PBS: Think Tank: Transcript for "Adapting Adoption To The 90s"

« Back to Adapting Adoption To The 90s main page

Transcript for:

Adapting Adoption To The 90s

Think Tank Transcripts: Adapting Adoption to the 1990s

ANNOUNCER: 'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient ofthe Presidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology, improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation andthe Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. Adopting a child is oneof the most serious commitments a person can make, yet millions ofAmericans are willing to take on that commitment. But increasingly,adoption has become a costly and sometimes agonizing process. Newlegislation passed recently by the House of Representatives may makeadoption easier. But why has adoption become so difficult in America?

Joining us to sort through the conflict and the consensus are:Doug Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute and author of'Recognizing Child Abuse'; Rita Simon of American University andauthor of 'The Case for Transracial Adoption'; Professor Twila Perryof Rutgers University, specializing in family law; and KarabellePizzigati, director of public policy of the Child Welfare League ofAmerica.

The topic before this house: Adapting adoption to the 1990s. Thisweek on 'Think Tank.'

Adoption sounds simple: match children who need parents withparents who want children. But social and economic changes have madethat seemingly simply equation much more difficult to balance. Thenumber of formal adoptions in America is down from about 90,000 in1970 to about 50,000 per year in the 1980s and 1990s, even thoughduring that period, the American population jumped by 25 percent andthe out-of-wedlock birth rate tripled.

One reason there are fewer adoptions is that fewer unwed mothersare giving up their children. In 1969, 25 percent of unwed birthswere put up for adoption. In 1991, that 25 percent number dropped to4 percent. Still, roughly 86,000 children in the child welfare systemare available for adoption right now. But three-quarters areconsidered, quotes, 'hard to place,' because they have what socialworkers call, quotes, 'special needs,' meaning they are older or arepart of a sibling group or are handicapped or are, quotes, 'childrenof color.'

Back in the 1970s, the National Association of Black SocialWorkers said placing minority children in white homes wascross-cultural genocide. Today, while attitudes have changed,interracial adoption remains controversial. The new bill designed toencourage adoption, a bill President Clinton says he would sign, hastwo major provisions: One, grant families a one-time $5,000 taxcredit for adopting a child, either through the private or publicsystems; two, impose penalties on states that discourage interracialadoption in the public system.

Thank you, ladies and gentleman, for joining us. Let's go aroundthe room once quickly, beginning with you, Karabelle Pizzigati. Isthere something wrong with the American adoption system?

MS. PIZZIGATI: Yes, something is wrong. It does need fixing. Ofthe 80-some-odd-thousand children whom you cited, 20,000 areavailable now and 65,000 or so would be available if legally freedfor adoption, and as stated, many of them have special needs. Theseare children who are hard to place: sibling groups, children who areolder, children with disabilities. Once they are placed withfamilies, if they find loving homes, there's a question of makingsure those families work for those children and those children workwith those families. So, yes, we need to fix the system.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Twila Perry, Rutgers University.

MS. PERRY: Yes, the adoption system does need to be fixed. Thereare many, many children available for adoption. There are many, manychildren in foster care who may ultimately become available foradoption, and there needs to be more incentives for people to adoptchildren who need homes.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. My colleague at the American EnterpriseInstitute, Douglas Besharov.

MR. BESHAROV: Well, if you draw the line more finely, no, theadoption system doesn't need to be fixed. The system that bringschildren to the point of being free for adoption needs to be fixed.What we don't do well in this country is terminate parental rights,and we don't do that for a host of reasons, including race, butbureaucratic ineptness, and we ought to add that to the equation.

MR. WATTENBERG: Terminate parental rights.

MR. BESHAROV: You can't have a child adopted till you take it awayfrom a parent unless the parent voluntarily surrenders the child.That's the underside of this discussion.

MR. WATTENBERG: Rita Simon, American University.

MS. SIMON: I think the adoption system needs to be fixed because Ithink that minority children, especially black children, remain infoster care, remain in institutions years longer than white childrenwho are available for adoption. And I think that's because of thereluctance of many state agencies to place minority children in whitehomes. And there are white families who are willing to adopt them, soI think something needs to be fixed there to get those children outof the system.

MR. WATTENBERG: What has caused the number of adoptions to fall? Imean, what's going on?

MS. PIZZIGATI: There are a number of reasons. One is that thenumber of children who are waiting to be placed are children who arehard to place or families who don't have the means or the access toadopt those children or the supports necessary. In addition, theinterest of families who may not be able to have their own biologicalchildren has tended to be towards adopting healthy infants, adoptionthere are fewer and fewer of those infants available for adoption inthe United States. A combination of factors.

MR. WATTENBERG: Rita.

MS. SIMON: Ben, I think one of the problems, and this picks up onwhat Doug said, is there's this new phrase, 'family preservation,'and I think that's at the cost of children. If you think of adoptionas serving the best interests of children, you want to play downfamily preservation because very often that means waiting untildysfunctional families get themselves functional, and that can take avery long time. A mother may have a drug habit, a father may have acriminal record or something, and the child waits in the system. Thechild will either be in foster care or in institutions, et cetera.And the child is not made free for adoption because we are trying to,quote, 'preserve the birth family.' There's something holy aboutbiological or birth families, and I think that holiness is at thecost of children these days.

MR. BESHAROV: When Karabelle talks about the fact that so many ofthese children are difficult to place or get adopted, it is becauseso many of them have spent so long bouncing around the foster caresystem. Many of them started as healthy infants, or at leastemotionally healthy infants, and spent years as the judicial systemgot tied up in knots around the question of family preservation.

In New York City, the newspapers have been filled with a storyabout a young boy who was killed, Adam Mann. And the fact is thereare four siblings, it's been four years, I think, or five. Noadoption. The Lisa O'Sciardo case, which made all the cases. This isa situation in which it looks as if the parents killed one child. Theinformed -- killed the child -- the informed legal opinion is theremay not be grounds to terminate parental rights for the otherchildren.

We have made it so hard to terminate parental rights while thesechildren are easily adoptable that the adoption system, which isn'tdoing that badly, ends up getting damaged goods.

MS. PERRY: I think, though, that one problem is that there seemsto be a movement in this country now where adoption has become more aservice for people who want to adopt children than a service forfinding homes for children who need them. And I think that the factthat there is much more emphasis on people finding children hascaused less of a concern about preserving the rights of naturalparents. I think that there are many people whose children are infoster care basically because of poverty, because of no fault of theadults. And the goal of foster care originally was to take care ofthe child while the natural parent was provided with services toassist in family preservation. Family preservation was the ultimategoal.

I think now that there is a shortage of children for adoption andlots of people who want to adopt healthy infants -- healthy whiteinfants, basically, but also there now is a demand for children ofcolor --I think there is less emphasis on preserving families, and Ithink that the rights of children to stay with their natural parentsand the rights of natural parents to have access and custody of theirchildren, I think has really been de-emphasized and very muchcompromised.

MR. WATTENBERG: In a harmful way.

MS. PERRY: In a harmful way.

MR. WATTENBERG: Doug, this is the first time I have heard anyonecome out against family preservation.

MS. SIMON: Well, but Ben, if you think in terms of the children'sbest interest, and that's the judicial standard in adoption, then itseems to me you have to look with some suspicion on familypreservation because what family preservation does is keep a childwaiting. And as Twila said and as we all know, foster care is bydefinition temporary, and the child in some way waits for that knockon the door. Will I be taken back to my biological parent; will I bemoved to another family, et cetera.

MS. PERRY: Family preservation can serve children's bestinterests.

MS. SIMON: It can, but I think not the way it's beenoperationalized.

MS. PERRY: Children -- certainly research has shown that evenabused children often want to go back to their parent. Many childrenwho are in foster care aren't necessarily abused children. Childrendo have --

MS. SIMON: Oh, no, I'm not saying they're abused. I'm not sayingthey're abused.

MS. PERRY: Children do have a connection to their parents.

MS. SIMON: Yes.

MS. PERRY: And I think that the problem with family preservationis not that emphasizing it is a bad thing. The problem is that whenfamilies are in trouble, the services aren't provided to them toassist them in getting back on their feet so that the parents can bereunited with the children. I think what has happened withtransracial adoption --

MS. SIMON: That could be, Twila, but the kids suffer.

MS. PERRY: Well, what we have to look at is what is the thrust ofour social policy going to be? Okay, is the thrust of our socialpolicy going to be to place the emphasis on placing children foradoption, or is the emphasis going to be on attempting to reunitechildren with their parents? I think what's happened is that thebirth parent has started to be devalued in the society, and certainlyminority parents are starting to be devalued.

MS. SIMON: I think just the opposite.

MR. BESHAROV: You wouldn't see that in court.

MS. SIMON: Yeah, just the opposite.

MR. BESHAROV: Yeah, you wouldn't see that. I think the answer isthat it's not that it's either/or.

MS. SIMON: Right, right.

MR. BESHAROV: And the argument here, at least my argument withwhat you've said, is that family -- for me, I believe familypreservation is a good thing, but just like ice cream and chocolatecake, you can have too much of a good thing. And in not all places,but in some places, there has been too much emphasis on familypreservation. And in other places, I'll grant you this, there hasbeen too little. On average, I think there has been too much and wehave run out of children for adoption.

MS. PIZZIGATI: I'm not sure if it's too much. I think it may bethe wrong emphasis in some places. It's not either familypreservation or termination of parental rights as the thrust ofsocial policy. It's making a good decision early on in thedisposition of circumstances for a child.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let's just get more frontally attuned to thisissue of race. Again, I am a long way from being an expert on this,but isn't the idea of placing limits on a child because of his or herrace racist? Is that -- am I overstating that?

MS. PIZZIGATI: I think you are.

MR. WATTENBERG: Tell me why.

MS. PIZZIGATI: I think the issue is not that a child of the samerace must be placed with a same-race family and cannot be placedtransracially, but rather, when is it appropriate and to what extentis it appropriate to consider race, ethnicity, religion, all sorts offactors, in making good early decisions about placements in fostercare or for adoption?

MS. SIMON: That's the position of the Child Welfare League, but asyou know, in many states and we've all heard it, there are manystates, no matter what the law actually says, that will not placechildren of one race into a family of another race.

MR. WATTENBERG: Is that because, just out of political curiosity,because of pressure from blacks or pressure from whites?

MS. SIMON: I think the National Association of Black SocialWorkers has been very effective in these things. I mean, I havetalked with case workers in states that have pretty good laws, andyet they say, in practice, we do not make transracial placements.

MR. BESHAROV: That's right, and I think the important thing aboutthe federal legislation is not its actual words, because by the timewe get done with this process, the words will be watered downsomewhat. The important thing about the federal legislation that maypass is that it's going to send a signal that says this past ideawent too far; change it a little.

MR. WATTENBERG: All other things being equal, if you have a blackchild and two middle-class, thoroughly capable black parents who wantto adopt and two white middle-class -- everything the same, wouldn'tit be wiser to give the black child to the black parents?

MS. SIMON: Ben, that could be, but that situation doesn't happen.And what did happen --

MR. WATTENBERG: Doesn't happen often.

MS. SIMON: It hardly ever happens.

MS. PIZZIGATI: I do think we're faced with some issues aboutmoving children transracially that bump up against some historicalpractices. Even though the position of the black social workers haschanged over the years --

MR. WATTENBERG: They no longer stand by that sort of vigorousphrase of cultural genocide.

MS. PIZZIGATI: That is absolutely correct, and that hasn't gottenout and the traditions and the practices don't quite reflect thatacross the country. At the same time, there is an assumption thatunderlies the position of transracial -- of encouraging transracialadoption that families of color will not adopt. That is not true.

MS. SIMON: Absolutely not true.

MS. PIZZIGATI: So that if in fact you can encourage the kinds ofrecruitment and provide the supports to families, we have goodexamples across the country --

MR. WATTENBERG: And this is in the interest of cultural solidarityor whatever phrase you might want to put on it. I mean --

MS. PIZZIGATI: This is in the best interest of children for whomone of their characteristics is a major consideration in thiscountry.

MR. WATTENBERG: And having moved so easily past the contentiousissue of race, let's go on to a really easy one, which is abortion.Is one of the reasons that the number of adoptions has fallen is thatthe number of abortions after Roe v. Wade has increased, therebydiminishing the pool of potential adoptees -- is that the word?

MR. BESHAROV: I think that part of the reason is abortion as asolution to an unwanted pregnancy, but a larger cause, I think, andprobably immediate sort, is we've had a change in attitudes aboutwhether a young person should keep her child when she gets pregnantout of wedlock. The most --

MR. WATTENBERG: That was that 25 percent figure that used to giveup for adoption, and now it's 4 percent. I mean, give or take.

MR. BESHAROV: That's right. You can't watch a Hollywood soapopera, and that's what they are, without seeing the message, if youget pregnant, you are abusing your responsibility if you give yourchild up. Keep it. That's the proud, brave, courageous thing. Sowe've had this tremendous change in attitudes among young peopleabout whether they should keep their baby, and I think that's thebigger reason why there are fewer children freed for adoption atbirth.

MS. SIMON: As I understand it, also, they keep their children, butafter a while, when the child is 3 or 4 years old, they find it'svery difficult, and then they try and make arrangements to give theirchild to a relative or then they do release it for adoption. Andthen, of course, that makes it harder for the child to be adopted.

MS. PERRY: Well, I do agree that the increase in the number ofabortions as well as the increase in people keeping their childrenhas resulted in a shortage of healthy white babies, especially foradoption. And I think that we have to think about this when we thinkabout --

MR. WATTENBERG: Well, it would be healthy black babies also. Theabortion rate in the black community is substantially higher than inthe white community. I mean, it's a --

MS. PERRY: Well, yes. But let me just -- I'm just -- I just wantto tie this to the issue of transracial adoption because it really isthe fact that there is this shortage of healthy white babies now thatI think is why --

MR. WATTENBERG: I see.

MS. PERRY: -- transracial adoption has become so controversial,and that's why I think that while people paint it as a controversythat centers only on the interests of children, I think it largelycenters on the interests of those who wish to adopt, because what isalso true and what I think is often ignored in this controversy abouttransracial adoption is that there are lots of white children who areavailable for adoption. Most of those children are older, they havesome physical and emotional handicaps, but they are available foradoption.

And often the discourse around transracial adoption would make youbelieve that the only children available for adoption are blackchildren and that there are just hordes of white families waiting toadopt these older, handicapped black children. And I really seriouslyquestion that.

MS. SIMON: The data show that there are black children who remainin foster care, in an institution, years longer than white children.So the problem is, how do you help these black children?

MS. PERRY: Why do you think that there is so little emphasis puton the fact that there are white children available for adoption?

MS. SIMON: But there are very few.

MS. PERRY: Do you disagree that the imagery of adoption is thatthere are white parents waiting for black children?

MS. SIMON: Not at all, no. No, most parents want to adopt a child.They don't start out wanting to adopt a child of a different color.

MS. PERRY: Oh, I agree with that, that they --

MS. SIMON: They don't adopt for political reasons. They don'tadopt to show their, quote, 'liberalism.' They adopt because theydesperately want a child, and when they find that the child who mightbe available is a child of color, then they sit down and think aboutit, and most of them, because they very much want a child, want toadopt the child of color.

MR. BESHAROV: There's something else that happens here, too, whichwe've been kind of missing, which is many of these, quote, 'whiteadoptive families that want to adopt a black child' have in fact beentaking care of these children for years.

MS. PERRY: Sure. Yeah, most of them are foster parents.

MS. SIMON: Yes, yes.

MR. WATTENBERG: And what, fallen in love with the child?

MS. SIMON: Yes.

MR. BESHAROV: Some of them are pre-adoptive placements, which isto say it was an acknowledged decision to put this black child with awhite family.

MS. PIZZIGATI: Let me just say, I think we're mixing apples andoranges and pears and carrots.

MR. WATTENBERG: And giraffes.

MS. PIZZIGATI: Yes, because on the one hand, we're talking aboutthose who are involved in the foster care system or in the adoptionsystem, the child welfare system, who have taken children into theirhomes and who love them and want to adopt them of whatever color. Andthen there is the broader issue of parents who want to adopt a childwho may go to a public agency and seek to adopt through that agency,but not finding a child or because of hurdles in the bureaucracy,then look perhaps overseas.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. We are running out of time. Let's just wrapthis up one time, quickly around the room, starting with you,Karabelle Pizzigati. Is adoption good social policy?

MS. PIZZIGATI: Adoption is a necessary piece of a whole range ofservices and activities to help families and children be togetherwell and to live healthy lives. The tax credit that allows us to do-- that would allow us, if passed by the full Congress, to in factencourage adoptions, we think would probably be better deployed if itwas focused on special needs children.

MS. PERRY: I think adoption is a solution for some children. WhatI am concerned about is that I think that we are seeing adoption as asolution where what ought to be happening is more emphasis beingplaced on improving the lives of children in the families into whichthey were born. And I see a link between transracial adoption andinternational adoption in that in both these instances, the solutionto the problems of children has started to be, take them out of theirculture of birth and have them adopted by whites.

And I think that in both situations, the emphasis needs to be onwhat can we do as a society to assist mothers, people who give birthto children, to be able to keep their children if that's what they dowant to do? There will always be some children who will be given upfor adoption, but I think that we need to attack those parts of oursystem that place too many in a position where they feel that theyhave no choice but to give their children up for adoption.

MR. WATTENBERG: Someone I talked to in the course of doing somediscussion about this program said that they felt that they werebeginning to sense within the feminist movement an objection toadoption because it was putting pressure on women not to haveabortions. Is that -- has anybody else picked that up? Is that valid?

MR. BESHAROV: Well, one of the dynamics that creates the interestin adoption is an interest on the part of pro-life groups todiscourage abortion. And one of the best ways to do that is to tellyoung people that there is a -- not just an adequate, but a fine andnurturing home that will be available for their child. It's apowerful argument in one-to-one counseling, and it's why so many ofthe pro-life counseling programs have an adoption component attachedto them. Yeah, that is a connection that's very real.

MR. WATTENBERG: I interrupted our last series. We had come to you,Doug. Just very briefly, is the whole adoption idea, is it growing,is it strong, is it good?

MR. BESHAROV: Too often, adoption is seen as a last resort, as thething you have to do if nothing else works. The fact of the matteris, for many children, adoption is the absolute best government ornon-government program you could have for them, and for more childrenthan today, we ought to be encouraging adoption.

MR. WATTENBERG: Rita Simon, the last word.

MS. SIMON: I think adoption is a good thing for children, andadoption should be for children. I think, though, in fact, the moodin this country is in the other direction. I think familypreservation has really become a very important theme, and I thinkchildren are hurting as a result of that. I think the emphasis onblood ties has become very strong.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Doug Besharov, Twila Perry, RitaSimon, and Karabelle Pizzigati.

And thank you. We are still accepting entries for Part II of ourElection Year Bumper Sticker Contest. This one asks for positive ornegative stickers regarding the Republican nominee, Bob Dole.Remember, the winning negative Clinton entry was: 'Clinton, 99percent fact-free.'

Please send your entries plus any questions and comments to: NewRiver Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036. Or we canbe reached via e-mail at thinktv@aol.com and on the World Wide Web atwww.thinktank.com.

For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg.

ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content.

'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient of thePresidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology, improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation andthe Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Back to top

Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc.

©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved.

Web development by Bean Creative.