Two Discussions on Adoption Disruption

Recently, there were two public discussions on adoption disruption. One was led by the adoption industry and the other by former foster youth and child welfare researchers. As you can imagine, the viewpoints were very different.

Industry Discussion

First, I will critique the industry’s discussion. This discussion occurred on August 15, 2012 on the Creating a Family blog radio show. You can listen to the lengthy show at this link: www.blogtalkradio.com/search/adoption-disruption/

Their description of the show is as follows “”When Adoption Disruption/Dissolution Becomes Inevitable
There are times when an adoption is simply not going to work out.  These circumstances are rare and terrifying for the parents and the child. There is little information available to help families navigate the practical issues of what to do when an adoption needs  to be dissolved. Our guests to talk about adoption disruptions are  Heidi Bruegel Cox, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for  The Gladney Center for Adoption, in Fort Worth, Texas, and a fellow in the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys and board member of  the National Council for Adoption. Susan Branco Alvarado is a  Licensed Professional Counselor with more than 15 years experience  providing mental health psychotherapy services in the Washington DC metro area for adoptive families, adopted persons, and and [sic]  birth/first parents.”

By the guest selection, you could already guess how this discussion was going to play out. I was intrigued that a counselor was invited. I found that the majority of the discussion was between Dawn, the host, and the Gladney representative, though.

This show operates with funds from the industry. This particular show had “gold sponsors” advertised at the beginning. One was Nightlight Christian Adoptions. The second was a sperm cryobank called Fairfax Cryosperm, whose slogan is “The trusted choice in donor sperm.” Their website explains that you can get your half of a human in 3 easy steps: (1) create an online account and search (2) call and order (3) confirm order and ship. If you want to feel like you have been transported into the movie Gattaca, then click on the Fairfax FaceMatch^TM link on the right hand column. But, I digress…

I would have titled the interview: A few practical and bureaucratic things to  consider when you disrupt or dissolve in the US

That is what it was. The best case scenarios of agencies helping the AP was all that was discussed. There was no mention of  what happens to the child or PAP who disrupts while in a foreign country or what the industry would do to help either. They actually put a lot of  issues on the table. They proceeded to NOT discuss even ONE resource or  solution or statistic. The industry excused itself and all governments of any real responsibility. That responsibility was firmly placed on the adoptive parent .
A beginner’s overview is what it was, but it leaves the listener thinking that the agency is there for you and that regulations and reporting are firmly in place and functioning.

Some characteristics of APs or child  in a  disruption were mentioned by the guest: older child, inadequate preparation of AP, moderate to  severe psychological problem. Dawn did bring up sexual abuse and the guests concurred that that was an additional issue. REFORM Talk has documented other issues in our survey (Explanation of survey can be seen here. First summary here and Second summary here )

Our first summary showed the following top reasons for disruption:

(1) Attachment

(2) Mental disorders of PTSD and ADHD

(3) Medical Condition

Our second summary showed the following top reasons for new cases:

(1) Attachment

(2) Child not wanting to be adopted

(3) Other disabilities (Down Syndrome, learning, other mental health)

(4)Sex abuse or violence

This interview did not delve into what was meant by “psychological problem”. It never mentioned medical conditions as a reason for disruption and it never even went into the universe of discussion of children NOT wanting to be adopted in the first place. It never mentioned anything to do with WHEN children were disrupting post adoption.

Of course, mentioning that medical conditions are causing disruptions would be harmful to agency marketing of special needs children and that is why interviewing industry people is not sufficient for this type of serious discussion.

From this point on, any sensitive subject was curtailed. When Dawn asks if someone dissolves or disrupts can they adopt again and received the “it depends” answer from Heidi. Dawn asked if a homestudy question is automatically  asked about disruption and Heidi’s answer was that it should be and  that conversation  trailed off and they moved on.

Heidi emphasized postplacement reporting and  thus wrongly implied that everyone completes reports and that countries WILL KNOW when disruptions happen. This is totally misleading, especially to PAPs and the general public who do not understand how postplacement reports work. Not only do some APs not complete reports, some countries only require reports for a few years post adoption. She said that the Department of State keeps statistics. LOL. Well, that depends on what her definition of “statistics” is. (See our posts on FY2010 and FY2011 disruption statistics here and here ).

At this point, the counselor Susan finally gets a question and her advice is to seek help before crisis and get a support group and family support. I completely agree with this. I just wish that this would have been delved into and resources and solutions given. To me, THIS needs to be the postadoption focus of the discussion. The preadoption focus needs to be on the adoption agency and government placement practices that lead to disruptions.

Heidi went on to say that IN PERSON preadoption training was best. I  thought that was interesting. I agree, but this is a point at which followup would have been ideal.  There was no discussion about whether this in person training ever happens or is this a proposal to change how the current process is , etc.

The discussion turned to foster care disruption. Heidi almost immediately discusses how people should look to Orphan Care Ministries!!

Heidi’s number one advice was to get the “agency to  assist.” BUT THAT IS THE PROBLEM! The AGENCIES DON’T ASSIST consistently and in some cases EVER.

Dawn made a good, tough question at this point. She asked ,  “Can the agency say NO, they will not help? ” Heidi said, “Yes.” Again, there was no followup. What on earth is an AP to do when the agency says NO? THAT is the million dollar question.

Heidi did briefly mention that a family could be charged with neglect and  other siblings could be effected BUT her statement did not go far enough to paint  the picture of the consequences. Someone who does not understand  the issues would not pick up on this very crucial point. This is a major barrier for APs to not seek help! Other children could be REMOVED from the home.

Heidi’s discussion on international adoption consisted of four points:

(1) Help first APs “get to  the finish line” meaning that sometimes the first APs place into respite care and  see that the child is doing better and subsequently want kid back. [Isn’t that the definition of “respite”? Again, this only deals with cases in which agencies choose to help.] 

 (2) Choose the best family [Oh, please! I have seen the ads. They will take all-comers.]
(3)Immigration issues
(4) Notify everyone [This is hypocritical after it was just admitted that agencies say “No” to APs.]

This was the advice if the agency won’t help:

 (1)Complain to Executive director of agency 

(2) Complain to  NCFA or JCICS

(3) Complain to COA, if Hague. 

That is it. Susan, the counselor then added that one could contact the State Department and then  Dawn seemed confused at whether it had to be  a Hague adoption for that and  Susan said she heard that you can if not Hague..then the  conversation trailed off and they moved on.

Heidi again mentions Orphan Care Ministries for international adoptions before the conversation turned briefly to citizenship issues. She said that she  EXPECTS IN THE FUTURE THAT APs WILL BE CHARGED WITH NEGLECT if they don’t get citizenship or other papers in order for the child. The way she said it makes me wonder if she (meaning NCFA) is pushing some legislation in this area of punishment of APs.

Towards the end of the interview Dawn asked what happens if a new family was not found. There was a brief exchange on  getting kids into an RTC . They mentioned that was hard to do and costly. The exchange was so high-level that it was meaningless.

Former Foster Children and Child Welfare Researcher Discussion

The following article explains  the author’s thoughts on a recent roundtable discussion. What a contrast!

Youth Services Insider: Time for New Numbers on Adoption Disruption

[Chronicle of Social Change 8/16/12 by John Kelly]

“How big is the problem? Who knows? Twenty-eight years ago, University of Maryland School of Social Work Dean Richard Barth completed a study in California aimed at projecting how many adoptions of foster children are disrupted. There’s a few ways a disruption occurs, but the majority of times it entails new contact with the child welfare system or a youth running away from home.

 

“In California, we went to each county and asked them if they could give us a list or some information about what the disruption rates were,” Barth said in an interview the week after the roundtable. “Some counties had spreadsheets ready, and some didn’t have a clue.”

 

Barth and his colleagues then asked if the agencies could contact the families where disruptions occurred, and ask if they’d agree to an interview with researchers. Ultimately, he said, just over 100 families agreed to discuss their experiences.

 

Barth’s team found that about 14 percent of adoptions disrupted. Since then, two studies in Illinois, conducted in the 1990s, found similar rates. And while the federal government helped spur a rise in adoptions out of foster care with financial incentives in the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, it has never required states to report on the success of those adoptions.

 

Illinois is generally considered to be one of the better states at handling adoptions. [I have to completely disagree with this assessment!]But even if we assume the national rate is really been steady at 14 percent since the 1980s, that means there are a whole lot more adoptions disrupting than there used to be.

 

The number of adoptions from foster care exploded during that time period – from 28,000 in 1996 to 50,000 in 2011. So now, it would be 14 percent of a much bigger pie. [This increase is due to the Adoption and Safe Families Act ]

 

Barth called at the roundtable for a new study to get underway this year and to be ready in time to mark the 30th anniversary of his initial venture.

 

How would he structure this iteration, we asked Barth on the phone a week after the discussion? He said the best approach might be to find between six and ten states that have some capacity to track children post-adoption. Massachusetts and Illinois are pretty much able to do so now, he said.

 

The trick would be finding a common way to follow an adopted child out of, and then back into, a system. A big challenge to that, said Barth: in most cases, “their names change” when they get adopted.

 

YSI mentioned that the Chronicle had, in a recent Knight Foundation grant competition about data, pitched the idea of using social security numbers to follow adopted youths. The theory being: only a youth who was adopted and then had a new child welfare case initiated afterward, would have a SSN show up twice.

 

“Social security numbers are not in all the [state] databases,” said Barth. “If you got adopted, say you’re 17 now and adopted at 3 in 1998, it is very unlikely that your SSN was entered” before the adoption.

 

Social security numbers are “much more routinely used” now by agencies, he said, but they are loath to divulge them and risk youths falling prey to identity theft.

 

Medicaid numbers are issued to most youths in the system, he said, so that might be a better or safer way to use data as a trace on adoptions.

 

Regardless of the trace identification method, Barth points out that this would only reveal the youths who made further contact with child welfare systems after an adoption. It would not include some of the youths who run away from adoptive homes or children who were placed into residential treatment directly by their adoptive parents.

 

Either would constitute a disruption, he said; following ID numbers would capture neither.

 

What is being espoused now might not be working Barth expressed a similar dim view of the knowledge base around what works to keep adoptions from disrupting.

 

“Casey Family Services did a big study on its post-adoption services” in Maine, Barth said. “They couldn’t come up with any real evidence that the services had an impact.”

 

Residential placements are an option that adoptive parents will often pursue on their own, said Barth; indeed, he mentioned at the roundtable that he put his own adoptive daughter in a residential care facility after she threatened his wife a number of times.

 

Years later, he said, he commiserated with other adoptive parents about how foolish a choice it was. The data on “residential care is pretty bleak, there’s almost no evidence it works and some evidence that some kids get worse.”

 

Actually, the more accurate take is that the net effect of residential care is zero, Barth said in the phone interview: some adopted foster kids do thrive in the setting. So it may be worth examining what factors into successful residential programs: what are the characteristics of youths who thrive there? What type of program components have the greatest benefit?

 

Barth also said that efforts should be made to establish a standard, national home visitation screen. [Brilliant idea!]James Williams, a former foster youth from South Carolina, agreed. He discussed his experience being adopted by unstable parents that would quickly abuse him, landing Williams right back in foster care.

 

“Whenever youth go into adoptions, there should be more adult visits,” said Williams. “My adoptive parents had a record of domestic violence. It’s insane when you think about how badly systems want to get kids out. They’re willing to put [youth] with anyone.”

 

Inform Kids Based on the experiences of the four former foster youths on the panel, systems generally listen to children’s views on adoption. The problem, according to 23-year-old Tawny Spinelli, is that very little is done to shape the view of children about the possibilities of adoption.

 

“When I was approached about adoption, I was 13,” Spinelli said at the roundtable.  “I had already had seven different placements with seven different families, some relatives some others. If I don’t belong with other families, why would an adoptive family work?”

 

But nobody helped her think through that quandary, and her initial reaction was to say no. And nobody brought up adoption with her again until her foster parent mentioned the prospect casually when she was already 17.

 

Connection to birth family: option, not mandate Marchelle Roberts, one of the foster care alumni who spoke at the roundtable, said  that little effort was made to keep her connected to relatives when she was still in foster care, and then after her adoption was finalized.

 

“My adoptive family made me who I am today,” Roberts said, “but I want relationships with any fellow siblings or uncles, etcetera, that I can.”

 

Ashley Lepse, also a former foster youth, said she was forced to visit with her biological mother even though she did not want to and was on a path from foster care to adoption. Lepse said the mandate was what she disliked, and agreed with Roberts that every foster and adoptive youth should be able to find and seek out their biological family members if they choose to do so.”

 

REFORM Puzzle Piece