John Worne
:Why Soft Power Is Hard for Governments
Matthew Reed
:The New Anti-Social Behaviour Bill Risks Criminalising Children for Being Children
Naomi Westland
:Why Spain Must Investigate Franco-Era Crimes
Peter Little
:Why the UK Should Avoid Arming the Syrian Rebels
Gabriel Byng
:Why Parliament Ought To Be Grand
The 'race' and adoption reforms put forward by Michael Gove, secretary of state for education, in England are undoubtedly an ideological crusade - not unlike the ideology around the elimination of religion in the former Soviet Union.
Adoption has traditionally been about 'matching' to help children feel a sense of connection and belonging to their adoptive families. In today's multicultural Britain, there is unease with difference and diversity in some quarters. And the adoption reform in its elimination of 'ethnicity' is a classic example of this.
The Children and Families Bill which seeks to reform adoption process and practice in England had its first reading last week. In the run up to this bill and even after the first reading last Monday, the government's mouthpiece, Martin Narey continued to insist that race matters in adoption and that the government were removing a ban on transracial adoption. He was challenged by many in the social media outlet Twitter, to explain in what way race matters in the reforms; and why he believes there is a ban on transracial adoption when no ban exists. Plenty of white families adopt minority ethnic children and of course this would not happen if there were a ban on such placements. Needless to say, there was a dissonance in Narey's media message and the actual reality of the newly drafted bill.
Interestingly, the truth was more revealing but it did not come from Narey's mouth who had clearly vowed to serve his masters to continue to mislead the public. A recent House of Lords select committee on adoption legislation concluded that "to remove mention of religion, race, culture and language altogether will run the risk of these important factors of identity being neglected in matching decisions". They also suggested that if "due consideration" was to be removed from the statute then the welfare checklist which includes age and gender should be extended to include "religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background". Rather tellingly, the proposed government legislation has obliterated 'religion, language, and ethnicity' to oblivion. The Gove adoption crusade is so perversely obsessed with the elimination of ethnicity that it cannot stomach any reference to the importance of this in an adopted child's life.
Research evidence from the USA reveals that almost 20 years of colour-blind adoption policies have achieved little for the most vulnerable black children in public care. Campaigners there are seeking to reverse such laws. In the words of Adam Pertman, Chief Executive, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute in the USA - "Based on our research, I feel strongly that Britain should NOT follow our model".
A plethora of research evidence documents the importance of good racial and ethnic socialisation experiences to enable children to develop a healthy racial and ethnic identity, and to be able to cope with racial discrimination in societies where they are a minority and where race continues to blight life chances. The extent to which adoptive families can help support such children depends on a range of factors including their own experiences and understanding of the pernicious effects of racism and their ability to inculcate a healthy regard for the child's ethnic identity. Current adoption laws take into consideration how potential adoptive families will address these issues. Many child welfare organizations and professionals recognize the importance of ethnicity and wish to retain this emphasis.
Gove's race and adoption crusade however is very much in line with his other thinking on matters of education for instance where he wishes to take us all to some imagined era where his sense of history and society should prevail. Perhaps, Gove hopes that by wiping ethnicity from the legal statute, he can take England to some promised land.
As a society, whilst Britain has changed from the days of blatant and ugly racism depicted in the 1960s 'No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' phenomenon, it is far from a post-race utopia in which race no longer matters. Gove's political and ideological Children and Families Bill is not in the 'best interests' of vulnerable minority children and is a retrograde step for British society and the role it plays in the international arena in tolerance and human rights.
For a more nuanced analysis, read this
Follow Professor Ravinder Barn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProfRaviBarn
Anthony Browne: Financial Education Should Be Part of the National Curriculum
Overview of English Adoption Law - Center for Adoption Policy
Adoption UK Policies and management
Adoption | Society | The Guardian
Adoption and Fostering - Politics.co.uk
Couple's battle with UK's strict adoption laws | The Sun |Woman
BBC News - Changes for mixed-race adoption policy
The Law | British Association for Adoption and Fostering
Older people may still have to sell their homes to afford their care costs ...
Mixed race orphans placed in families with white parents 'are deeply affected ...
Let me be clear. This is NOT what I am proposing.
Some of you may not be aware that our current adoption laws give recognition to the importance of 'religion, language, and racial and cultural background'. There is NO ban on transracial adoption and neither is it being suggested in my piece that there should be a ban.
I think lines 16-17 in my article may have confused some people -
"Plenty of white families adopt minority ethnic children and of course this would not happen if there were a ban on such placements".
The above sentence refers to the fact that we do not currently have a ban on transracial adoption, ie, such placements happen and they happen because our laws allow it. AND THIS IS FINE.Transracial placements happen and they can work. The point being made here is that Martin Narey is seeking to mislead by arguing that the government are 'removing' a ban. This is a ridiculous claim when there is NO ban in our laws. And neither do we wish to have a ban.
A very simple question would be, why would a white couple want to adopt a child from a different ethnic background ?
I offer no solution as to the amount of children in care, but it probably could be solved with better training, more staff and secure loving care homes.
Mr Narey is making it easier for white couples to adopt a child from any ethnicity. That is the problem. Countless children from different races need to be adopted. For God sake make it easier for the children to have a loving home.
This is a genuine question.
I was adopted in the 70s I am white, my family also fostered an Asian girl. All you want to do as a kid is fit in and I could certainly get away with it most of the time, but my sister grew up with the weekly question of "why are you brown but your family is white". If you come from a mixed race family the answer is simply "because my mum or dad is Asian". But if your in care its " so why couldn't your mum look after you. My foster sister has now gone on to adopt herself and was very carefully matched to her son, I know she would say this color blindness is wrong, your race is and should be an important consideration.
Being adopted was hard enough for me and Im sure any child, but if I was adopted by a family of color there would have been no hiding place, and it would have been very confusing for me.
A solely white family will be unable to pass on the technics required by a black child. Where as a mixed race child will have one parent who can inform them and guide them.
Lets hope we can save ourselves from the liberal elite who seems to know what is best for everyone.
Lets allow good loving couple's to adopt who they want and allow children the chance for happiness.
Let see a person, a child and not what back ground you believe they should be from.
The Children and Families bill has removed all traces of ethnicity. As argued in the article and the paper linked at the bottom of the piece is that in a 'race conscious' society, minority children face challenges around their racial and ethnic identity. Adoptive parents, black or white, need to play a crucial role in helping children deal with the realities of race and racism. It is crucial that 'ethnicity' should remain a consideration in the law so that vulnerable minority children can have such needs addressed. Without this, there is a risk that the psychological and social needs of minority children may not be recognized and met.
This one comment show your lack of understanding. I have lived this experience and can tell you that it has had a serious impact on my Asian foster sister.
In an ideal world it would be wonderful to have children be adopted by people of the same ethnic background. This is not an ideal world and unfortunately not many families from similar ethnic backgrounds adopt. Therefore you are left with a large number of children in care homes who need loving families who don't get adopted. What Mr Gove is trying to do is is trying to make sure that these children have a chance of a better future. I am not a conservative but I applaud Mr Gove for trying to improve the future for children who, to be honest would not have one.
Children in care will essentially have no future. I suggest Professor Barn read the stats on children in care. Very shocking reading. Instead of insulting people she should do some basic research first.