Adoption legislation in the best interest of the child

Author: Crystal Fontaine

 In 2008 President Bush signed a significant piece of legislation that made considerable changes and improvements in adoption. House Bill 6893, known as the “Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act”, revises part B and E of Title VI of the Social Security Act to support relative caregivers and develop more encouragement for adoption, among other things.

Two of the most significant reforms include:

• Updating the adoption incentive program
• Slowly de-linking Title IV-E adoption aid from income conditions

 Both reforms, in time, would assist families by granting them access to federal funds for foster youth.

According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, despite the fact that one third of Americans have considered adopting a child at some point only 2% have actually completed the process. In 2000 and 2001, around 127,000 children were adopted annually. Over the years the amount of adoptions has remained at a consistent level. Whereas Kinship and Private Agency adoption have tradtionally been the main sources of adoptions, public agency and intercountry adoption have taken over, accounting for more than half of adoptions today. Currently publicly funded child welfare agencies account for two fifths, while intercountry account for more than 15%. Intercountry adoption has risen between the years 1992 and 2001, increasing from a mere 5% to 15%.

The issue of adoption can be a sensitive subject, especially concerning who has the right to adopt. On December 30, 2008, over a dozen families field a lawsuit, challenging a new Arkansas Law that bans unmarried couples living together from becoming foster or adoptive parents. Under Section 1 of the Act, it is stated that a person cannot adopt if they live with a sexual partner outside of marriage. This applies equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Section 5 of the Act states that it is in the best interest of adopted children to be raised in an environment where both adoptive parents are married. The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the claim on the families’ behalf against the State of Arkansas, the Attorney General, the Department of Human Services, and the Child Welfare Agency Review Board, seeking to throw out Act 1. According to their case, the act’s language was very misleading to voters and it violates constitutional rights.

One wonders about equality and what rights do states have in basically banning gay couples from adoption. The act may not specifically target gay couples through language, but it had to be known that these couples would be affected the most by the legislation. We preach equality in this country, but it seems to that there are stipulations to that equality. Apparently, homosexuality is an exception to the rule. Shouldn’t adoption be based upon whether the child will be cared for in a loving and caring environment? How can one determine that a couple that is married provides better care to a child? There are so many children out there that need to be adopted.

In a response to this very issue, Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy’s and an adopted child himself said it best: “…as long as it works for the child and the family is responsible.” My big stand is this: Every child deserves a home and love. Period”.