statistics of Interracial Adoption

Interracial adoption grew significantly from 1999 to 2005 where it reached its peak year at 585 adoptions to the United States. Following 2005, interracial adoption into the US declined with 288 adoptions in the year 2011. From 1999 to 2011, there has been 233,934 adoptions into the United States from other countries across the globe. Of the total adoptions, 39.4% (92,202 children) were under the age of 12 months.[5] Also, 63% (146,516 children) were female. Overall, children from China were the most common to be adopted. 66,630 were from China and Russia was the second largest country with 45,112 children. In the United States, California had the highest number of homes that were opened to international children. California had 16,792 children and New York had 16,191. All of the states had participated from 1999 to 2011 in interracial adoption.

History

Before World War II it was very rare for white couples to adopt a child of a different race and every effort was made in order to match a child with the skin color and religion of the adoptive family. Then in 1944 the Boys and Girls Aid Society took an interest in the increasing number of minority children waiting to be adopted which focused on children from Asian American, Native American, and African American heritage. Children of Asian and Native American heritage were most easily placed outside of their racial group while those of African Americans heritage proved more difficult. The campaign was called "Operation Brown Baby" and its objective was to find adoptive homes even if from a different race, the first candidate in this operation, Noah Turner, was a Chinese baby adopted into a Caucasian family in 1947. Then during the civil rights movement, interracial adoptions in the United States increased dramatically and the numbers more than tripled from 733 cases in 1968 to 2,574 cases in 1971. (There are now about 6,500 cases a year.) It was then that the National Association of Black Social Workers condemned interracial adoption citing that adoptees were at risk for developing a poor racial identity due to lack of contact with role models of the same race. In the 1990s the placement of black children into non-black homes virtually came to a complete stop.

Additional information

Families formed across racial, national, and biological boundaries represent a growing demographic, adding to the pervasive, historical diversity of family forms in the United States (Coontz, 2008). Since 1990, the number of U.S. adoptions of foreign-born orphans has increased in unprecedented numbers, rising from 7,093 children to 12,753 in 2009—an 80% increase: China ranked as the top sending country, and Vietnam ranked as the seventh highest (U.S. Department of State, 2009). Whereas diversification in the family form is not a new phenomenon, it often appears so, given that family communication scholarship on nontraditional families is a relatively recent development. [6]

Law

In 1994 the Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act was passed. It prohibits an agency that receives Federal assistance and is involved in foster care and adoptive placements from delaying or denying the placement of a child based on race, color, or national origin of the child or adoptive/foster parent. Then, in 1996 it was amended with the Interethnic Adoption Provisions, also known as the Interethnic Placement Act. These provisions forbid agencies from delaying or denying the placement of a child solely on the basis of race and national origin. The purpose of these revisions was to strengthen compliance and enforcement of the procedures, remove any misleading language, and demand that discrimination would not be tolerated.

Another important law regarding interracial adoptions was the Adoption and Safe Families Act that was implemented in 1997. The purpose of this law is to reduce the time that a child spends in foster care by implementing a two-year limit and therefore hopefully moving a child closer to permanent adoption. The purpose of this act was to reduce the instability and abuse problems in the foster care system. Critics argue that it also takes the emphasis off of trying to keep children with their biological parents.

Academic research

Adolescent adjustment

One study found that interracial adoptees fare sometimes better, sometimes worse, but overall about the same as their same-race adopted counterparts across the 12 adjustment measures investigated. These measures investigated indices of academic, familial, psychological, and health outcomes for 4 groups of interracial and same-race adopted adolescents. Specifically, interracial adoptees had significantly higher grades and significantly higher academic expectations but marginally more distant father relationships and higher levels of psychosomatic symptoms than their same-race adopted counterparts. Also, Asian adolescents adopted by white parents had both the highest grades and the highest levels of psychosomatic symptoms, whereas black adolescents adopted by black parents reported the highest levels of depression. On the other hand, black adoptees reported higher levels of self-worth than non-black adoptees.

Appearance discomfort

Another report suggested that adjustment problems among their children at approximately the same levels as were reported by the parents of intraracially adopted whites. Yet, evidence also showed that extra-family forces, for example societal racism, did negatively impact adjustment outcomes. Particularly, experiences of discrimination generated feelings of appearance discomfort. The research suggested that black and Asian children, who appear unmistakably different from whites, are most likely to encounter such societal discrimination. Apparently, many Latino children with European physical features can safely escape such expressions of racism. One of this study's most interesting findings showed that interracial adoptive parents' decisions on where to live had a substantial impact upon their children's adjustments. Interracial adoptive parents living in predominantly white communities tended to have adoptees that experienced more discomfort about their appearance than those who lived in integrated settings.

Cultural identity

Research has focused on the formation of cultural identity by the children adopted. For example, one study focused on Korean and Chinese children adopted by families in the United States. Interviews discovered that a high degree of involvement by children in Korean cultural activities was positively associated with scores measuring the strength of the children's Korean identity as well as with ease of communication with their parents about their adoptions. Parental encouragement of cultural activities & co-participation in them seemed to be critical in the development of ethnic identification. Many children find that they are so adapted to their parents' and family's culture that they start to forget their own.

In 2008, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute reignited the interracial adoption debate with its recommendation that race should be considered in selecting adoptive parents for children awaiting placement. According to their findings, interracial adoptees face additional and complex challenges with coping with being "different" particularly if they have grown up in homogeneous white continuities struggling to fit in with both their adoptive families and the black community, feeling awkward and out of place in both settings, developing a positive racial/ethnic identity, acknowledging racial differences but without expressing racial pride, and managing racial prejudice and discrimination. The findings from the Donaldson report links the challenges that interracial adoptees face with socialization practices of adoptive parents that minimize racial differences, particularly when parents do not facilitate their children's understanding of and comfort with their own ethnicities.[7]

Ethnocentric bias

Finally, some research has examined the empirical studies of interracial adoption themselves. These studies address whether past research that claims that interracial adoption positively benefits children of color, particularly black children, may have methodological difficulties. Specifically, these studies analyze the presence of an ethnocentric bias in legal and scientific assessments of children’s well-being and adjustment.

Assimilation into the family

Multicultural families have both similarities and differences from the biological family. A family that has participated with interracial adoption shares similar roles, life stages, and transition points as other families. The challenge comes, however, with the pursuit of a shared family identity through communication. Linda D. Manning conducted a research study on this topic titled "Presenting Opportunities: Communicatively Constructing a Shared Family Identity". The research question she posed initially was, How do members of a multiracial adoptive family communicatively co-construct a shared family identity that emphasizes similarities and allows for difference? The results of the study found that having "cultural artifacts" in the home allow for the embrace of the differing cultures represented in the family. It "creates a worldview that embraces diversity -- not just races and ethnicities directly related to those embodied by family members. The choice to embrace multiple races and ethnicities... affirms the multiethnic experience" (Manning, 2006). The study also showed that parents, in any family, present the family identity and the child responds. This is where an interracial family would share the similar roles as in a biological family. The parents act as educators and spokesperson. The children act as compliant participant, challenger, and expert. The research also showed that in an interracial family, there is tension between uniqueness and conformity. It is difficult but essential to balance these two qualities within the family identity. Manning concludes the research study by describing how "the constructs of a shared family identity is both a process and a product". The process includes roles and themes within the family while the product is developed through communication. "A shared family identity is a group identity that encompasses individual identity characteristics shared by each family member, allows for salient differences between and among family members, and accounts for dialectic tensions that exist within family interactions, as well as between the family and the community".

Education prior to interracial adoption

The United States Department of State offers multiple resources for parents wanting to adopt such as the "Intercountry Adoption from A-Z" publication, Adoption guides, Adoptive families committees, FAQs, and Visa information. All of these and more are available on their website.[8] The article, "Adoptive Parent's Framing of Laypersons' Conceptions of Family" by Elizabeth A. Suter, Kristine L. Reyes, & Robert L. Ballard, addresses the importance of parents preparing for outside comments from others. This study showed that families that had participated in interracial adoption had experienced comments such as "their families violated the canonical view of family in terms of racial dissimilarity between members, construction of family via adoption, and adoption of a child born out of the United States". The article uses a battleground as a metaphor for an adoptive family. The external view of the family does pose as a challenge for interracial families. The results suggest that prior to interracial adoption, parents "should be made aware of social stigmas... and be provided with opportunities to develop a critical consciousness about such stigmas". The research also suggests and encourages required statewide courses for perspective parents.

Support and opposition

Support for interracial adoption

A dichotomy exists in reference to the subject of interracial adoption. Critics of race matching say there is a darker side involving whites with lingering racist beliefs against mixing races. They argue that children are hurt most by the practice. "One of the problems with race-matching policies," says Donna Matias, a lawyer with the Institute of justice, "is that it leaves the children in the system to wait. They are thrown into a vicious cycle where the chances plummet that they will ever get adopted."[9] Never getting adopted has been shown to have a negative impact on children. After aging out of foster care, 27% of males and 10% of females were incarcerated within 12 to 18 months. 50% were unemployed, 37% had not finished high school, 33% received public assistance, and 19% of females had given birth to children. Before leaving care, 47 percent were receiving some kind of counseling or medication for mental health problems; that number dropped to 21% after leaving care.[10]

Opposition to interracial adoption

Opposition to interracial adoption has been reactionary to extreme misuse of adoption practices; for example Australian aborigines were taken from their parents, sterilized and then adopted for Christian upbringing. Similar cases happened with Native Americans. The National Association of Black Social Workers which consisted of twelve members, opposed interracial adoption saying it was "Cultural Suicide" but their opposition was opposed by such groups as the NAACP.[11][12] [13][14][15][16]

References

  1. ↑ http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_seek.cfm
  2. ↑ http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-6.pdf
  3. ↑ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/section/3/enacted
  4. ↑ http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d932bcba-8f78-4f28-a416-befb917bd106%40sessionmgr112&vid=7&hid=123
  5. ↑ "Intercountry Adoption". Bureau of Consular Affairs. U.S. Department of State.
  6. ↑ Coontz, S. (2008). American families: A multicultural reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Suter, E. A., Reyes, K. L., & Ballard, R. L. (2011). Adoptive Parents' Framing of Laypersons' Conceptions of Family. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 12(1), 43-50. doi:10.1080/17459435.2011.601524 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Intercountry Adoption. (2009). Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report on Intercountry Adoption. Retrieved from http://adoption.state.gov/ content/pdf/fy2009_annual_report.pdf
  7. ↑ http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d932bcba-8f78-4f28-a416-befb917bd106%40sessionmgr112&vid=9&hid=123
  8. ↑ http://adoption.state.gov/adoption_community/parents.php
  9. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20080609095354/http://library.adoption.com/culture-and-ethnicity/the-colors-of-adoption-black-vs-white/article/1791/1.html
  10. ↑ http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html
  11. ↑ "African-American Leadership Group Condemns Racist Adoption Practices." Project 21
  12. ↑ "All in the Family." The New Republic, January 24, 1994, pp6-7.
  13. ↑ Christ, Fran. "When Whites Adopt Blacks." PLAN Preadoption Course, May 1990, pp.1-3.
  14. ↑ Courtney, Mark, "The Politics and Realities of Transracial Adoption." Child Welfare, Nov/Dec 1997, vLXXVI n6, pp.749-773.
  15. ↑ Simon, Rita and Altstein, Howard, "The Case for Transracial Adoption." Children and Youth Services Review, 1996, v18 n1/2, pp.5-12.
  16. ↑ Taylor, Robert and Thornton, Michael, "Child Welfare and Transracial Adoption." Journal of Black Psychology, May 1996, v22 n2, pp.282-291.

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, March 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.