Blog Post #11

Blog Post #11

The film, “Ask Us Who We Are: Foster Care in Vermont” provided a different perspective on the foster care system. It is a documentary film that focused on the struggles that youth faces in their lives in the foster care system. The film in a way represented the loss and belonging of wanting to find a family. There were many highlights of the challenges teenagers indicated in their personal stories, the film also portray the determination that grows within each of them to strive and not get up.

One of the main contrasts that I see with the film and Dorothy Robert’s book was that it seems very different in the way how the foster care system work. In the book, it seems like the foster care system is dark and gloomy that no one wants to be a part of it and it is the last resort someone will consider. In the film, it was heartwarming and giving. The teens that are in the foster care system had great family that wants to help them cope with what they are dealing with and help them strive. Another difference was that in the book, it mentioned that the foster care system seems to tear the family apart and not re-uniting the family but in the film it seems opposite. The foster care family wanted to re-unite the children and family. In one of the scene, the woman was talking about how she would ask for a picture of their parents so she can place it on the crib so the child will know that this is their mom and dad and not the foster care system.

Both of these accounts can be true. Depending on where one live, it can provide a whole different story. Also, it also depend on what is the main idea of the film and the book, it will give a sense of how the foster care system work. Overall, the film provided the teens with a steady home and love in their broken lives.  

Chia C.

Blog Post 11: Option #1

In the film "Ask Us Who We Are: Foster Care in Vermont", many children tell their stories about their foster care experiences.  One of the very first things that I noticed in the film that was different than the current book we are reading, “Shattered Bonds” by Dorothy Roberts, is the number of white children in the film.  In Robert’s book, she states that child welfare cases have become increasingly more Black (14).  This was not portrayed in this film at all.  Most of the stories that were told were being told by young white people.  There were only two stories that came from black females.  

The second difference between the film and the book was that the filmed portrayed foster care as a good service overall that could help save or change a child’s life.  Again this is not how Roberts sees the system.  On pages 18-19 in Robert’s books she talks about the devastating emotional response that is present when removing a child from their parents.  She also talks about how Black children are more likely to stay in foster care longer and/or never be adopted.  The film does address this emotional response children feel from being removed from their homes, but the tone in which it is displayed is different.  Most the children that speak out within the film seem to have overall happy endings to their stories that end in adoption or permanent placements, or of going to college, and/or starting families of their own with the vows to never parent or be like their parents.  Robert’s book has a tone the displays that foster care is a bad choice for children and that if a child is placed within the system they are doomed to repeat the cycle of their parents or be unsuccessful in their lives.

After reading pages out of Roberts’s book and watching this film, I believe that both views could be correct.  The film takes place in the state of Vermont which is a state that is not known for poverty or crime and if I had to guess not much diversity.  Robert’s book focuses on very diverse places across the United States and places that are plagued with poverty and crime.  Robert’s chosen cities within her book probably do have government systems that discriminate against Black’s due to the stereotypes that exist for that race in poverty stricken areas.  But, I also believe that foster care can be beneficial for kids and that most foster care parents do it for the right reasons and can help those children achieve something that they may have never been given the chance to get without their help.  

Lisa R. 

Blog Post #11, Option #1

            I believe Dorothy Roberts’ view and the views in the film “Ask Us Who We Are: Foster Care in Vermont” are in contrast, yet at the same time, they both reveal truths of the foster care system. Dorothy Roberts’ view is more centered on the injustice of adoption centered care in the foster care system whereas the film revealed to the viewers the benefits of adoption through foster care.

            Dorothy Roberts has a very critical view of many foster care policies. She picks apart the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in particular. She states, “ASFA threatens to permanently separate children from families, families that might have been preserved with the right incentives, adequate state resources, or creative custody arrangements” (Roberts, pg. 113). She accuses many federal and state laws of forcing agencies to push for adoption in abuse and neglect cases rather than striving for reunification. She also discusses how many lawmakers are using rare case studies in order to support their legislative push for adoption and she states, “advocates drummed up support for ASFA by pointing to cases where family preservation failed miserably” (Roberts, pg. 107).

            The film “Ask Us Who We Are: Foster Care in Vermont” on the other hand, displays foster care and adoption in another light. The film interviewed people who mostly were benefitted from being permanently removed from their homes and adopted by another family. The interviewee’s satisfaction with their new homes showed support for the legislation discussed by Dorothy Roberts. The children were neglected and abused by their biological parents but eventually found an adoptive family that cared for and accepted them once they were no longer in the custody of their parents.

            I believe that both of these views can be true. The view of Roberts that foster children are being prevented from being reunited with capable parents is true. There are laws in place that prevent some parents from being reunited with their children. At the same time though, those laws are protecting many children, such as the children we saw in the film, from being further abused. It is a tough decision to make. Without some of the legislation that exists, many children would be reunited with abusive parents that would continue to injure them, while that same law would grant certain parents the time they need to regain full custody of their children. The difficult call to make is to determine when the benefit of many is worth the lives of a few.

Julie Thurmes

Blog Post #10, Option #2

I found Dorothy Robert’s perspective to be extremely interesting. I decided to focus on the question “What factors might contribute to the racial disparities Roberts draws our attention to, according to Roberts? According to you?”

 At the very beginning of her book she discusses the “visibility hypothesis.” This hypothesis states “there is a higher probability for minority children to be placed in foster care when living in a geographic area where they are relatively less represented” (Roberts, pg. 9). Roberts states this to be because agencies are more likely to investigate underrepresented groups and these groups also lack support that could potentially ward off investigations. This leads to more investigations of Black families and more Black children being put into the foster care system. Another reason that Robert’s says black children are removed from their home is due to inadequate housing. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that Black children in the foster care system are more likely to come from families with housing difficulties than white children.

After reading Robert’s I believe there are many racial disparities in the U.S. that lead to an increased amount of Black children in foster care. Based on the white privilege speaker that came to CSB, white families have been given a head start. Blacks have had to play catch up in the U.S. and this can lead to many financial problems. These financial issues can lead to the housing problems that lead to an increased amount of Black children in foster care. This delayed start can also lead to the social disparities that exist when discussing the “visibility hypothesis.” I agree strongly with what the speaker discussed about racism in the U.S. and how it affects many facets of the black family’s life, including foster care, and how we need to be more aware of the silent racism that exists.

Racism still exists in the U.S. and this racism can lead to many difficulties within the foster care system which I believe both Roberts and I agreed on.

 

Julie Thurmes

Blog Post #10_ Option #2

In the first ten pages of Shattered Bonds by Dorothy Roberts, you are given some very disturbing images about the foster care system and its effects on black society.  Roberts gives her readers some amazing statistics on the number of black children encompassed in the foster care system and how much easier it is for a black child to be taken away from their home.  In this post I will be talking about the racial disparities that Roberts’s points out that could factor into number of black children living within the foster care system.

On page 14 Robert says “They understood that children’s welfare was tied to social conditions that could only be improved by societywide reforms”.  In this one sentence she is pointing out one of the biggest reasons that this population is plagued with this problem, a large population of them live in poverty.  She points out in earlier pages that the largest numbers of black children that are in foster care are from big inner cities.  These are the places in our nation that are on the news every night due to gangs, violence, and guns.  There is hardly any “good news” that comes out of inner cities.  But, Roberts points out on page 14 that these problems are caused by societal norms and the only way to change the problems that these people face is to help them get out of poverty and into the parts of society that white people find acceptable. 

I put the quote from Roberts on page 14 into this blog because I agree with her statement.  We as a white society have done all that we can do to suppress the blacks in this nations.  They started out as slaves for the early American settlers and ever since America has granted their freedom this society has done little to provide the resources necessary to help blacks succeed in this country.  They started out with nothing and as a society we continue to discriminate and keep them in positions that force many to find means to survive that white society would find unacceptable.  I think that is the main reason why this population has such great numbers within the foster care system.  Most people that make the decisions to take children out of their home are white and if that person doesn’t find a black’s lifestyle acceptable by their standards, that black person is doomed to try and live up to that white person’s standards.  Black Americans are forced to live up to the standards we has white’s put in place to try and prevent the backlash that might happen if they do not. 

Lisa R

Blog Post #10

Blog Post #10 option 1

It was amazing reading the introduction about how these mothers got together and want to fight to get their child back. They are very ambitious to fight s system that they describe it as unjust and cruel. The few women that got their story told talked about how long it took for them to be in the process of obtaining their child back, but most of them did not succeed.

            The child welfare system can be different from what one would think of it. It sounds like a place where people can get the help that they need, but in turns it can vary from one race to another. One thing that Roberts pointed out is that “The child welfare system has always discriminated against blacks” (pg. 7). Black families are more likely to be disrupted from child protection agency. Once, the child is “Removed from their homes and the smallest chance of being reunited with their parents or adopted” (pg.13). Also, black children tend to stay in foster care longer than any other racial groups and they are more likely to be moving around from one foster home to another and they receive the least helpful service. Poverty also plays an important role in the foster care system. There is an association between poverty and abuse as well as neglect. Even though some of the parents may be unfit at the beginning to care for their child, they work really hard to go through the process to get their rights back. Unfortunately, there is always some kind of barrier in the way. They would have to attend parenting class, go to a psychiatrist/psychologist, showing that they are capable of caring for their child, getting an apartment, etc. Again, is it ethical for the foster care system to keep the child and family apart is they have met there criteria as a fit mother?

Chia C.

Blog Post 10) Option 2

I agree with Roberts, “… we should pay attention to the risks separating children from their families (18). It can be more damaging. I think there is lack of resources or services available in their locations which Roberts mentions too. People tend to label blacks as aggressive, lazy and uncooperative. Roberts thinks racial disparity comes from differences in the way systems treat Black families (26). Like high rates of poverty or unwed mothers. Even when blacks are trying to do what is right they still get overlooked like when Devon reported that her caseworker was unprofessional and argued with the doctor, the caseworker took away the children (12).

The things that caught my attention and could be factors that contribute to the racial disparities from this reading by Roberts are that a way to solve the issue of rising black children that were taken away from their parents is to increase the adoption popularity (7). I see this in the way that they do not want black families to be families and agencies would rather remove the children and put them into foster care or adoption. They don’t try to resolve or help out the parents. Blacks are not given a chance. It makes me reflect on social structures in our society. There are systems designed to deal with problems of minority families. People who we rely on to support us, “…many caseworkers, lawyers, and judges work every day in the belly of this system without speaking out shows just how accustomed we have become to racial separation in America (10).” Roberts uses people’s stories like the case of Devon. The caseworker told Devon she would never see her children again this was a way that people with authority abuse their power over someone like Devon a single black woman (12). They use ways to keep blacks down to make them stay and know where their place in society is. Devon learned her rights and the agency used that against her saying that she was too aggressive. Even the welfare rules changed for black mothers (16). Child protective agencies more likely place black children in foster care rather than giving an alternative (16). Everything seems unjust and there is obvious inequality treatment among blacks in our society.

  
-Ka L.

Blog Post #9

Blog Post #9

            The guest speaker on Friday, Annette shared a wonderful story of four sisters that were adopted from Ukraine. It was a miracle how one adoption led to the other ones. Who would ever think that they would all end up in the United States and yet be very close to one another (living distance)? Just hearing their stories of how they end up at the orphanage was heartbreaking and it was more devastating when they can possibly go their different ways to find a home. They also lived at the institution for five years and the living condition was not that great.

            While being in the institution, the girl’s best interest standard was not met. Even though the four girls were removed from their home, they were not “Given care, treatment, and guidance that will assist this child in developing into a self-sufficient adult” (Moral Principals and Rights Handout). They did not have accessed to take a shower whenever they want except when in the summer they can swim in the lake. Thankfully, they were all adopted and this was the best interest in the child because they would be given a family and a stable home.

            Some ethical concern was that they lied about the health issue of the girl (cannot recalled which one but maybe it was Marina). They said that she needed urgent care in the United States so the adoption process would take place because if the child was healthy then they would not need to be adopted. But again, does this mean that the healthy children do not deserve a family because they are healthy and cannot get the help they want? I suppose it was alright too lied in some circumstances if the child was more important than the regulations that they have to follow.  

Chia C.

Blog Post 9)

It was very interesting to hear Jackie and Sandy’s stories because we have done so many readings like from Solinger and the baby scoop era. Hearing it from them and knowing what they do today about adoption was surprising. They had similar stories where they were pregnant and unwedded and were sent away. Jackie had to wear a fake wedding ring and act like nothing ever happened. Sandy’s mother told her that if she came home with the baby that her mother would kill her. They both lived their lives with lies. How can it be ethical when we lie about ourselves because we were told to? It was so surprising that they had experience all of this from saying nothing for years and years to now getting involved in adoption. I thought Sandy was very brave for letting her baby go rather than bringing the baby back to the same life that Sandy was living with her mother. Knowing how much Jackie wants her baby girl back but, now she can’t is very troubling. I was also shocked at the fact that the doctor who I think it was Jackie saw told her mom that she was pregnant. I don’t think it is right for the doctor to have done that because he did not keep confidentiality for Jackie. It’s not his job to do that because his job is to take care of the patient and not get involved in her personal business. I am sure they felt very frustrated.

I was also surprised that Sandy didn’t really want the birth father to be involved because she was embarrassed. I wonder what he would have done had her father instead told him to be responsible and help Sandy through this decision. It’s annoying knowing that the birth fathers have no rights and small involvement when in some cases birth fathers want to be. It reminds me of Pertman on unnoticed birth fathers. If they were given a choice how would that have changed the way things were then. It is unfair for both the birth mothers and birth fathers.

-Ka L.

Blog Post #9

                Since this post was open ended, I decided to discuss the ethical issues raised by DM’s story. I was overwhelmed with some of the choices she and her friends made during their adoption process. I thought her views added a very new dimension to our ethical discussions.

                First, I had a difficult time hearing about her lying to get her child. She knowingly committed fraud, and even found it to be ethical. She stated that she lied on many documents, she broke the law in both the United States and Ukraine, and she bribed people to get what she wanted. I think deep down she really believed she did it for the benefit of her child, but I do not think it makes up for the fact that she completely went against protocols and laws to do so. She also complained about how there was bribing and corruption in the adoption process, yet she participated. This reminded me of the view of Michele Greene in Adam Pertman’s book who said “almost everyone I dealt with there was awful” when discussing her adoption process in Guatemala (Pertman, pg. 76). Michele Greene viewed the Guatemalan government and adoption process as corrupt and “awful,” yet she paid every bribe they asked her for. This is a parallel to DM’s story. Both wanted a child so badly that they went against laws and protocols to get one, not thinking of the continuation of corruption that they were contributing to.

                I also found DM’s view of Ukraine to be similar to those who adopted children from Haiti. She thought that these children’s lives would be infinitely better in the United States. It did not seem to cross her mind that these children were not being allowed to be adopted by foreign parents because the government thought it would be best for the children to stay together or to be raised in their own culture. DM also expressed this view when speaking of a child her siblings adopted from Jamaica.  She sounded as if she knew for a fact that this child’s life would have been worse off if he had stayed in Jamaica. It did not seem to cross her mind that maybe being adopted from his home country and forced to assimilate into the United States contributed to his difficulties. I think this exemplifies white supremacy. She truly believed that living in the US in her white family would be better than living anywhere else in the world. It was difficult for me to listen to her story after all that we have learned this semester.

Julie Thurmes

Blog Post #8

The first article that I read was Kim Park Nelson’s article.  This article discussed how international adoption became popular here within the states and the pitfalls of international adoptions.  The second reading that I read was Adam Pertman’s Adoption Nation, Chapter 3.  He discussed international adoption, but in a different light.  When I started to read Nelson’s article, I thought it was interesting though how dark she was about international adoption and how she believes it is yet another way for white society to display their dominance over other races.  This is completely opposite to the views of Pertman.  He portrays that international adoption is “making America a better place”.  Though those were not his own words, he included them within his book for a reason.  It was sending the message that he want to send, international adoption helps reduce judgment and racism in this country.  This was an intriguing concept to me as well. 

I think it is hard to determine who is right in the two points of view listed above.  I personally can side with both parties.  I see each point of view as valid, but Pertman brings up a good point in saying change is constant in regards to adoption.  Nelson was adopted internationally in the year of 1971.  She grew up with white parents in a time that adoptive parents were told to immerse their children in their white societies.  This is very different from today.  Pertman points out that parent's today immerse themselves in their children’s culture.  Nelson I believe wrote this article as a way to deter against international adoptions because her experience as an international adoptee was a disappointing one.  We have talked in class how many adoptees of the 70’s and 80’s feel the same way she does.  But things have changed in ways of international adoption.  I do think that parents adopting internationally and from different races do so for the right reasons and the education provided to these parents in recent years has and will improve international adoptee’s views on adoption.  Unfortunately, I think if international adoption continues there will be no way of controlling some of the bad consequences that occur as a result.  “Baby selling” is an example of this and no matter how many laws or regulations that are put in place for international adoption, people will always find ways to make a quick dollar.  Parents are desperate at times to have a child at any cost and may be willing to overlook some of ethical dilemma’s facing them and international governments/agencies/criminals/organizations etc. may need or want to use that to their advantage to help improve their economic status. 

Lisa R. 

Blog Post 8)

In the Pertman reading, this is the first time I have heard of the Hague Convention (74). I think it is very helpful in cases like Michele’s story adopting Jose. When considering transnational adoption it puts the adoptive parents in a more difficult situation because they are miles apart. I would imagine that communicating back and forth takes a longer time and during that waiting period it must be difficult to know how or what to decide as the next step. I would not want to know that I was being cheated and deceived or that the child I was adopting is with these untrustworthy people and not getting proper care. At the same time I am concerned about how unsafe it is to rush the adoption process.  I mean there could be missing information or something left either accidentally or on purpose out because the process was rushed that maybe the adoptive parents are unaware of or did not take a second look just in case. One thing I thought was unethical is that some agencies withheld the child’s health information from the adoptive parents (78). This reminds me of the question I asked towards the beginning of the semester about the children who have difficulties or challenges will probably have a less chance of getting adopted than children are not challenged. If those adoptive parents knew about the child’s issues would they still have adopted the child?  I think it is wrong that the agency withheld the information and it should be their responsibility to find adoptive parents that are the best interest of the child.  

The article by Kim Park Nelson that I never thought about was the desire for authentic objects of culture. “Parents’ ideals of the authentic exotic are met by trips to foreign nations to pick up their foreign children, with ample opportunities to shop for authentic, exotic merchandise while there (94).” This sounds a little crazy to me. I feel like adoptive parents would not go through all that money and the adoption process just to go to a foreign country to buy authentic objects. They could easily do that without having to adopt.

From Kim Park Nelson’s reading I am uncertain about if the gift giving/ support for the birth parents are unethical or right (101). I think that if the birth parents and the adoptive parents have an open relationship they can decide what they want from that relationship whether it is giving gifts or not. However, I can understand though that some people may take advantage of it or feel offensive by it with the power differences (103). 

-Ka L.