Adoption workers, agency staff, court personnel and all others involved in adoption are charged with making the best possible placements for the children in our care. Sometimes, it seems as though families are forgotten; after all, our special needs adoption system is based on the best interests of the waiting child. But the hundreds of children who appear in the MARE book are testament to the fact that we need to maintain and expand a pool of prospective adoptive families, and every family that expresses an interest in adoption must be offered due consideration.

Due Consideration

The definition of consideration (as taken from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Second Ed.) lists several pertinent components.

“To take into account, to have or keep in mind” is probably the definition that first comes to mind in relation to adoption; any family that contacts an agency expressing interest in adoption wishes to be kept in mind for the next appropriate child that becomes available.

After this family selects a worker, the homestudy process is completed. During this process another facet of consideration occurs; the family is viewed attentively, observed, and examined. The worker considers the family in regards to adoption, makes many determinations, and records his final views for later reference or sharing.

In many cases, after the homestudy is complete the worker has no appropriate children on his caseload to present to the family. And this is where things can get sticky.

According to the Department's policy and purchase of service contracts, the family's worker may contact any other worker to locate a child for that family. If a child has waited more than 182 days from termination of parental rights, and no other studied families are working toward adoption, that family has the right to receive information and decide whether or not to pursue adoption. If several families come forward at the same time, the child's worker may consider all of them for a few days, select the one that appears "best", and proceed from there.

To Consider or Not To Consider

It sounds straightforward: Empower the family, give them the knowledge and support of both their and the child's workers, and let them make the decision. But MARE continues to receive complaints from already-approved families who feel they were not truly considered by the child's worker.

"The worker has to get to know the family," said one frustrated prospective parent. "They can't tell by one two-minute phone call whether we're the best placement for their child."

Jim Lewis, Executive Director of Lutheran Adoption Service in Southfield, agrees. "You're better off having the family come in at least once, to meet with them," said Lewis. "Then you can explain your criteria while getting a much better Idea of the family." While it's a good idea to meet every interested family in person, Lewis feels that sometimes the initial telephone contact can serve as adequate consideration for a particular child.

"When a family's worker calls about one of our children, we explore as much as possible about that family: Number of parents in the home, number of children, race, adoption experience, whether they're approved, location, assessment of parenting skills, income...by asking these questions, a lot of times one family will move to the forefront right away."

Shelly Fraser, adoption worker at Ottawa County DSS, expressed a common fear of placing one of her children with a family she did not study. "I've seen cases where a child should not have been placed in the home," said Fraser. "I recruit people off the street, because I feel more comfortable working with the family myself. However, when I hear from a family that someone else studied, I meet with them and their worker. After reading the child's case file, they meet with the foster parents, the CASA worker, and/or someone who really knows the child. Then, after they have ail this information, if they're still interested they meet with the child and decide whether or not to proceed."

Unfortunately, Fraser's thorough process seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And when many different families are interested in the same child, some preliminary screening must be done to avoid presenting the child to multiple families. This screening is left largely to individual worker discretion. While workers are prepared to make these decisions, they often neglect to inform ail the unchosen families about why they were not selected.

Communicating with the family brings in the final definition of consideration: To respect. Any family who has persisted through the homestudy process, been approved, and expresses interest in a special needs child deserves respect and honesty. Even though that family may not be the best placement option for a particular child, they may be ideal for a different child. Or, if they are lacking in a certain area, they may be willing to seek out the education and support necessary to improve. Without a clear explanation, though, they are more likely to become frustrated and drop out of the process.

Veda Thompkins is president of Families on the Move, is an Adoption Associate for Ennis Center, sits on a foster parent board and is an adoptive parent herself. She has dealt with many frustrated families, and advocates for a structured approach to consideration. "We have to empower parents by writing guidelines about what every agency must do, and give them to every family. Then we must let families know that, if the agencies aren't doing those things, they can call someone for follow-up."

Benny Whitfield, a Central Office administrator, feels that most family frustration can be averted with communication. "Any process you have for selecting families should be fair and open, with no secretiveness," he said. "Just because you consider a family does not mean you’ll place a child with them...but if they don't meet a child's needs, you must let them know why."

Linda Townsend, adoption worker with Catholic Social Services of Muskegon, is in the midst of a complicated sibling placement. Each child has very different needs, and several families are interested in adopting the group, "We've been very careful to write the adoption evaluation tailored to the children's needs," said Townsend. "Then, if there's ever a question as to why another family was selected, we can go back to that evaluation. I made it very clear to ail families that this wasn't a popularity contest, it was about the children's needs. I can say, 'Maybe you're real appropriate, but maybe someone else is even better for these children.' That helps the family accept it better."

This open, professional process demonstrates that it is possible to consider, reject, and still retain families while protecting the best interests of the children. And by building a pool of prospective families, workers are better prepared to serve the children that enter their caseloads in the future.

---

Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994

by Stephanie Willobee, MARE Student Intern

On October 5, 1994 the Multiethnic Placement Act, sponsored by Democratic Senators Howard M. Metzenbaum and Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, was quickly passed by the U.S. House and Senate as part of the Improving America's Schools Act. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

The bill, as originally stated, denied federal assistance to any agency or entity that used race as the sole factor when arriving at adoptive or foster care placements, and discriminated on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Race, color, or national origin of a child was to only be considered when it was relevant to the best interest of the child and in conjunction with other factors when arriving at a placement decision. Metzenbaum's intent for the bill was to decrease the length of time for children waiting to be adopted and to prevent discrimination in the placement of children.

Several modifications were made to this bill, which somewhat altered the effect of the law. Amendments provided for the diligent recruitment of potential same-race foster and adoptive families, broadened the penalty provisions of the bill, and further limited the use of race as the sole factor in placement decisions. The modifications and amendments may have serious implications.

Opinions concerning this bill varied. Those active in supporting the bill included Jesse Jackson and the Children's Defense Fund. National organizations that expressed concern included the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) and the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). NABSW's primary concern was that black children growing up in white homes may be hindered from a healthy development of racial identity, self concept, and attitude. An additional concern was that white families could not teach them essential survival skills in a racist society. CWLA agreed with the intent of the bill, but did not support it on the grounds that it neglected to provide for: early identification of children needing adoption; expeditious handling of children' s cases by the courts; outreach for adoptive families of all cultural/ethnic backgrounds; and support for families following adoption.

Opinions about the bill varied even among Adoption Exchange Association (AEA) members. Peggy Soule, the Executive Director of Children Awaiting Parents and AEA Board member, stated "I personally was pleased with how it was passed. I hope that it will ensure that children will be placed quickly, but that it will also provide agencies the chance to consider the race, culture. and ethnicity of the child to be placed in an appropriate setting. It tries to bring respect for race, but at the same time the children do not languish in care." Soule commented that the bill also helps to support "diligent recruitment" of same-race families and provides an opportunity for those who have been aggrieved.

The Institute for Black Parenting supported the bill only after the amendments had been made. Zena Oglesby, Jr., Executive Director of the Institute for Black Parenting and also an AEA Board member, felt that "as it was originally formed, it was potentially destructive. As the document was passed, it is livable." He also stated, "The most important part will be the implementation of the regulations. Now that it is a federal law, hopefully it will be laid to rest and they will accept the law as law. The children are more important than all the adults who fight over it. If they continue to fight It will be a deliberate act against the children."

As the bill was originally introduced. Bill Pierce, President of the National Council for Adoption and AEA member, supported it. But Pierce was "quite unhappy with the amendments made by the House, the administration, and others." Pierce believed the bill's vague language will "allow people to screen parents on race and ethnicity and waiting children will continue to wait while those people apply their version of ethnic acceptability to adoptive parents."

The original intent of the Multiethnic Placement Act was to reduce the amount of time that adoptable children wait for permanency by removing some of the barriers that delay adoption. Although the final version of this bill does little to spell out exact criteria or time frames, its philosophy remains laudable. While direct placement agencies struggle to interpret this new federal act, it will be the job of adoption exchanges to help recruit families for same-race placements, and to prepare families and workers for those occasions when this is not possible.

Special thanks to Joe Knoll (NACAC), Peggy Soule (CAP), Zena Oglesby, Jr. (IBP), and Bill Pierce (NCA).