Today’s Guest Blogger is Krysta Sather
The child welfare system in Minnesota has been under scrutiny since the tragic death of a young boy. Those in the child welfare system and individuals following the changes to the child welfare system in response to the media attention likely know the watchdog reporter from the Star Tribune, Brandon Stahl. In September 2015, he published an article highlighting one woman’s struggle to adopt a teenage girl from Minnesota (Stahl, 2015). This woman, Susan, had spent many months in preparation to adopt the teen since seeing her photo. She knew the teen’s long trauma history, took classes on dealing with troubled children, committed to keeping the teen in therapy support services, and hoped to make the teen feel safe in her home. Susan was confident in her preparation.
Unfortunately for Susan, after months of meetings, home studies, and background checks she received the news that she was no longer considered an appropriate placement option for the teen according to Blue Earth child welfare services. The adoption agency Susan had been working with relayed to Susan that the social worker for Blue Earth indicated that Susan was intimidating, crossing boundaries, and disrespectful of the team’s knowledge of a long-term client.
Brandon Stahl uses this story in juxtaposition to the many children awaiting adoption in Minnesota. The article’s tone suggests that Stahl’s position is that this woman shouldn’t be denied the opportunity to adopt when there are so many children in need of permanent homes. Stahl strongly argues that the road to adoption is too long, arduous, and excludes too many adults willing to adopt. This argument emphasizes the myth that good families are being denied the opportunity to adopt, and it serves only to internalize the message that adoptions are to create parents rather than create homes that are in the best interest of the child. It is true that the adoption process is not perfect and many children are awaiting permanent homes. However, the limitations of this article must not be ignored.
The bias of having only one voice is clearly seen in this article. Most importantly, the voice of the teen awaiting adoption is completely absent. This is not just a problem within Stahl’s writing, but an ongoing issue throughout the media when discussing issues of adoption and permanency. Does this teen want to be adopted? Little mention is made that this teen has a sibling. Is the teen willing to be separated from their sibling in order to be adopted? Is the teen ready to leave their community to live with a stranger in a strange neighborhood? Too many questions remain unanswered. Additionally, the voice of Blue Earth County is almost entirely absent. Surely, they had reasons for coming to this decision. What were those reasons? All voices must be at the table for any real change in adoption policy to occur in a meaningful, helpful way.
Article cited: http://www.startribune.com/after-adoption-stalls-would-be-mother-speaks-out/327246521/
Thanks, Korina, for your response. I was definitely not looking for a defense of the student- only offering to add some more richness to her experience of critically looking at the news.
Hello, Krysta, I am the Executive Director of Ampersand Families, the agency who worked with the mother in the story you reviewed. As the leader of an agency under contract with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to work with waiting youth and prospective families, and someone who has worked in child welfare for 25 years, let me assure you that it is no “myth that good families are being denied the opportunity to adopt.” I would encourage you to do some more research, particularly Jeffery Katz’s work on the reasons why 90% of families who begin the process of adopting from foster care do not complete it.
You will rarely see children in the child welfare system quoted in the newspaper. That is for basic reasons of confidentiality, but again, let me assure you that this young woman’s voice was well heard by the agency working with her to achieve permanency. Youth participation and youth voice are hallmarks of our work and we are unwavering in our commitment to youth’s presence anywhere where decisions are being made about them.
Staff at Ampersand Families would be happy to visit with you sometime, Not about any particular case, but about some of the big picture perspectives that might be helpful for you as you continue to read critically about the child welfare system.
Best to you in your studies.
Hi Michelle, thank you for following our blogs, and we appreciate you taking the time to respond. We want to clarify that this particular blog series asks students to discuss their perspective of strengths and limitations of articles covering topics involving permanency issues in child welfare. These are posted in the student’s own words as they are asked to find articles in the media covering issues related to permanency. They consider the content of the article and articulate which information may be missing, not represented and/or emphasized. We acknowledge and agree that there are many outstanding families who have adopted children through the public child welfare system, are in the process of adoption and who are seeking to adopt children. We also agree that there are families who are not able to adopt and that each situation is composed of a complex variety of issues. Below is a the description that was posted in January to introduce readers to this blog series. We hope this helps clarifies it’s context.
“It’s that time of year again. Spring semester at the School of Social Work means guest blog posts from students enrolled in the SW5905 Permanency in Child Welfare course. Each week, starting next week and continuing through to the end of May, we will be publishing blog posts written by students learning about permanency and adoption.
Students were asked to choose an article, either in the current media or in a peer-review journal, or other relevant item, related to permanency and adoption. The purpose of this assignment is to apply critical thinking skills to topics related to permanency and adoption and to educate a broader, general audience through analyzing writings about permanency and adoption in a way that is accessible.
Their analyses will include:
A short description of the article—who wrote it, name of publication, date of publication, topic
A discussion of the strengths and the limitations or weaknesses of the article
A discussion of the ways in which this article promotes or dispels myths about permanency or adoption
Links and citations
The student blog posts have not been edited, and are posted as their own words. Any edits to the blog posts are only for my inclusion of links and/or additional resources which I will bracket out for readers. Keep in mind the views of the student bloggers are their own and do not necessarily indicate endorsement from CASCW.
We hope you enjoy the series of thoughtful articles. We would love to hear from you in the comments!”