Can transpacial placements work? Dicuss the arguments for and against this.

Authors Avatar

CAN TRANSRACIAL PLACEMENTS WORK?

DISCUSS THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THIS.

INTRODUCTION

Transracial adoption means adopting children of various races, colour, religion that is from all parts of the world. (Silverman, 1993).

Numerous arguments have been developed for and against transracial placements; I came to this project with the view that transracial placements are most definitely a positive aspect.  Followers of transracial adoptions believe that children fare better psychologically, emotionally and physically when they are placed in a different racial setting.  Opponents believe that children should be brought up by parents of the same race in order for the child to obtain a positive sense of racial identity (Williams, 1998).

In this project I am going to discuss the arguments for and against transracial adoption/fostering and hope to identify the extent of the problem.  I have also completed an interview with a social worker of a local social services adoption team hopefully this will throw a modern day argument into the mixture.  I will then discuss what we as qualified social workers should strive to achieve and what implications may be in our way such as implementing anti-discriminatory practice.

FINDINGS

Transracial adoption began to be practiced more widely after World War II.  Children from war torn countries without families were adopted by families in Great Britain and the United States.  (Baden, 2001).  As more and more racial ethnic minority children within the United States and Great Britain were without families, domestic adoption agencies began to place ethnic minority children with white families who wanted children.

In 1972, the National Association for black social workers (NABSW) became concerned about the large numbers of Black/African American children who were being placed with white families.  They issued a statement condemning the practice of transracial adoption.  The association claims ‘preservation of the African American family’ as their motive for their stance  (About website, 2003).

Since that statement was issued which dates back to 1972, a great deal of research into the effects of transracial adoption on transracial adoptees was therefore conducted.  

FOR

Most of the research that I have found has been expressed by practising social workers, leaders of minority group communities and scholars (Hayes, 1993).

Kim (1995) noted that ‘transracial adoption of black children stirred up many controversies regarding there psychological development, especially with respect to their ethnic identity, or cultural well being’ (p 141-142).

In order to determine the effects that transracial adoption has on adoptees, several studies investigated the racial identity of transracial adoptees (Bagley 1993, Simon and Alstein, 1987).  In these studies racial identity was conceptualised more in terms of racial group’s preferences, objective racial self identification, and knowledge or awareness of one’s own racial group (Baden, 2001).

Simon and Alstein (1977) presented an argument based on the number of children in need of families, versus the availability of ‘same race’ placements (Simon and Alstein, 1977).  There are many more minority children in need of placements and not so many non white parents wanting to adopt.  The government states ‘the interests of the child are the paramount requirement’ (LAC, 1998).

Simon and Alstein state that the best interest of the child is with families who are racially identifiable.  The authors of the book conducted a twenty year study of both transracially adopted children and their parents.  They conducted interviews with 96 families with 396 children over a period of twenty years.  At different periods of time, the parents and adopted children were asked a series of questions about the relationships within the family.  These questions were asked of all adoptees.  Among these 89 black adoptees that were transracially adopted by white families (Simon and Alstein, 1977).

The responses to their studies were compared and Simon and Alstein found that transracially adopted children ‘do not lose their identities, they do not to be racially unaware of who they are, and they do not display negative or indifferent racial attitudes about themselves’ (Simon and Alstein, 1977).  

Simon and Alstein also found in their study that all of the parents interviewed were outraged by the stance taken by NABSW.  ‘Almost all of the parents thought that the position taken by this group was contrary to the best interest of the child and smacked of racism.  They were angered by the accusations of NABSW that white parents could not rear black children, and they feel betrayed by groups whose support they expected they would have’ (Simon and Alstein, 1977).

Simon and Alstein throughout their study hold highly the best interests of the child who is seeking a family.  They maintain objectivity and hold many of the same ideas with regard to transracial adoption as NABSW.  Never do they say that transracial adoption is the ideal method for placing children.  The authors firmly believe that children should be placed with racially identifiable parents, just because there are not enough qualified adoptive parents, children should not be made to remain institutionalised until racial matches can be made.

Join now!

Another researcher that has taken the same view as Simon and Alstein is that of Dales view.  He states ‘One of the most fundamental needs of every child is to be provided with a loving family’ (Dale, 1987).  Dale (1987) argues that black children are being allowed to remain in institutional care when ‘many of them could be successfully and happily be placed with white adoptive and foster families’ (p. 5).

The main emphasis for these arguments is the emphasis that one of the most fundamental needs of every child is to be provided with a loving family, this is ...

This is a preview of the whole essay