Features

Children’s Services Update - Who we are

Management
Significant media attention has been paid to a Sikh couple who applied to become adoptive parents only to be refused because of their ethnicity.

As a consequence, they applied and were approved to adopt in the US. The case has raised many questions about whether the Berkshire adoption agency’s decision was discriminatory, and about the appropriateness of placing children with adopters who do not reflect their ethnic, cultural or religious heritage. Finding an answer to that question is complex.

From the 1970s onwards, projects were established to explore how best children from black and minority backgrounds could be placed for adoption. A significant number of children were placed with ‘white’ adopters in trans-racial adoptions. One of the responses to this was that these projects indicated a racist approach by denying the child’s ‘black’ heritage and making them for all intents and purposes ‘white’, which can have a significant impact on a child’s feelings of self-identity and self-esteem. This led to an expectation that the child’s heritage would be directly reflected by the adopters.

But in the past 20 years, this view of the ‘perfect’ match has become synonymous with too many children without placement. In 2010, one in five children waiting to be adopted was an ethnic minority – and for them the wait is three times as long as for white children. The Government has now repealed the requirement in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to give ‘due consideration to a child’s race, religion, culture and language’. Adopters are still expected to be sensitive to the child’s difference and promote their identity, but other factors – such as the impact of abuse or neglect and their developmental needs – are also brought to the fore.

These questions raise a fundamental question about our right to our ethnic, cultural, religious and language heritage. This comes down to defining who we are – a complex question for each of us. We must also add other factors such as gender, sexuality and disability. These factors often give rise to strong feelings that seek to defend heritage and identity on the one hand, but also argue for the valuing of individual choice.

John Simmonds is director of policy, research and development at CoramBAAF