Search results

We discuss adoption as a diverse family structure in America. Adoption has existed in some form throughout the history with the portrayal varying by historical epoch. Adoption has been both disparaged and idealized to perpetuate the interest of elite players. This chapter discusses adoption in terms of the changing demographic which 21st century families face. In this manuscript, we first discuss the history of adoption in the United States including its impact as social control of premarital sex. Then the three players in the adoption triad are discussed and analyzed. Finally, we highlight how demographics of race, class, gender, and sexuality impact the adoption experience by 21st century families. Specifically, we explore the recent National Survey of Adoptive Parents from the United States Center for Disease Control and look at the modern adoption experience

The aim of the study described here was to assess the types of additional specialist service available to adoptive parents participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of post‐adoption support whose ex‐care children were showing substantial psychosocial problems. Parents from 37 families who volunteered for the RCT were asked about access to professional help with problems arising from the placement, additional to the tested support: questions focused on which services they had received, how long they waited and whether the services were, in their terms, satisfactory. The study found that 23 families had used or applied for 37 separate specialised services to support the child or family. Although 56% of families were positive about services, 12 families had waited more than a year for a first contact with specialists and 44% of parents said the services had not met their needs. The experiences of these parents show that more timely and targeted services are needed for adoptive families with a child with psychosocial problems.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the wider context in which the national evaluation of the Adoption Support Fund (ASF) was delivered and raise concerns about the sustainability of the early outcomes.

The paper briefly summarises the outcomes of a two-year mixed-methods evaluation. This included a two-wave postal survey (n=792) and follow-up (n=481), an online survey of adopters (n=586) and professionals (providers n=50, local authority staff n=124) and in-depth family interviews. The focus of the discussion on sustainability is drawn from the qualitative research of 10 local authority case studies based on 86 interviews with adoption teams and 33 providers and the perspectives of parents.

Whilst the ASF showed modest early outcomes for families in terms of improved mental health and wellbeing without the scaffolding of wider support of services able to understand the complex lifelong needs of adoptive children and their families, the sustainability of the benefits of therapeutic support is questioned. Adoption teams struggled with the increased burden of administration of the fund, their knowledge of therapeutic interventions, an evidence base and quality of provision from a market that is difficult to regulate. In a society that is failing to meet the mental health and wellbeing needs of children generally, how can a single intervention meet the needs of a very vulnerable group?

Research and evaluation on interventions in children’s social care could be more systems aware and instead of narrowly focusing on outcomes pay attention to the complex network of services that interlink to support vulnerable children and their families and the restraints on resources that they are working with.

To prevent adoption breakdown and increase recruitment of adopters, support for adoptive families needs to be improved beyond the current scope of the ASF. A wide range of services are required to support adopted children particularly as they grow into adolescence. While families have the right to live independently of social services, the awareness of their needs throughout public organisations should be raised particularly in schools.

This paper represents the views of the evaluators at TIHR of the ASF beyond the scope of the original evaluation. It reflects on the wider context of the role out of the Fund and raises important questions about the failure to support the mental health and wellbeing needs of the most vulnerable children in society. It is an organisation reflection drawing on early research in children’s social care from its archive.

In this chapter, we use the concepts of emotional labor or emotion work to examine the experiences of transracial families – white families rearing Black adoptees. We focus on the emotion work done by the parents to inculcate and develop positive racial identities for their adoptive children as their adoptees experience racial mistreatment. We also use the concept of white racial framing to examine strategies for effectively coping with racial mistreatment. African Americans have more emotion work than the members of dominant group because of their status as stigmatized minorities in American society. African Americans adopted by white families have even greater emotion work because they tend to have the extra burden of living in predominately white communities where there are fewer people of color to serve as positive role models in the socialization process.

The practice of transracial adoption often triggers strong emotions, effecting views on its ethical validity, both from individuals who are pro transracial adoption and those who strongly resist transracial adoption. This chapter will consider transracial adoption of children of African-Caribbean origin and its psychological impact along a continuum of psychological wellbeing, psychological adjustment and aspects of mental health. The chapter will draw on literature from the USA and, where available, from the UK.

One of the earliest publications on transracial adoption by Grow and Shapiro (1974) explored the psychological adjustment of African-American children placed within white American families. This study along with later studies (Silverman & Feigelman, 1981) concluded that the children were adjusting well in placement. Further early research appeared to suggest that transracial placements have little negative impact on issues of self-esteem, racial or self-identity or intellectual development (Curtis, 1996; Hayes, 1993; Hollingsworth, 1997, 1998; McRoy, 1994; Simon, Altstein & Melli, 1994; Vrogeh, 1997).

The undermining impact on mental health for transracial adoptees appears to be an argument related to the disconnect between the child’s developing racial identity and lack of preparation for racism and the cultural and ethnic group social devaluation likely to be experienced in a white racist society. The impact of loss of ethnic identity is said to be a key issue in the research on transracial adoption. Ethnic identity is the connection or recognition that one is a member of a specific ethnic or racial group and coming to adopt those associated characteristics into the group associated cultural and historical connections into oneself identity (Rotheram & Phinney, 1987). The establishment of a secure and accurate racial identity is said to be a protective factor in psychological adjustment. This chapter will explore issues and narratives related to this argument.

The first question to be addressed on this issue is what is open adoption? What follows in this article is a survey of definitions in the literature which reveals a broad spectrum of definitions of openness. Most of the definitions which follow are based on the range of practices which researchers have come across during their interviews with families who have been involved in an open adoption. Essentially, open adoption is a term which describes the continued contact between an adopted child and his/her birth parent(s) after adoption. Open adoption has also been referred to as the adoption triangle as there are three parties involved in the adoption rather than the traditional two.

The purpose of this paper is to report findings from a service evaluation undertaken within a single specialist child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) team. The team works closely with local authority children’s services to serve specific populations recognised as experiencing higher levels of mental health need, including children living in alternative care and with adoptive families. The evaluation sought to better understand the experience of this provision during the COVID-19 pandemic and concomitant increase in remote and digitally mediated care delivery.

Analysis of the accounts of 38 parents, carers and professionals involved with the team gathered via telephone interviews and email and postal questionnaires.

Similar views were expressed from participants involved with the team before and following the onset of the pandemic. Overall, satisfaction was high; however, changes in care appeared more challenging for those already involved with the team before the pandemic. Differences in experience between groups were also evident. Whereas foster carers’ accounts were generally appreciative of the involvement of clinicians, particularly regarding clinician–patient relationships, amongst adoptive parents and members of children’s birth families there were more mixed and negative impressions.

Locally based service evaluations can help inform care pathway planning in specialist CAMHS provision as part of wider quality improvement initiatives. This is especially relevant considering the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic and as the longer-term acceptability of remote working practices is appraised.

Drawing on accounts from 22 lesbian couples with children conceived using donor insemination, this chapter explores how the respondents’ selection of parent terms, such as “momma” and “mommy,” influences day-to-day negotiation of parenthood. Term selection was affected by personal meanings respondents associated with terms as well as how they anticipated terms would be publicly received. Couples utilized personalized meanings associated with terms, such as terms used by families of origin or reflected in a parent’s cultural background, to help non-biological mothers feel comfortable and secure in their parenting identities. Some families also avoided terms that non-biological mothers associated too strongly with biological motherhood and felt uncomfortable using for themselves. Families also considered whether parent terms, and subsequently their relationships to their children, would be recognizable to strangers or cause undue scrutiny to their family. However, not all of the families selected terms that were easily decipherable by strangers and had to negotiate moments in which the personal meanings and public legibility of terms came into conflict. Overall, these accounts illustrate the importance of parent terms for lesbian-parent families, and other nontraditional families, as a family practice negotiating both deeply personal meanings surrounding parent–child relationships and how these terms, and the families, are normatively recognizable in public spaces.

The Edmund Edelman Children’s Court is a juvenile dependency courthouse in Los Angeles designed with bright murals, open play spaces, and modified courtrooms to be “child-sensitive” and “family-friendly.” Through a recounting of the political and cultural forces at play building up to its construction, I argue that the decisions to build a “child-sensitive” court confirm the carceral containment of the culpable black adult. This article represents an inquiry into the cultural logic of the court’s construction, revealing the relationship between raced constructions of innocence and guilt. This study draws from five months of fieldwork conducted in the Edelman Children’s Court.

This volume of Sociological Studies of Children and Youth showcases the timely and important work of active, early career sociologists, who are helping to define the direction of the sub-field. Their work shares basic premises and concerns, and these underlie and provide cohesion to this diverse collection of chapters. Children and youth are active agents in their own “socialization,” producing meaning and action collaboratively with their peers, and they struggle for agency and control in various social contexts – these are the themes that, both explicitly and implicitly, shape essentially all of the contributions. The underlying concern of our own introduction above, and of many of the chapters, is that the current processes and practices may stifle children's creativity and undermine their potential to collaboratively construct innovative solutions to societal problems.