Foster Kids Need Good Parents, Period : Don’t make race sole or disqualifying issue in adoptions

Should an adoption be denied because a child is not of the same race or ethnicity as that of the family that wants the child? In principle, no. Practically, however, such decisions are made, and they indeed should be--carefully and on a case-by-case basis. Although it’s naive to assume that decisions about adoption can ever be colorblind, race or ethnicity should not be the sole reason for denying placement of a child in a loving home. That would be racist.

Most states give priority to matching the race or ethnicity of adoptive families and children. In 1993, Texas became the first state to require that race or ethnicity be given no more weight than any other factor. California, which has 94,000 children in foster care, is now considering a similar measure in order to comply with the federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA).

That bill was intended to prevent public and private foster care and adoption agencies that receive federal funds from denying or delaying placements solely on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. The law does permit--but does not require--these factors to be considered in determining the child’s best interests. And that’s good.

LOOPHOLE-RIDDLED: Last month the federal Department of Health and Human Services issued policy guidelines on the law. The agency said a number of current practices of some states violate MEPA, including time limits for race or ethnic matching and special agency requirements to justify trans-racial placements. But these long-awaited guidelines apparently do not placate MEPA critics, including former Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), who sponsored the MEPA bill.

Metzenbaum is unhappy because the law’s final language is full of loopholes that, he maintains, subvert its original intent. He says the guidelines are not specific enough and that they may not really facilitate the placement of African American children. Meanwhile, a measure recently passed by the House, sponsored by Rep. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), would go further than Metzenbaum’s bill by eliminating race altogether as a factor in placing children. However, Bunning’s legislation is perhaps unrealistic and unfair to the children and families involved.

BLACK OPPOSITION: Two weeks ago the California Assembly’s Human Services Committee unanimously cleared a bill to amend state adoption law. The measure, sponsored by Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith (R-Poway), is opposed by the Assn. of Black Social Workers, which has long contended that trans-racial adoptees grow up confused about their identities and unprepared for racism. The legislation specifies that race or ethnicity should not be the sole basis for denying an adoption or foster home placement. That would put the state partly in compliance with MEPA, but under the newly issued guidelines other parts of California adoption law may have to be changed. Those parts include the requirement that agencies emphasize, during the first 90 days, matching children with prospective families by race and ethnicity.

At issue in Sacramento and Washington is the welfare of foster care children--totaling about 445,000 nationwide, nearly half of them minority members. The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse reports that adoptable children wait, on average, more than two years, eight months; the wait for minority children averages a third longer.

California adoption law needs to be amended to comply with the MEPA guidelines, but the federal law itself should not be repealed to eliminate consideration of race and ethnicity. It would be fine to do so if we were truly a colorblind society. That, sadly, is not the case.