Why is it important for us to think about adoption and fostering with a special BME focus? How do differing cultural backgrounds impact adoption and fostering issues in this context?
Article 20 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “Children who cannot be looked after by their own family have a right to special care and must be looked after properly, by people who respect their ethnic group, religion, culture and language”.
Black, Asian and Mixed Ethnicities (BME) children are disproportionately represented in the ‘looked after’ system and are amongst the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. In England the Government is concerned about BME children in care: low rates of adoption, the ‘delay’ in finding suitable families, particularly for black boys, the rejection of ‘white’ families for BME children and ethnic matching. However, analysis of the evidence base shows that the picture is not the same for all BME children: most are in foster care, mixed ethnicity children are being adopted, while Asian children are being reunified with their birth families or placed in kinship care and special guardianship placements (although rates are indeed lower for Bangladesh, Pakistani, Black African/ African-Caribbean and Black African children).
All children in the care system are likely to experience ‘delay’, isolation, alienation and instability. For BME children, the experience of racism means they are forced to confront the difficult issues of identity relating to their ethnicity, culture and language, which can be especially problematic for those who have lost contact with their birth families and communities. These experiences can lead to difficulties in forming safe and lasting relationships, in achieving at school and in taking their full potential as citizens and parents in our society. CoramBAAF believes, as a general principle, that children should be placed with families who can reflect their ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identities and promote these factors, as well as those who can help them navigate racial and other stereotypes.
Is this guiding principle always followed in practice – or how does the principle inform placement decisions?
In practice, the issues facing social workers in making the 'right' decisions for black, Asian and ‘mixed race’ children are more complex than the ‘same race/transracial placement’ debate really captures…
The increase of ‘mixed’ people both in wider society, and their disproportional representation in care connects us to the wider diversity debates in the UK. For example, nationalism and multiculturalism, themes that influenced the Brexit vote, suggest a deeper cultural or identity divide in modern Britain. Ethnicity is missing from child poverty policies and is therefore unlikely to have an effect on Bangladeshi and Pakistani children who experience the highest rates of poverty amongst the BME groups. Against this backdrop, in the face of adversity and austerity measures, the shortfall of adoption and fostering provisions for BME children entering care are likely to lead to further delays. As the gap widens between numbers of children to be placed and prospective adopters/foster carers available, social workers will struggle to identify families for BME children in care.
Adoption and fostering for BME children then is not just about numbers, it is about finding the right family for the right child.
The issues of culture and identity aren’t new, though the context has shifted over time. What does the history of BME adoption and fostering in the UK look like - and what issues do we face today? How have things changed?
Through the 1950s and 60s children of black and mixed heritage were considered to be 'hard to place'. Adoption practice at the time was dominated by racialised and exclusionary practices, as well as 'matching' preferences on the basis of physical characteristics. The British Adoption Project led to the growth of transracial adoption as agencies found that white families would consider taking black and mixed heritage children and that it appeared to be 'successful'. The acceptability of such placements was seen to be a part of the racist nature of society, where 'black' was considered to be easily and necessarily incorporated into dominant white ways of thinking, believing and being. But, resistance to these findings and indeed to the whole process of transracial placements came from tich argued that transracial placements negated the importance of an individual's racial identity and cultural heritage.
The views of ABSWAP gained considerable momentum with other groups such as the British Association for Adoption and Fostering's Black Perspective's Advisory Committee taking an active role in opposing transracial placements of any kind. Through the 1980s the evolution of anti-racist and anti-discriminatory practice in social work training and practice became dominant themes. These became powerful forces in the profession so that 'same race' placements became the placement of choice, a policy and practice framework that has remained unchanged to the present time.
Over time there were serious delays in placing black and mixed race children, or adoption was not being made available as a placement plan because it was unlikely that a same race placement would be found. Due to the negative impact of this on children's welfare, the Department of Health issued a circular (LAC 98(20)) advising local authorities that no child should be deprived of a 'loving home' simply because of the lack of a racial match. The child's racial and cultural heritage was still core to the placement, and prospective carers were expected to clearly identify how they had prepared themselves and would proactively support the child's identity. In parallel with this issue, there have also been serious difficulties in recruiting enough black or mixed race adopters or foster carers. So, the Department for Education’s specialised projects often have been more successful because of their use of black staff with detailed knowledge of the issues with helpful routes into the black community.
However, the pool of available black and mixed race adopters and foster carers is still small, and the availability of resources to support them still limited. Following the publication of Pathways to Permanence and the Narey Report in 2014, the Government in England removed ‘ethnicity’ from being given ‘due consideration’ in Adoption Law and Guidance (C&F Act, s3). However, in the absence of any evaluation of the impact of this measure on practice, the overall picture is still that black and mixed race children are seriously disadvantaged in the competition for placement resources and it remains unclear whether anything done to date will substantially improve this situation.
It’s understandably difficult to generalise - but can you tell us more about the complexity surrounding transracial adoption, or give an example of how these issues can manifest?
Prospective adopters and foster carers cannot automatically be excluded because they do not share the same ethnicity, culture or religious beliefs with the children waiting for a family. Qualities, experiences and attributes that the prospective adopters and foster carers can draw on, as well as their understanding of discrimination and racism are core skills and this cannot be assumed to be present necessarily in black, Asian or mixed families, any more than it can be assumed to be absent in ‘white’ families. However, the complexities of class, religion, sexuality and ethnicity within ‘white’ adoption and fostering families have not been widely discussed throughout the UK, and little is known about the ‘lived experience’ of BME adopters and foster carers who have cared for BME children in the face of adversities such as racism. As the Government in England does not collate statistics on transracial placements, the important aspects of ethnic, cultural, religious identities and diversity issues remain somewhat unmeasured.
Within transracial placements the complexity of establishing a BME child’s identities is portrayed in the following case examples:
"Like most kids I craved the experience and acceptance of my peers, but they seemed so different to me. They seemed to know something secret. Although I had been told from an early age that I was adopted, that my African father and English mother could not look after me so I have been specially chosen, I did not really understand the full implications of being an 'off the peg' baby. I remember going to a party organised by the adoption agency and being interviewed by a Radio 4 journalist on what it was like to be adopted. 'It means that I was specially picked out by mummy and daddy.' I was asked if I knew why I was a different colour to mummy and daddy. 'Because I have been in the sun too long' I replied much to the shock of my parents."
"I went through school with racial impunity, mainly because I was oblivious to it. I hadn't been primed to expect it by my parents, nor given means to defend against it, therefore I wasn't aware of any racism innuendos made by the teachers or other pupils. My parents just loved me as their child, not as a colour that might be discriminated against."
What support and resources are there for BME adopters and foster carers, perhaps those that are considering one or the other?
A number of books around the subject are available in the CoramBAAF bookshop.
I would also highlight the recent online publication of the UK’s first Islamic guidance on adoption and fostering, as well as Caring for a child of a different ethnicity and the Foster carer guide to caring for Muslim children.