The transracial adoption debate: counseling and legal implications
by Carla Bradley , Cynthia G. Hawkins-Leon Adoption is often seen as a viable alternative to ensure that children who have been permanently placed in foster care will have a stable home of their own. Moreover, numerous scholars have noted that the numbers of children nationwide in need of permanent homes were projected to reach 900,000 by the beginning of the new millennium (see Curtis, 1996; Taylor & Thornton, 1996). It is well documented that African American children are disproportionately represented among populations of children who have been separated from their families and placed in foster care (Curtis, 1996; Grow & Shapiro, 1974). Factors such as poverty and the lack of understanding on the part of agency personnel regarding the disciplinary practices of African American mothers and fathers have contributed to the overrepresentation of African American families in the child welfare system (Bradley, 2000; Denby & Alford, 1996; McRoy, Olgesby, & Grape, 1997). The disciplinary styles of African American parents have been the subject of considerable debate and commentary among social scientists. The basis of this discussion is largely derived from comparative studies in which disciplinary practices of African American parents were compared with disciplinary practices of White American middle-class parents (Bartz & Levine, 1978; Kamii & Radin, 1967; Portes, Dunham, &Williams, 1986). Consequently, when contrasted with White American norms (i.e., middle-class norms), the disciplinary practices of African American parents have been characterized as strict, rigid, and in some cases "abusive" by some social service agency personnel (Bradley, 1998; Denby & Alford, 1996). Furthermore, due to what seems to be cultural bias, many African American children remain in foster care twice as long as White American children, and there is considerable evidence that some foster care workers are more likely to arrange visitation between White American parents and their children who are in foster care than they are for African American families in this situation (McRoy et al., 1997). Moreover, because of a shortage of African American adoptive families and fewer White American infants and toddlers available for adoptive placement, some African American children have been permanently placed with White American families. This interracial placement is a process referred to as "transracial adoption" (Grow & Shapiro, 1974). Over the last 30 years, the practice of transracial adoption has been steeped in controversy (Alexander & Curtis, 1996; Grow & Shapiro, 1974; Shireman & Johnson, 1986). Most of the contention has focused on whether African American children are able to develop healthy racial and cultural identities within White American families (Curtis, 1996). Although most of the opinions and research on transracial adoption have been published in social work literature, the dissemination of such information into the counseling literature has remained relatively rare. The overarching theme of this article is to present and clarify issues pertaining to the adoption of African American children by White American parents. More specifically, the purposes of this article are to (a) review relevant literature and research regarding the transracial adoption debate, (b) explain the legal aspects and practice of transracial adoption, and (c) discuss the implications for counseling practice and potential legal implications or concerns for counselors. TRANSRACIAL ADOPTIONS AND RELATED RESEARCH The question of whether White American parents should adopt African American children has been the subject of considerable debate and commentary both in the social work literature and in a segment of child development literature. The basis for much of this discussion is attributed to a position paper (Simon & Alstein, 1977) drafted by the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) that "vehemently opposed" (p. 15) the placement of African American children with White American families and referred to this type of placement as a form of"cultural genocide" (p. 202). The term cultural genocide was first coined in relation to the placement of Native American children outside of their tribe, family, culture, and identity into White American families (Hawkins-Leon, 1997-1998). Such outplacement occurred in such large numbers throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s that Congress responded by passing federal legislation tided the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to arrest the irreversible decimation of the Native American tribal system (Hawkins-Leon, 1997-1998). In relation to the transracial adoption of African American children, NABSW (in 1972) stated the following: | |
Black children should be placed only with Black families whether in foster
care or for adoption. Black children belong, physically, psychologically
and culturally in Black families in order that they receive the total sense
of themselves and develop a sound projection of their future.... The
socialization process for every child begins at birth. Included in the
socialization process is the child's cultural heritage which is an
important segment of the total process. This must begin at the earliest
moment; otherwise our children will not have the background and knowledge
which is necessary to survive in a racist society. This is impossible if
the child is placed with White parents in a White environment. (as cited in
Simon & Alstein, 1977, p. 50)
| | After its release, this position paper by NABSW argumentatively set the tone regarding transracial adoption for nearly two decades. In addition to the concerns raised by NABSW, African American child-rearing experts have affirmed over the last few decades that African American parents have the difficult role of preparing their children to succeed in a society that has a history of being hostile and racist toward African Americans (Bradley, 1998; Robinson & Ginter, 1999). As early as preschool, African American children are bombarded with negative messages from authority figures about race (Bradley & Sanders, 1999; Robinson & Ginter, 1999; Tatum, 1997). African American male children in particular "are frequently the victims of negative attitudes and lowered expectations from teachers, counselors, and administrators" (Lee, 1991, p. 1). Moreover, the criminal justice system has a history of targeting and harassing African American children. African American youth who gather at malls or in other public settings are often approached by law enforcement officers who perceive their behavior as "menacing" and "suspicious." Several scholars (Greene, 1992; Lee, 1991; Phinney, Lochner, & Murphy, 1990; Tatum, 1997) have posited that the internalization of such messages by African American youth can lead to higher levels of anxiety and lowered self-esteem. To counteract the impact of these societal pressures on African American children, African American parents have used a variety of adaptive strategies to expose their children to accurate and positive information about African American people and their history. This process has been termed racial socialization. According to Greene (1992), in implementing this process | |
African American parents must find ways of warning their children about
racial dangers and disappointments without overwhelming them or being
overly protective. Either extreme will facilitate the development of
defensive styles that leave a child inadequately prepared to negotiate the
world with a realistic perspective. (p. 64)
| | Thus, the socialization process for African American children has been documented as being different from that for White American children. Advocates for transracial adoption responded to the criticisms of NABSW by conducting investigations on the effects of transracial adoption on African American children. Most of these studies consistently indicated that African American adolescent and younger children adjusted well in their adoptive homes. Our analysis of these studies, however, finds cause for concern for transracially adopted African American children. The work of Grow and Shapiro (1974) annotated one of the earliest studies on the placement of African American children with White American parents. Grow and Shapiro conducted a follow-up study of 125 adoptions of African American children by White American parents. Children were classified as African American if one of the biological parents was African American. The primary focus of this research was to assess the adjustment and well-being of preadolescent African American adoptees. Adjustment was calibrated by the child's responses to the California Test of Personality (a measure of social and personal adjustment) and the Missouri Children's Behavior Check List Test. Researchers also evaluated interview data regarding the parents' assessment of the child's attitude toward race. Reported findings indicated that 77% of the children had adjusted successfully and that this percentage was similar to reports from previous studies. Grow and Shapiro also compared the responses of African American children adoptees with those of adopted White American children and found that the scores from these two groups matched very closely. Grow and Shapiro concluded that the children in their study were adjusting in their adoptive homes successfully. In 1981, Silverman and Feigelman reported their findings on the psychological adjustment of transracially adopted children. Their sample consisted of 56 White American families who adopted African American children and 97 White American families who adopted White American children. Each parent or couple was asked to make a judgment about their child's overall adjustment and the frequency with which their child encountered emotional and growth problems. The findings discovered a positive association between age at adoption and maladjustment. Silverman and Feigelman interpreted this result as indicating that the child's age at adoption, not the transracial adoption itself, had the most significant impact on the child's development. Silverman and Feigelman supported the position that transracial adoption was a feasible option. McRoy and Zurcher (1983) conducted the first study of transracial adoptees that used a comparison group of inracial adoptees. They were also the first to examine the experiences of African American children from the parents' and the adoptees' perspective. The sample consisted of 60 families, 30 White American and 30 African American. Slightly more than half of the adoptees had two biological African American parents. Most of these children had been placed with African American adoptive parents. Nearly all children with only one biological African American parent were placed with White American parents. An interracial team of African American and White researchers conducted face-to-face interviews both with the adoptive parents together and with the children alone. In addition, both parents and children completed the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. McRoy and Zurcher (1983) wrote that the results indicated that "transracial and inracial adoptive parents enjoyed their adopted children and considered their decision to adopt a good one" (p. 36). Researchers also noted that the families were different in several aspects. The transracial adoptive parents were less likely than were inracial adoptive parents to deliberately instruct their adoptees about African American heritage and pride. The transracial parents primarily emphasized that "all humans are alike." The inracial parents accentuated the positive qualities of being African American. The inracial adolescent adoptees tended to discuss racist experiences more openly and frequently with their parents than did the transracial adoptees. McRoy and Zurcher concluded that although White adoptive parents had yet to behaviorally respond to the racial and cultural needs of African American children, they should still be considered as a resource for permanent placement for African Americans. To determine the effects of transracial adoption over time, several scholars have conducted longitudinal investigations. Shireman and Johnson (1986) published their findings of a longitudinal study of adopted African American children reared in single-parent, transracial, and African American homes. The children were studied at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 years of age. The Clark Doll test, a projective measure in which children attribute various qualities to either a White American or African American doll, was administered to adoptees at age 4 and at age 8. Findings indicated that at age 4, children in transracial homes knew they were Black and on the doll test displayed a greater Black preference than did those children in homes with African American parents. However, at age 8, Black preference among transracial adopted children remained constant, while Black preference of a child in an inracial family increased significantly more than did that of the transracial adoptees. Shireman and Johnson concluded that although the racial development of transracial adoptees was "of concern," most of the children seemed to be "growing well" in their adoptive homes. Over a period of 20 years, Simon and Alstein (1992) followed a group of families that adopted African American children. Their research began in 1972, and the original sample consisted of 204 families who adopted transracially. Of the 366 adoptees, 120 were African American. Using projective measures such as the Clark Doll test, pictures, and other instruments, Simon and Alstein (1992) found that "African American children perceived themselves as African American as accurately as White American children perceive themselves as White American" (p. 87). They also found that the parents tended to believe that race did not and would not be a major issue for their children. A large majority (77%) of the White American parents lived in predominately White American neighborhoods, and 63% of the adoptees reported that most of their friends were White American. Simon and Alstein (1992) concluded that their study consistently showed that African American children reared by White American parents fared no worse than did other African American children. Vroegh (1997) reported the fifth phase of her longitudinal study of transracial adoption outcomes. The sample consisted of 52 late adolescent African American adoptees. Thirty-four of the adoptees were from transracial families, and the remaining 18 were from inracial families. Each of the participants was interviewed by an interracial team of researchers and each completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Findings revealed that 90% of the sample were "doing well in life." Based on longitudinal data, Vroegh concluded that transracial adoptees had "developed identities" (p. 572). Vroegh found that this fact was evidenced by 90% of the inracial adoptees and 88% of the transracial adoptees labeling themselves as either African American or of "mixed" race. Although a preponderance of evidence supports the declaration that African American adoptees are adjusting well in transracial home environments, these and other often-cited conclusions have been challenged on methodological, analytical, and interpretative grounds (Alexander & Curtis, 1996; Chimezie, 1977; Gopaul-McNicol, 1996; Hollingsworth, 1997; McRoy & Zurcher, 1983; Penn & Coverdale, 1996; Taylor & Thornton, 1996; Willis, 1996). An extensive review of studies on transracial adoption conducted by Hollingsworth (1997) indicated that most of the data regarding the experiences of transracial adoptees were gathered only from the adoptive parents. This particular research method provided very little insight regarding the child's own perception of their adoptive experience (Penn & Coverdale, 1996). Furthermore, Willis (1996) reported that when transracial adoptees were interviewed, many of the appraisal and evaluation procedures used by the researchers had numerous methodological limitations. For example, the Clark Doll Test, a projective measure used in several of the longitudinal studies, has been severely criticized as being invalid if used to evaluate anything more than a child's preference for a doll in a contrived, forced-choice situation. In addition, numerous researchers have charged that when the research population involved African American and White American adoptees, the behaviors and experiences of White American children were held as the standard. Furthermore, if White American children were not part of the study, African American adoption experiences were compared with White American children both indirectly and by assumption. Seminal studies such as the work of Grow and Shapiro (1974) and Simon and Alstein (1992) are prime examples of this tendency. In each of these two studies, researchers found that African American adoptees evidenced psychological outcomes similar to those found in White American children. Based on these findings, the investigators concluded that transracial adoption was a logical option for African American children. Finally, and most important, Taylor and Thornton (1996) argued that in the studies that reported "the successful adjustment" of transracial adoptees, researchers omitted or minimized other important outcomes in their analyses such as (a) the presence of racial identity and awareness issues among transracial adoptees (e.g., McRoy & Zurcher, 1983; Shireman & Johnson, 1986); (b) the large number of transracial adoptive families who resided in predominately White American neighborhoods (e.g., Grow & Shapiro, 1974; Simon & Alstein, 1992); (c) the general belief of White American parents that race would not be a major issue for their transracially adopted children in the future (e.g., McRoy & Zurcher, 1983); and (d) the discovery of emotional maladjustment among some African American adoptees (e.g., Silverman & Feigelman, 1981). THE FEDERAL STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION The controversy surrounding transracial adoption gained national attention after the NABSW issued its opinion paper on transracial adoption in 1972. Attention was not confined to the realm of social science. The transracial adoption controversy involved lawyers, the U.S. Congress, foster parents, and prospective adoptive parents for the next three decades. Because of the debate and concern about the best interests of children when transracially placed during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, race matching was regularly used as one of the determinative factors considered when placing African American children in adoptive homes (Davis v. Berks County Children and Youth Services, 1983; DeWees v. Stevenson, 1991; Drummond v. Fulton County Department of Family and Children's Services, 1976; Hollinger, 1998; J.H.H. and S.C.H. v. O'Hara, 1989; In Re R.M.G. and E.M.G., 1982). Typically, transracial adoption was considered a last resort placement alternative. During the same period, the practice of race matching was identified as one of the causes of "foster care drift" and the escalation of the number of children in foster care. For example, some estimate that there was a 72% increase in the number of children in the U.S. child protective system from 1986 through the early 1990s (Davis v. Berks County Children and Youth Services, 1983; DeWees v. Stevenson, 1991; Drummond v. Fulton County Department of Family and Children's Services, 1976; Hollinger, 1998; J.H.H. and S.C.H. v. O'Hara, 1989; In Re R.M.G. and E.M.G., 1982; S. Rep. No. 9633-6, 1972). Foster care drift was the term used to refer to the crisis within the foster care system whereby hundreds of thousands of children were without permanent home placements due chiefly to the federal government's policy in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s that children be removed from their homes when there was any allegation of either abuse or neglect, with no provision for future reunification plans or the termination of parental rights. Thus, many children languished within the system with little or no chance of permanent placement (S. Rep. No. 96-336, 1972). As a result of foster care drift, Congress actively entered the transracial adoption debate by passing the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA; 1994), which was subsumed in provisions of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. Later that year, President Clinton signed MEPA into law. The stated purposes of the Act were (a) to decrease the length of time that children would wait to be adopted; (b) to prevent discrimination in the placement of children on the basis of race, color, or national origin; and (c) to facilitate the identification and recruitment of foster and adoptive parents who could meet these children's needs (MEPA, 1994). MEPA prohibited agencies receiving federal monies from "categorically deny[ing] to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive parent, solely on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child involved" (p. 4057). Furthermore, the Act prohibited the delaying or denying of child placements due to the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parents (MEPA, 1994). The two U.S. senators, Carol Moseley-Braun (Illinois Democrat) and Howard Metzenbaum (Ohio Democrat), who sponsored the original legislation stated that the wording of MEPA as passed allowed race to be considered but not as the sole factor in rejecting adoptive parents (Metzenbaum, 1995; Moseley-Braun, 1995; Opie, 1996). Rather than achieving the congressionally intended purpose of resolving the transracial adoption debate by limiting the bases for considering race, MEPA fueled the flames of the debate. For 2 years after MEPA's passage, there was evidence that race matching in adoptions continued. Congress addressed the issue once again by repealing MEPA and passing the Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoption Act (IEA; 1996), which was passed as Section 1808 of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. IEA's purpose was to ensure that (a) the practice of race matching ended and (b) race was not to be considered at all during the adoption process (even for purposes of racial sensitivity screening or when the birth parent had requested that the child be placed intraracially; Removal of Barriers to IEA Act, 1996). Furthermore, IEA contains an enforcement provision whereby federally funded state programs and any private entities receiving federal funds found to have violated IEA will have their funding reduced by 2% for the first violation, 3% for the second violation, and 5% for the third and each subsequent violation during any fiscal year (Removal of Barriers to IEA Act, 1996). Thus, Congress struck at state agencies' and state-funded private organizations' pocketbooks to ensure compliance with IEA's ideology that race is not an issue to be considered in adoption--even in transracial adoption (where, by definition, the race of the adoptive parents is different from that of the adopted child). As is evidenced by the data reported next, the number of children, particularly African American children, experiencing foster care drift remained at a crisis level throughout the 1990s. Certainly family structure over the last 50 years has undergone many changes. Undeniably, the American nuclear family will not be the dominant family group for the new millennium, and this is particularly true for the African American family (Burner, 1997). As of September 30, 1996 (the most recent data available), data from 33 states indicated that approximately 292,000 children were in foster care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998). It has been estimated that the number of children in foster care in all 50 states in 1996 rose to 507,000 (Baker & Finchio, 1998). As of March 31, 1998, there were 50,822 children in foster care in New York state alone (Festinger, 1999). Of the 3,820 children adopted from out-of-home-care in New York City in 1998, 74.3% were African American (Festinger, 1999). For these New York state adoptees, the average stay in foster care prior to adoption had been 6.8 years (Festinger, 1999). According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1998), the nationwide figure rose further to an estimated 520,000 children in foster care as of January l, 1999, and 110,000 of these children were available for adoption. The median age of these children as reported by 33 states was 9 years. It is estimated that 46% of these children were African American children, a total that is almost 4 times the percentage found in the general child population (which is approximately 12%). In 1994, African American children were 47% of the foster care population but were only 15% of the general population under 18 years old. In contrast, 32% of foster care children were White American and were 67% of the general population under 18 years old. In addition, on September 30, 1996, the total number of children reported to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System federal database as being in foster care was 291,825 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995). Approximately 45% of these foster care children were African American. Nationally, on average, the length of stay in foster care has been projected as approximately 37 months for White American children and 50 months for African American children. Moreover, once separated from their families, White children who are returned to their homes are returned in half the amount of time required to return African American children to their homes (Barth, 1997). Annually, approximately 15,000 children age-out (i.e., turn 18 or become adults) of the foster care system without being adopted or permanently placed (O'Laughlin, 1998). The annual number of finalized adoptions nationwide during the 1990s has not exceeded 19,000 (about 4% of the children in out-of-home care). The National Commission on Children (1991) stated that "if the nation had deliberately designed a system that would abandon the children who depend on it, [the United States] could not have done a better job than the present child welfare system" (p. 293). To summarize, throughout the 1990s, the numbers relating to children in foster care drift and their subsequent failure to be placed in permanent care have continued to remain at a crisis level. A federal attempt to clear the logjam of foster care was Congress's passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA; 1997). Because of its broad scope, ASFA was, in effect, the first major overhaul of federal child welfare law since the passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. ASFA was signed into law by President Clinton on November 19, 1997, as part of his presidential Adoption 2002 Initiative. The goal of the initiative was to raise the annual number of adoptions to 54,000 by the year 2002 (which would be double the previous adoption rate; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998). ASFA emphasizes the importance of safety and permanence to children by imposing detailed conditions on federal spending to accelerate the adoption of neglected and abused children and the termination of parental rights (Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997). Because a child's safety and permanent placement are the law's primary concerns, it can be implied that neither racial nor ethnic characteristics are to be considered in an adoption proceeding unless they directly affect the child's safety (Hollinger, 1998). One of the Act's provisions requires a state seeking funding under ASFA to agree to begin termination proceedings once a child has spent 15 of the last 22 months in foster care and, if the child was abandoned or abused, the termination proceedings must begin even sooner (Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997). Also, a permanency plan either for reuniting the foster child with his or her biological family or preparing for adoption is required for every child within 12 months of entering foster care (reduced from 18 months). Under one of the more controversial provisions, states have been receiving so-called adoption incentive payments during the 1998-2002 fiscal years. Under this bounty-like program, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been paying states a $4,000 bonus (or $6,000 for special needs children) for each child it places during a fiscal year in adoptive homes from foster care over the average number of placements for the prior 3 years (Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997). As can be concluded from the preceding discussion, although federal legislation such as MEPA, IEA, and AFSA has the stated purpose of increasing the number of domestic (as opposed to international) adoptions, MEPA and IEA do not specifically use the "best interests of the child" standard when making such adoption placements. Thus, when making the placement decision, other parties' interests (e.g., those of the adoptive parents, birth parents, or even the government itself) could be given precedence over those of the child. Furthermore, AFSA's pledged "fast track" to the termination of parental rights has the potential to dissolve families more quickly, but the Act does not implement a system that can ensure that permanent homes will be found for foster children once these ties are broken (i.e., AFSA does not provide funding either to find adoptive parents or to provide them with additional adoption subsidies once committed). COUNSELORS' AWARENESS OF LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS There are several legal implications and concerns regarding the recently enacted federal legislation that are of central importance for counselors. Simply stated, for counselors to work effectively in the area of transracial adoption, they must be aware of various legal implications that may influence intervention strategies. In relation to MEPA and IEA, the following implications must be considered: 1. The best interests of the child standard: Because MEPA/IEA do not explicitly incorporate a best interests of the child standard in making adoption placements, there is concern that the best interests standard will not be used in adoption placements pursuant to MEPA/IEA. Therefore, the parents' interests can be paramount to the child's interests. 2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act: Failure to comply with MEPA/IEA is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1998). Therefore, anyone who thinks that they have been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or national origin in relation to an adoption placement may file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights for investigation and review. This is particularly relevant for parents seeking to adopt transracially because race is not to be considered even in terms of the potential parents' racial sensitivity and/or acuity. 3. Private lawsuits: In addition to lawsuits under the Civil Rights Act, MEPA/IEA contains provisions providing a right to a federal cause of action in a private lawsuit for alleged violations of the Act. In certain instances, aggrieved persons have 2 years from the date of the alleged violation to file a lawsuit in federal court. 4. Implementation issues: Because of the long-standing practices of racial matching and sensitivity to race by individual adoption case workers (and even supervisors), there may be a resistance by these workers to fully implement the MEPA/IEA's provisions without proper and full discussion of the law and its goals. Furthermore, the fear of litigation may cause case workers to be hesitant to exercise their discretion when attempting to determine the best interests of the child. Thus, there may be a substantial time lag before the provisions of MEPA/IEA are fully implemented. Therefore, it may take several years to determine the full effects and advisability of the law's provisions. Implications regarding the overall success of ASFA fall into four categories: 1. Kinship adoption: ASFA does not promote kinship adoptions. This is evidenced by the fact that the requirement for expedited parental rights termination proceedings do not apply when a child is in kinship care, regardless of the unfitness of the birth parent(s). Thus, in such cases the child's permanent placement is in limbo for an extended time period. 2. Funding issues: Because there is no guarantee under ASFA's provisions that federal funding to the states will be increased, it may be concluded that, if the funding remains stable, federal funding for reunification services as required under the Act is inadequate for full implementation. 3. Inadequate consideration of age: It is undeniable that the older the child, the harder it is to place the child. Despite this fact, ASFA treats children the same regardless of age. Therefore, older children will languish in the foster care system without a permanent placement even after their parents' parental rights have been terminated. Thus, ASFA may not significantly reduce foster care drift for children who are placed into the child protective system after their toddler years because age of the child is not considered a priority. 4. The best interests of the child standard: In sum, in the law's practical application by the states, ASFA can be interpreted as making the parents' interests paramount to the child's interests, which (as discussed in this article) may be particularly relevant in transracial adoptions. Despite the fact that counselors are not usually directly involved in placing children into permanent homes, these legal implications may prove crucial for counselors. Counselors are ethically bound to embrace a multicultural approach in support of the worth, potential, and uniqueness of each client (American Counseling Association, 1997). For counselors to minimize the significance of race, as required in applying the requirements of the AFSA, IEA, and MEPA, may be harmful to the transracial families they serve. Therefore, awareness of these parameters is recommended. IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELORS The brief review of the writings and research on transracial adoption that we have presented provides a synopsis of the assortment of information available to the counseling profession. Perhaps the most salient theme evident from this body of work is that although most White American adoptive families provide loving homes for their African American children, only a few of these families may be able to effectively educate and prepare their African American children for the realities of racism in this country. Furthermore, many White American parents may be unclear as to what this particular socialization entails and how it translates into parenting practice. A Psychoeducational-Based Approach to Counseling Counseling can provide a setting for transracial adoptive families to process parenting concerns. The family, school, and community counselors best equipped to respond to the racial and cultural needs of these clients in proactive and empowering ways are those who are aware of their own racial and cultural backgrounds and how their personal backgrounds affect the racial and cultural identities of their clients. With clients who have transracially adopted, counselors must be able to initiate open and thoughtful dialogue regarding the impact of "White privilege" (see Robinson & Ginter, 1999) on the client and the client's interaction with others. Finally, both the client and the counselor must have an understanding of racial socialization and its importance in the lives of ethnic minority children. One important way counselors can begin to work with transracial families is through the facilitation of preadoption psychoeducational counseling groups. As Malcolm X (1963) so eloquently stated during a radio interview at Dartmouth College, "[e]ducation is the first step towards solving any problem that exists anywhere on this earth which involves people who are oppressed." To this end, the primary purpose of psychoeducational group work with potential White American adoptive parents would be to (a) provide in-depth historical and current information regarding African and African American history, (b) assist parents with exploring their own issues regarding race and "White privilege," (c) provide parents with constructive and empowering ways to prepare their African American children to succeed in an racist environment, and (d) provide White American parents with cultural/racial information that they may be unaware of. For example, some White parents are unfamiliar with the personal care needs of their African American adoptees. Many members of the African American community can only patronize African American hair salons or beauty shops because most White American hair stylists have not received formalized training or carry the products (namely, shampoos, conditioners, and relaxers) needed to maintain African American hair. Also, many department stores and supermarkets offer a very limited supply of African American makeup and shaving products. White American parents who are not familiar with the basic hair and skin care needs of African American children or neglect to take their children to hair beauticians trained in servicing ethnic hair may subject their child to undue embarrassment and humiliation from their African American peers. Reasons or Motives for Adopting an African American Child It is well documented that there is a shortage of White American infants and toddlers available for adoption (Alexander & Curtis, 1996; Grow & Shapiro, 1974; Hawkins-Leon, 1997-1998; McRoy & Zurcher, 1983). The widespread use of contraceptives, liberalized abortion laws, and increased social acceptance of single parenthood have all contributed to the relatively low number of White American children available for adoption (McRoy & Zurcher, 1983). As a result, many White American parents "compromise" and select from the ready pool of ethnic minority youth. Although some White American parents may attempt to approach the process of adoption from a "second choice" or "color blind" perspective, they may consciously or unconsciously have the attitude of either "White superiority" or pity for African Americans. Consequently, this particular attitude may convey to the transracial adoptee a disrespect or dislike for African Americans, which may cause identity confusion or self-hate that is often difficult for the adoptee to resolve (Baden & Steward, 1997). Counselors can be instrumental in assisting White American parents with their own issues about race. Encouraging White American parents to read narratives by White Americans who share their own personal journey toward cultural awareness and acceptance is one of the ways in which counselors can initiate dialogue on this issue (see Robinson & Ginter, 1999; Tatum, 1997). Periodic Assessment for Family Counseling Marriage and family counseling can be instrumental in addressing the ongoing concerns of individual families. For example, White American siblings may need concrete help regarding racism and their feelings about their adopted African American siblings (Hill & Peltzer, 1982). In the same vein, African American adoptees may need a "safe" place to fully share their feelings with their White American family members. Family counselors can also provide resources to assist White American parents in the racial socialization process. Research studies (Grow & Shapiro, 1974; Hill & Peltzer, 1982; Hollingsworth, 1997) have revealed that the majority of transracial families rear their children in predominantly White American neighborhoods, schools, and social groups. This particular social context could interfere with the development of self-esteem in African American adoptees. Such information could form the backdrop for a dialogue on why and how White American parents can create opportunities for their adoptees to interact with African American role models and form relationships with African American peers. There are numerous books and community organizations that can educate White American parents about raising African American children in a predominately White American society. For example, books and articles written by Akbar (1988), Giddings (1985), Lee (1991), and Madhubuti (1991) can give transracial families insight into the historical and current experiences of African Americans as well as introduce them to African-centered concepts such as "unity" and "self-determination." Popular magazines such as Ebony, Essence, and Black Enterprise, which feature African Americans doing average and extraordinary things, can provide positive role models for African American children. Exposing African American children to older African Americans can be of great help in clarifying issues and questions that may arise from reading about African Americans and, most important, being African American. Attending African American religious institutions and actively participating in organizations within the African American community are ways in which White American parents can locate these important individuals who may be potential role models. CONCLUSION The debate on transracial adoption is far from over. Counselors are faced with the task of ameliorating the effects of transracial adoption once it has occurred because race cannot be a consideration in whether it will be allowed. Furthermore, because states continue to implement laws and regulations passed in compliance with the tenets of the federal MEPA/IEA and ASFA, it may be years before the ramifications of these directives are fully realized. It is hoped that this federal attempt to resolve the foster care crisis through a "color-blind" approach will not have deleterious effects on the psyches of transracially adopted African American children. REFERENCES Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (1997). Akbar, N. (1988). Chains and images of psychological slavery. Jersey City, NJ: New Mind Productions. Alexander, R., & Curtis, C. M. (1996). A review of empirical research involving the transracial adoption of African American children. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 223-235. American Counseling Association. (1997). Code of ethics and standards of practice. Alexandria, VA: Author. Baden, A. L., & Steward, R. (1997, February). The role of parents and family in the psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees: Implications for the cultural-racial identity model for transracial adoptees. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Teachers College Roundtable on Cross-Cultural Psychology and Education, New York. Baker, M., & Finchio, T. (1998, January-February). APWA survey of 1996 family foster care maintenance payment rates. West Memo, 37. Barth, R. (1997). Effects of age and race on the odds of adoption versus remaining in long-term out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 76, 285. Bartz, K. W., & Levine, E. S. (1978). Child rearing by Black parents: A description and comparison to Anglo and Chicano parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 709-719. Bradley, C. (1998). Cultural interpretations of child discipline: Voices of African American scholars. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy For Couples and Families, 4, 272-278. Bradley, C. (2000). The disciplinary styles of African American fathers: A closer look. Journal of African American Men, 5, 43-61. Bradley, C., & Sanders, J. (1999). Counseling culturally diverse young clients. In A. Vernon (Eds.), Counseling children and adolescents (pp. 223-242). Denver, CO: Love. Burnet, D. (1997). Grandparents raising grandchildren in the inner city. Families in Society, 78, 489-499. Chimezie, A. (1977). Bold but irrelevant: Grow and Shapiro on transracial adoption. Child Welfare, 56, 75-86. Curtis, C. M. (1996). The adoption of African American children by Whites: A renewed conflict. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 25, 156-164. Davis v. Berks County Children and Youth Services, 454 A.2d 614 (Pa. 1983). Denby, R., & Alford, K. (1996). Understanding African American disciplinary styles: Suggestions for effective social work intervention. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 4, 81-98. DeWees v. Stevenson, 779 F. Supp. 25 (E.D. Pa. 1991). Drummond v. Fulton County Department of Family and Children's Services, 408 F. Supp. 392 (N.D. Ga. 1976). Festinger, T. (1999). New York City adoptions in 1998. Unpublished manuscript. Giddings, P. (1985). When and where I enter. New York: Bantam Gopaul-McNicol, S. (1996). Critique of a review of the research on transracial adoptions. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 270-272. Greene, B. A. (1992). Racial socialization as a tool in psychotherapy with African American children. In L. A. Vargus & J. D. Koss-Chioino (Eds.), Working with culture: Psychotherapeutic interventions with ethnic minority children and adolescents (pp. 63-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grow, L. J., & Shapiro, D. (1974). Black children White parents. New York: Child Welfare League of America. Hawkins-Leon, C. G. (1997-1998). The Indian Child Welfare Act and the African American tribe: Facing the adoption crisis. Brandeis Journal of Family Law, 36, 201-218. Hill, M., & Peltzer, J. (1982). A report of thirteen groups for White parents of Black children. Family Relations, 31, 557-565. Hollinger, J. (1998). A Guide to the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996. Chicago: American Bar Association. Hollingsworth, L. D. (1997). Effect of transracial/transethnic adoption on children's racial and ethnic identity and self-esteem: A meta-analytic review. Families and Adoption, 25, 99-130. J.H.H. and S.C.H. v. O'Hara, 878 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1989). Kamii, C., & Radin, N. (1967). The child-rearing attitudes of disadvantaged Negro mothers and some educational implications. Journal of Negro Education, 16, 139-146. Lee, C. C. (1991, December). Empowering young Black males. ERIC Digest. (ED 341887) Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Personnel Services Digest. Madhubuti, H. R. (1991). Black men obsolete, single, dangerous? The Afrikan American family in transition. Chicago: Third World Press. Malcolm X. (1963). Malcolm X interview. WDCR Radio Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 26.I.65. McRoy, R. G., Olgesby, Z., & Grape, H. (1997). Achieving same-race adoptive placements for African American children: Culturally sensitive practice approaches. Child Welfare, 76, 85-105. McRoy, R. G., & Zurcher, L. A. (1983). Transracial and inracial adoptees: The adolescent years. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Metzenbaum, H. (1995). S.1224--In support of the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1993. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 2, 165-172. Moseley-Braun, C. (1995). Interracial adoption. American Bar Association Journal, 81, 44-45. Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, [subsection] 551-555, 108 Stat. 4056-4057 (1994). National Commission on Children. (1991). Beyond rhetoric: A new American agenda for children and families. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED336201) O'Laughlin, M. (1998). Note, a theory of relativity: Kinship foster care may be the key to stopping the pendulum of terminations vs. reunifications. Vanderbilt Law Review, 51, 1427-1457. Opie, G. (1996). Comment, The Multi-Ethnic Placement Act: a critical analysis of why the Act is not in the best interests of children. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 20, 605-619. Penn, M. L., & Coverdale, C. (1996). Transracial adoption: A human rights perspective. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 240-245. Phinney, J. S., Lochner, B. T., & Murphy, R. (1990). Ethnic identity development and psychological adjustment in adolescence. In A. R. Stiffman & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Ethnic issues in adolescent mental health (pp. 53-72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Portes, P. R., Dunham, R. M., & Williams, S. (1986). Assessing child-rearing style in ecological settings: Its relation to culture, social class, early age intervention and scholastic achievement. Adolescence, 21, 723-735. Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoption Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-188, [section] 1808, 110 Stat. 1903-1904 (1996). R.M.G. and E.M.G., 454 A. 2d 776 (D.C.C.A. 1982). Robinson, T. L., & Ginter, E. J. (Eds.). (1999). Racism: Healing its effects [Special issue]. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(1). Shireman, J. F., & Johnson, P. R. (1986). A longitudinal study of Black adoptions: Single parent, transracial, and traditional. Social Work, 62, 172-176. Silverman, A. R., & Feigelman, W. (1981). The adjustment of Black children adopted by White families. Social Casework, 62, 529-536. Simon, R. J., & Alstein, H. (1977). Transracial adoption. New York: Wiley. Simon, R. J., & Alstein, H. (1992). Adoption, race, and identity: From infancy through adolescence. New York: Praeger. S. Rep. No. 96-336 at 42 (1972), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1448, 1491. Tatum, B. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Taylor, R. J., & Thornton, M. C. (1996). Child welfare and transracial adoption. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 282-291. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. [section] 1996b[2][1998], 45 C.F.R. [section] 80.3 (1998). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995). Administration on Children and Youth Services (Log No. ACYF-PI-CB-95-23). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). Foster care and adoption statistics: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, data from 04/01/96-09/30/96. Retrieved March 15, 1999, from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars/ rpt0199/ar0199a.htm Vroegh, K. S. (1997). Transracial adoptees: Developmental status after 17 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 568-575. Willis, M. G. (1996). The real issues in transracial adoption: A response. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 246-253. Carla Bradley, Department of Counseling, Special Education, & Child Development, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Cynthia G. Hawkins-Leon, New England School of Law. Legal questions concerning this article should be addressed to Cynthia G. Hawkins-Leon, New England School of Law, 154 Stuart Street, Boston, MA 02116 (e-mail: cghleon@fac.nesl.edu). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carla Bradley, UNC Charlotte, Department of Counseling, Special Education, & Child Development, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223-0001. |
|
