http://www.nccpr.org/reports/9Efforts.pdf
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform Issue Paper 9
The Unreasonable Assault on "Reasonable Efforts"
Faced with overwhelming evidence of
huge numbers of children needlessly placed in
foster care -- and what foster care was doing to
these children, Congress passed a law in 1980
that included a clause requiring states and
localities to make "reasonable efforts" to keep
families together. Judges were supposed to
certify that "reasonable efforts" had been made -
- a process that simply involved checking a box
on a form -- before the case was eligible for
federal foster care funds.
There was nothing in that law that
prevented agencies from moving swiftly to
remove children from their homes -- and keep
them out -- in the small minority of "horror story"
cases. The law required "reasonable efforts" --
not ridiculous efforts. And everybody knows it.
By 1997, the debate over “reasonable
efforts” had taken an Orwellian turn. Child
savers began blaming it for their own failure
to get children out of foster care. To make
the case, they cited the increase in the foster
care population since the early 1980s. But
they avoided going back further than that –
because had they done so, they would have
had to admit that in the late 1970s, before
“reasonable efforts” became law, there were
at least as many children languishing in
foster care, relative to the total child
population, as there are today.
The real problem is the opposite:
Rather than making reasonable efforts, agencies
typically make little or no effort at all to keep
families together. Once children are in foster
care, they are filed away and forgotten as
overwhelmed workers rush on to the next case.
According to the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges, many judges
"remain unaware of their obligation to determine
if reasonable efforts to preserve families have
been made. Other judges routinely 'rubber
stamp' assertions by social service agencies ..."
1
A report released in March, 2000 by a
team of leading national child welfare experts
found that in New York City’s family courts the
question of whether reasonable efforts have
been made is “very rarely addressed.” The
same report found that judges admit they often
routinely approve requests to take away children
even when they don’t really believe the child
savers have made an adequate case. The
report concluded that “Such practice … comes
frighteningly close to abdicating the Court’s basic
responsibility to protect the rights of children and
families.”
2
A survey of Michigan judges found that
20 percent of the judges said they always
concluded that reasonable efforts had been
made – in other words their child welfare
agencies were perfect. Another 70 percent said
they rarely concluded otherwise.
But even more significant: 40 percent of
judges admitted that they lied, and said the
state child welfare agency made “reasonable
efforts” in cases where the judges really
didn’t believe it. In half those cases, the judges
admitted they lied because, if they didn’t, the
state would not get federal aid for holding the
child in foster care, and the county would have to
pick up the extra costs.
3
And if that’s the proportion who will
admit it on a survey …
A study of "lack of supervision" cases in
New York City by the Child Welfare League of
America found that in 52 percent of the cases
studied, the service needed most was what one
might expect -- day care or babysitting. But the
"service" offered most often was foster care.
4
Where were the “reasonable efforts”?
Three separate studies since 1996 have
found that 30 percent of America’s foster
children could be safely in their own homes right
now, if their birth parents had safe, affordable
housing.
5
Where were the “reasonable
efforts”?
In Washington D.C., where the foster
care system was run for several years by the
federal courts, the first receiver named by the
court to run the agency found that between onethird and one-half of D.C.'s foster children could
be returned to their parents immediately -- if they
just had a decent place to live.
6
Where were
the “reasonable efforts”?
Even the Chicago Tribune, the
newspaper that led the crusade that derailed
family preservation for years in Illinois, eventually
acknowledged that the "reasonable efforts"
requirement was not enforced in that state.
7
It wasn’t enforced anywhere else either.
The federal government never seriously
enforced the reasonable efforts requirement and
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals
couldn’t even sue to have it enforced.
8
Children do not languish in foster care
because of reasonable efforts. Children
languish in foster care because of the lack of
reasonable efforts.
And none of this is surprising. All of the
(over)
Reasonable Efforts (continued)
incentives -- for everyone from the frontline
worker to the agency administrator -- pushed
against making reasonable efforts.
Financial incentives: The National
Commission on Children found that children
often are removed from their families
"prematurely or unnecessarily" because
federal aid formulas give states "a strong
financial incentive" to do so rather than
provide services to keep families together.
9
(See Issue Paper 12).
Political incentives: No worker or
administrator will ever be penalized for wrongly
placing a child in foster care -- even if the child is
abused there. But if a child is left at home and
something goes wrong, workers may be fired,
judges transferred, and all face the wrath of the
media.
Personal incentives: When a worker
sees a child living in poverty, the first instinct is
often to "rescue" the child on the assumption
that the child is bound to be "better off" in care.
That child in that home is a reality before the
worker's eyes. The dangers of foster care,
physical and emotional, however real, are an
abstraction.
But despite all these incentives and
despite the mountain of evidence that the
"reasonable efforts" clause was widely ignored,
whenever a child "known to the system" died,
someone was sure to blame "the law" -- by
which they meant the "reasonable efforts"
clause. Why? Because when a child dies, it's
usually because workers are overwhelmed with
too many cases; or they have little or no training,
or paperwork got lost, or any one of dozens of
similar problems, many of which require more
money to solve and all of which reflect badly on
the agencies themselves.
Thus, when asked "Why did this child
die?" They can say either: "This child died
because 'the law' made us do it" or "This child
died because we screwed up." What are most
agency administrators likely to say?
Sadly, the scapegoating of family
preservation has been so successful that by the
end of 1997, Congress had effectively repealed
the “reasonable efforts” requirement. Backers of
the 1997 law say it only ends reasonable efforts
in the most egregious cases. In fact, the law is
filled with “catch-all” clauses that make it
possible to avoid the requirement in almost every
case. The law no longer requires reasonable
efforts, but it does not prohibit them. It is up to
states and localities to decide what to do next.
Updated, December 28, 2009
___________________________________________________________________________________
1. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges et. al., Making Reasonable Efforts: Steps for Keeping Families Together.
(New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1987), p.8. //2
..
Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel, Advisory Report on Front
Line and Supervisory Practice, March 9, 2000, pp. 47,48. //3. Muskie School Of Public Service Cutler Institute For Child And
Family Policy, University of Maine, and American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law, Michigan Court Improvement
Program Reassessment, August, 2005, available online at http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/Publications/cf/MI_Court Improvement
ProgramReassessment.pdf //4. Mary Ann Jones, Parental Lack of Supervision: Nature and Consequences of a Major Child
Neglect Problem (Washington: Child Welfare League of America, 1987) p.2. //5. Deborah S, Harburger with Ruth Anne White,
“Reunifying Families, Cutting Costs: Housing – Child Welfare Partnerships for Permanent Supportive Housing Child Welfare, Vol.
LXXXIII, #5 Sept./Oct. 2004, p.501. See also: Janita Poe and Peter Kendall “Cases of Neglect May Be Only Poverty in Disguise,”
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 24, 1995, p.6. //6. Tamar Lewin, “Child Welfare Is Slow to Improve Despite Court Order,” The New York
Times, Dec. 30, 1995, p.6. //7. Andrew Gottesman, “System Overload: Juvenile Court Can Rarely Spare the Time to Care,”
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 22, 1993, p.1. //8. Suter v. Artist M., 112S.Ct. 1360, 1992. //9. National Commission on Children, Beyond
Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington DC: May, 1991) p.290.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, December 13, 2010
They "Erred on the Side of the Child" -- Some Case Histories
They "Erred on the Side of the Child" -- Some Case Histories
Opponents of family preservation have a lot of great applause lines. They are for "child
protection," they say. They are for "children's rights," they say. They are for "putting children first instead
of families first," they say.
But in the name of "child protection" children have been beaten. In the name of "children's rights"
children have been raped. And in the name of "erring on the side of the child," children have been
murdered. These are the stories of some of those children:
When Sara Eyerman of northern
California was nineteen-months-old, child
protective services was concerned that she
wasn't growing fast enough. So they "erred on
the side of the child" and placed Sara in a
"specialized" foster home.
About six weeks later, Sara began
running a 105 degree fever. But the "specialists"
in the specialized foster home decided it was
o.k. to wait two days before taking her to a
doctor. On the way to the doctor's office, Sara
Eyerman died of viral pneumonia.
"She should have been in the hospital
two days earlier when she had a 104.8 [degree]
temperature," said Sara's mother, Angie. "When
she was home, she went to the emergency room
if her temperature got over 101. I didn't care if
they laughed at me when I got there or not. One
time I took her when she was cutting a tooth ... I
kept her alive for a year and seven months.
They had her for six weeks and three days and
she died."
Read More:http://www.nccpr.org/reports/03CASES.pdf
Opponents of family preservation have a lot of great applause lines. They are for "child
protection," they say. They are for "children's rights," they say. They are for "putting children first instead
of families first," they say.
But in the name of "child protection" children have been beaten. In the name of "children's rights"
children have been raped. And in the name of "erring on the side of the child," children have been
murdered. These are the stories of some of those children:
When Sara Eyerman of northern
California was nineteen-months-old, child
protective services was concerned that she
wasn't growing fast enough. So they "erred on
the side of the child" and placed Sara in a
"specialized" foster home.
About six weeks later, Sara began
running a 105 degree fever. But the "specialists"
in the specialized foster home decided it was
o.k. to wait two days before taking her to a
doctor. On the way to the doctor's office, Sara
Eyerman died of viral pneumonia.
"She should have been in the hospital
two days earlier when she had a 104.8 [degree]
temperature," said Sara's mother, Angie. "When
she was home, she went to the emergency room
if her temperature got over 101. I didn't care if
they laughed at me when I got there or not. One
time I took her when she was cutting a tooth ... I
kept her alive for a year and seven months.
They had her for six weeks and three days and
she died."
Read More:http://www.nccpr.org/reports/03CASES.pdf
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A Court Challenge on Siblings' Rights: The Practice of Severing Relationships After Adoption is Under Scrutiny in N.J - Politics News - redOrbit
A Court Challenge on Siblings' Rights: The Practice of Severing Relationships After Adoption is Under Scrutiny in N.J - Politics News - redOrbit: "Apr. 6--For four hours every other week, a 3-year-old girl in New Jersey's foster-care system visits her biological siblings who live in a different home.
As long as the child remains in foster care, the visits will continue. But when she is adopted, the visits will stop.
This practice of severing siblings' relationships -- common in child-welfare agencies nationwide -- is being challenged in New Jersey's Supreme Court.
At issue is whether the state should allow the visits to continue after adoption and, if so, how to implement the changes in a way that respects the rights of adoptive parents to raise their children freely."
As long as the child remains in foster care, the visits will continue. But when she is adopted, the visits will stop.
This practice of severing siblings' relationships -- common in child-welfare agencies nationwide -- is being challenged in New Jersey's Supreme Court.
At issue is whether the state should allow the visits to continue after adoption and, if so, how to implement the changes in a way that respects the rights of adoptive parents to raise their children freely."
Siblings - Adoption Encyclopedia -
Siblings - Adoption Encyclopedia -
siblings
People who are brother or sister to one another, either through a birth or an adoptive relationship (by sharing the same birthmother or through adoption). An adopted child who is unrelated to children already in a family or who follow him through birth or adoption does not refer to these children as his "half" brothers or sisters: they are his brothers or sisters.
A child who is adopted may be placed with his or her other full or half siblings or may be placed in a family that already has adopted children or children by birth. In addition, the parents may adopt more children in later years or may have additional children by birth. (It is a myth that a good way to cure infertility is to adopt children. See PREGNANCY AFTER ADOPTION.)
Many children who are adopted are only children because the adoptive parents do not already have children and do not adopt again. Consequently, these children will not have siblings in the adoptive family. They may, however, have full- or half-genetic siblings within their birth family. (See ONLY CHILD ADOPTIVE FAMILIES.)
In other cases, sibling groups are placed in an adoptive family, and the consensus among adoption professionals is that siblings should be adopted together whenever possible. In a paper on siblings, social worker Kathryn Donley has said, "Only under the most extraordinary circumstances should prospective parents consider the placement of just one of the children from a family group."
She also urges that existing sibling relationships should be considered and their meanings fully explored. Children's wishes should also be considered. Donley says it's important to remember that sibling relationships can be lifelong and often when adopted adults search, they search for a sibling.
Margaret Ward, an instructor at Cambrian College in Ontario, Canada, describes several key characteristics adoption workers should look for when fitting sibling groups into their new families. One is administrative ability and the capability of juggling Boy Scout meetings with dance classes, doctor appointments and so forth, along with the basics of running a home.
The ability to cope with emergencies was also seen as important, and the more children in the family, the greater the probability there will be emergencies. According to Ward, "Parents need to possess, or to develop, a relative unflappability. If they become too excited or panicky, the crisis will be escalated by an additional behavioral or emotional chain reaction in the rest of the family."
The ability to promote healthy family interaction and cope with sibling rivalry and group dynamics is also important when siblings are newly added to a family. Parents must be sensitized to existing relationships between children.
Other characteristics Ward identified as important included the "ability to survive in the community" and deal with the school system and other institutions; the availability of support systems, such as adoptive parent support groups, relatives, friends; the ability for the wife and husband to provide each other mutual support and not heap all parental tasks on one person; and the ability to adapt.
When children are adopted into an already existing family, the BIRTH ORDER is altered, and the former child who was the "baby" of the family may well find himself the "middle child," while the oldest child could lose his authority and become a middle child.
Adopting parents should prepare children already in the home as much as possible for the inevitable changes, whether the child to be adopted is an infant or an older child. The whole family needs to understand that there will be frustrations and stresses, particularly when adopting an older child.
Many people who adopt older children already do have children in the home, or they may have raised a family at a relatively young age and opted to parent another family through adoption.
When parents adopt a school-age child, siblings in the home may have unreasonable expectations placed on them; for example, they may be told of the deprived conditions the child lived under and are urged to be understanding.
This may be difficult when the new child moves out of the honeymoon stage of the initial phase of adoption, when she is on her best behavior, to the testing stage when misbehavior is very common.
In addition, the newly adopted child may not feel very grateful about her adoption, which can annoy the "old" siblings who are trying to feel sorry for her and expect her to appreciate it. When siblings or when one newly adopted child is placed in a home with children, there is a great deal of adjustment to be made by everyone.
Social worker Carole Depp says sometimes one or more of the siblings in an adoption of siblings may have severe problems. In such a case, she advises, "the best plan may be to stagger the placement of the children with the family . . . visits of a sibling with the child or children not yet placed should be arranged. If the most needful child is placed first, then some of the healing process can begin before the family assumes responsibility for additional siblings."
Adolescence
As with most other facets of adoption and indeed with life in general, adolescence appears to be the most difficult stage for both adopted persons and siblings of adopted persons. (See ADOLESCENT ADOPTED PERSONS for a further discussion of adopted teenagers.)
Margaret Ward and John H. Lewko studied families adopting school-age children after they already had existing adopted or biological children, concentrating on adolescents.
Using a questionnaire for adolescents who already lived in the home, the researchers identified several problem areas. According to Ward and Lewko, "Difficulties with all siblings were seen primarily as hassles. The adoptee was, however, reported as creating more problems than 'old' siblings."
The respondents complained the most about the newly adopted child's lying, interfering with privacy and failing to obey rules. "Old" siblings were also rated by other old siblings, and sisters were accused of using bad language while brothers were "more likely to practice inadequate hygiene" and not "pay attention to the rules" more than the new adopted child.
According to the researchers, "The appropriate behavior for a resident adolescent is to teach the new child the rules of the family game. Yet the behavior of the new child can upset the adolescent. The daily hassles can add up to severe stress, as indicated by the respondent who stated that she wanted no children at all as a result of the adoption . . . instead of establishing a helpful attitude toward the new child, the adolescent may become alienated."
Adopting Sibling Groups
Although once it was considered acceptable or necessary to separate siblings and to place them into different adoptive families, agencies make strenuous attempts to place sibling groups together into the same family so they will not undergo a further trauma of separation.
When sibling groups are small, with two siblings of a relatively young age, placement is far easier than when sibling groups of three or more need to be placed. (Groups may be as large as seven or more!)
Sometimes siblings are separated when one wishes to be adopted and the other does not wish to be adopted or is unready to make a commitment. If it is felt by the social worker to be in the child's best interests, then the children may be physically separated. Of course if siblings are abusive to one another, they will be separated.
Twins
In the past, particularly during the Depression era (the early 1930s), it was deemed acceptable to separate twins into different adopting families. Usually this was done because the couple could not handle the stress and financial cost of raising twins.
Social workers today believe it is cruel and unreasonable to separate twins and actively seek to identify adoptive families willing and able to rear both children.
Birth and Adopted Children
(Also known as BLENDED FAMILIES.)
Some people have hypothesized that when adopted children join birth children already in the family, the adopted child is the "odd man out," while the birth children are the favored ones.
Studies of such families have not borne out this fear, and instead, adopted children in families with birth children seem to have a higher self-esteem than adopted children whose siblings in the family are also adopted.
According to a study by Janet Hoopes and Leslie Stein, adopted children may feel more positive. They said, "The presence of biological siblings was viewed advantageously, i.e., as confirmation of own self-worth enhanced by the realization of their egalitarian treatment within the family."
In other words, if the adopted child felt as well-treated as the biological child(ren), self-esteem was high. Conversely, the adopted child in a family with only other adopted children doesn't know how his adoptive parents would treat biological children and may imagine that they would treat them better.
When the adopted child precedes the birth child, people may make disturbing remarks, such as "At last! Now you have a child of your own!" If the child is old enough to understand, this is a painful message, indicating the other child is more important, when in most cases the adoptive parent loves both children very much.
Disabled New Siblings
If the newly adopted child is disabled, the stress on the "old" children may be even greater than otherwise because there's more than just a new child to get used to.
Susan Maczka, director of Project S.T.A.R., a licensed adoption agency for children with developmental disabilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, wrote "A Head Start" for OURS magazine on how to prepare a sibling already in the home for the new child who is disabled.
According to Maczka, it is important to provide "old" siblings with information about the disability. As a result, the child will be more for new needs that must be met or for disturbing behavior that may occur. Maczka also recommends adopting parents take the child to a Special Olympics or visit with a family whose child is disabled.
In addition, she advises discussing with the child ahead of time any changes that may need to be made. "Figure out ways that your children can signal you about frustrations they may feel over those changes. Ask for your children's help in making adjustments," she advises.
Maczka says parents must not place too heavy a burden on their children when the newly adopted child arrives.
"Girls notoriously 'overdo it' in the helping area, and sometimes feel angry about it later," she says.
Sibling Rivalry
Whether siblings are genetically related or are related by adoption, it is virtually inevitable that they will disagree and argue.
Sometimes the sibling rivalry can be very intense, and although caseworkers generally strive to place biological siblings together, if the rivalry is very strong, the children may be separated.
The authors of Large Sibling Groups argue with this policy and believe such separation teaches a child that the way to resolve conflict is to leave or to separate the individuals involved rather than actually dealing with the problems surrounding the conflict. (See also SPECIAL NEEDS.)
siblings
People who are brother or sister to one another, either through a birth or an adoptive relationship (by sharing the same birthmother or through adoption). An adopted child who is unrelated to children already in a family or who follow him through birth or adoption does not refer to these children as his "half" brothers or sisters: they are his brothers or sisters.
A child who is adopted may be placed with his or her other full or half siblings or may be placed in a family that already has adopted children or children by birth. In addition, the parents may adopt more children in later years or may have additional children by birth. (It is a myth that a good way to cure infertility is to adopt children. See PREGNANCY AFTER ADOPTION.)
Many children who are adopted are only children because the adoptive parents do not already have children and do not adopt again. Consequently, these children will not have siblings in the adoptive family. They may, however, have full- or half-genetic siblings within their birth family. (See ONLY CHILD ADOPTIVE FAMILIES.)
In other cases, sibling groups are placed in an adoptive family, and the consensus among adoption professionals is that siblings should be adopted together whenever possible. In a paper on siblings, social worker Kathryn Donley has said, "Only under the most extraordinary circumstances should prospective parents consider the placement of just one of the children from a family group."
She also urges that existing sibling relationships should be considered and their meanings fully explored. Children's wishes should also be considered. Donley says it's important to remember that sibling relationships can be lifelong and often when adopted adults search, they search for a sibling.
Margaret Ward, an instructor at Cambrian College in Ontario, Canada, describes several key characteristics adoption workers should look for when fitting sibling groups into their new families. One is administrative ability and the capability of juggling Boy Scout meetings with dance classes, doctor appointments and so forth, along with the basics of running a home.
The ability to cope with emergencies was also seen as important, and the more children in the family, the greater the probability there will be emergencies. According to Ward, "Parents need to possess, or to develop, a relative unflappability. If they become too excited or panicky, the crisis will be escalated by an additional behavioral or emotional chain reaction in the rest of the family."
The ability to promote healthy family interaction and cope with sibling rivalry and group dynamics is also important when siblings are newly added to a family. Parents must be sensitized to existing relationships between children.
Other characteristics Ward identified as important included the "ability to survive in the community" and deal with the school system and other institutions; the availability of support systems, such as adoptive parent support groups, relatives, friends; the ability for the wife and husband to provide each other mutual support and not heap all parental tasks on one person; and the ability to adapt.
When children are adopted into an already existing family, the BIRTH ORDER is altered, and the former child who was the "baby" of the family may well find himself the "middle child," while the oldest child could lose his authority and become a middle child.
Adopting parents should prepare children already in the home as much as possible for the inevitable changes, whether the child to be adopted is an infant or an older child. The whole family needs to understand that there will be frustrations and stresses, particularly when adopting an older child.
Many people who adopt older children already do have children in the home, or they may have raised a family at a relatively young age and opted to parent another family through adoption.
When parents adopt a school-age child, siblings in the home may have unreasonable expectations placed on them; for example, they may be told of the deprived conditions the child lived under and are urged to be understanding.
This may be difficult when the new child moves out of the honeymoon stage of the initial phase of adoption, when she is on her best behavior, to the testing stage when misbehavior is very common.
In addition, the newly adopted child may not feel very grateful about her adoption, which can annoy the "old" siblings who are trying to feel sorry for her and expect her to appreciate it. When siblings or when one newly adopted child is placed in a home with children, there is a great deal of adjustment to be made by everyone.
Social worker Carole Depp says sometimes one or more of the siblings in an adoption of siblings may have severe problems. In such a case, she advises, "the best plan may be to stagger the placement of the children with the family . . . visits of a sibling with the child or children not yet placed should be arranged. If the most needful child is placed first, then some of the healing process can begin before the family assumes responsibility for additional siblings."
Adolescence
As with most other facets of adoption and indeed with life in general, adolescence appears to be the most difficult stage for both adopted persons and siblings of adopted persons. (See ADOLESCENT ADOPTED PERSONS for a further discussion of adopted teenagers.)
Margaret Ward and John H. Lewko studied families adopting school-age children after they already had existing adopted or biological children, concentrating on adolescents.
Using a questionnaire for adolescents who already lived in the home, the researchers identified several problem areas. According to Ward and Lewko, "Difficulties with all siblings were seen primarily as hassles. The adoptee was, however, reported as creating more problems than 'old' siblings."
The respondents complained the most about the newly adopted child's lying, interfering with privacy and failing to obey rules. "Old" siblings were also rated by other old siblings, and sisters were accused of using bad language while brothers were "more likely to practice inadequate hygiene" and not "pay attention to the rules" more than the new adopted child.
According to the researchers, "The appropriate behavior for a resident adolescent is to teach the new child the rules of the family game. Yet the behavior of the new child can upset the adolescent. The daily hassles can add up to severe stress, as indicated by the respondent who stated that she wanted no children at all as a result of the adoption . . . instead of establishing a helpful attitude toward the new child, the adolescent may become alienated."
Adopting Sibling Groups
Although once it was considered acceptable or necessary to separate siblings and to place them into different adoptive families, agencies make strenuous attempts to place sibling groups together into the same family so they will not undergo a further trauma of separation.
When sibling groups are small, with two siblings of a relatively young age, placement is far easier than when sibling groups of three or more need to be placed. (Groups may be as large as seven or more!)
Sometimes siblings are separated when one wishes to be adopted and the other does not wish to be adopted or is unready to make a commitment. If it is felt by the social worker to be in the child's best interests, then the children may be physically separated. Of course if siblings are abusive to one another, they will be separated.
Twins
In the past, particularly during the Depression era (the early 1930s), it was deemed acceptable to separate twins into different adopting families. Usually this was done because the couple could not handle the stress and financial cost of raising twins.
Social workers today believe it is cruel and unreasonable to separate twins and actively seek to identify adoptive families willing and able to rear both children.
Birth and Adopted Children
(Also known as BLENDED FAMILIES.)
Some people have hypothesized that when adopted children join birth children already in the family, the adopted child is the "odd man out," while the birth children are the favored ones.
Studies of such families have not borne out this fear, and instead, adopted children in families with birth children seem to have a higher self-esteem than adopted children whose siblings in the family are also adopted.
According to a study by Janet Hoopes and Leslie Stein, adopted children may feel more positive. They said, "The presence of biological siblings was viewed advantageously, i.e., as confirmation of own self-worth enhanced by the realization of their egalitarian treatment within the family."
In other words, if the adopted child felt as well-treated as the biological child(ren), self-esteem was high. Conversely, the adopted child in a family with only other adopted children doesn't know how his adoptive parents would treat biological children and may imagine that they would treat them better.
When the adopted child precedes the birth child, people may make disturbing remarks, such as "At last! Now you have a child of your own!" If the child is old enough to understand, this is a painful message, indicating the other child is more important, when in most cases the adoptive parent loves both children very much.
Disabled New Siblings
If the newly adopted child is disabled, the stress on the "old" children may be even greater than otherwise because there's more than just a new child to get used to.
Susan Maczka, director of Project S.T.A.R., a licensed adoption agency for children with developmental disabilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, wrote "A Head Start" for OURS magazine on how to prepare a sibling already in the home for the new child who is disabled.
According to Maczka, it is important to provide "old" siblings with information about the disability. As a result, the child will be more for new needs that must be met or for disturbing behavior that may occur. Maczka also recommends adopting parents take the child to a Special Olympics or visit with a family whose child is disabled.
In addition, she advises discussing with the child ahead of time any changes that may need to be made. "Figure out ways that your children can signal you about frustrations they may feel over those changes. Ask for your children's help in making adjustments," she advises.
Maczka says parents must not place too heavy a burden on their children when the newly adopted child arrives.
"Girls notoriously 'overdo it' in the helping area, and sometimes feel angry about it later," she says.
Sibling Rivalry
Whether siblings are genetically related or are related by adoption, it is virtually inevitable that they will disagree and argue.
Sometimes the sibling rivalry can be very intense, and although caseworkers generally strive to place biological siblings together, if the rivalry is very strong, the children may be separated.
The authors of Large Sibling Groups argue with this policy and believe such separation teaches a child that the way to resolve conflict is to leave or to separate the individuals involved rather than actually dealing with the problems surrounding the conflict. (See also SPECIAL NEEDS.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)