This blog post was written by Kelly Pieper.
The Family Reunification Act (HF704/SF422) is a bill currently being debated by Minnesota lawmakers that would give parents who had previously lost custodial rights a chance to be reunited with children. A recent news article written in late February by Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) reporter Sasha Aslanian, seeks to explain what passage of this bill would mean for Minnesota families. According to the article, the Family Reunification Act would allow children over the age of fifteen to be reunited with parents who had their parental rights legally terminated a minimum of 36 months prior. These parents would have to prove that they could adequately provide care for the child.
The article brings up several good points about why the bill might be a positive for children. It states that many older children, particularly African American or American Indian children, are never adopted and never find permanent homes. Allowing these children to return to parents who have addressed previous issues such as drug addiction or criminal history, allows them to maintain family connections and gives them a support system.
Overall, the article presents the factual information well. However, it does not address one important question: how does one pursue reunification. The Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare points out in a recent blog post that such a petition could only be brought by the county attorney. Thus, even if a child or guardian believes that this would be in the child’s best interest, the ultimate decision lies in the hands of an individual outside the family. The MPR article does not go into detail about this aspect of the proposed law, and thus may not be representing the complexity or difficulty of the process adequately. The article does a fairly good job of presenting a human perspective by detailing the story of a mother who had previously lost her rights due to drug abuse. However, the article also states that the family described would not be eligible for reunification under the new proposal, and the Family Reunification Act would only affect about 35 children. This may make many readers wonder if such a small affect is worth the process.
The MPR article shows a different side to foster care that many may not see. Through using one family’s story, it shows that it is possible for parents to change. And, when parents change and safety can be assured, children deserve to maintain their family. It also shows that for many children, a permanent family through adoption is only a distant hope. This runs counter to the portrait often painted of a child removed from an abusive parent that finds love and redemption within in a new family. The article instead allows readers to see that this picture may not always, or even often, be realistic. Overall, the article seems to be slightly biased and conveys a sense of support for the bill. It concludes by simply stating that families deserve second changes and this legislation would provide for those second chances.
To read the full article, click here.
