B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 20-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- And all the roads we have to walk are winding
- Location: Eternia
- Warning points: 5
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012It would be an aye from me (were I an MP.)
My only question on this would be is there a social reason for restricting adoption on race? Has there ever been a logical calculated social reason for whatever reason? Or was it just a silly one? -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,120
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012I'm assuming it's something from way back that simply hasn't been repealed yet.(Original post by thunder_chunky)
It would be an aye from me (were I an MP.)
My only question on this would be is there a social reason for restricting adoption on race? Has there ever been a logical calculated social reason for whatever reason? Or was it just a silly one? -
- Reputation:
- And all the roads we have to walk are winding
- Location: Eternia
- Warning points: 5
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012I see. So it wasn't because someone decided socially speaking a black kid would have a harder time if raised by whites in a certain part of society, it was just discrimination? That's what I meant.(Original post by toronto353)
I'm assuming it's something from way back that simply hasn't been repealed yet. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: Oxford | Posts: 25,830
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012There is no restrictions relating to the adoption of a child by a person/people of another ethnicity? The last legislation to be passed on the issue was The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (enforced in 2005), which stated wherever possible' a child should be put with a family which 'reflects their ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language'. It doesn't say transracial can't occur, it just says all things being equal, pick that which reflects the child best. It seems to me that 1.(1) is defunct, because no such restrictions officially exist. Rather, it is individual local authorities twisting the rules as laid out in The Adoption and Children Act 2002. Additionally, 1.(1)(b) is probably (very slightly) harmful, because in a case where there are two completely equal opportunities except one matches the ethnicity of the child and the other does not, local authorities are now not allowed to pick the former when it is noted that that is beneficial for the child (see Dr. Perlita Harris' work on the subject).
The key part of this bill should be 1.(1)(a), and 1.(1)(a) needs a slight change. It should be something like "(a) Local authorities' children's services are prevented from denying adoption on the basis of differences in ethnicity between the adoptee and the adopter(s) if the alternative would mean the child would not be adopted."
I'm going to Aye the bill, because I think it's important to remind local authorities to act within the spirit of the law as well as the letter, but I do think refinements could be mad. Basically, killing 1.(1) and 1.(1)(b), and making my suggested changes to 1.(1)(a) the new 1.(1).Last edited by TopHat; 09-04-2012 at 22:30. -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,120
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012That's what I also meant. I think we've sort of said the same thing, but in different ways.(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I see. So it wasn't because someone decided socially speaking a black kid would have a harder time if raised by whites in a certain part of society, it was just discrimination? That's what I meant.
-
- Reputation:
- And all the roads we have to walk are winding
- Location: Eternia
- Warning points: 5
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012Ahso(Original post by toronto353)
That's what I also meant. I think we've sort of said the same thing, but in different ways.
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,777
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012There is evidence that children do better when placed with parents from their own ethnic background, however there's not much suggesting that doing the contrary causes any kind of negative effects (like disunity, alienation etc.). The problem is that there are more children from ethnic minorities in child protective care, yet there are more prospective adopters that are white British. As things currently stand everything must be done to get children out of care homes and into stable families - not doing so delivers far greater long-term harm for the child, or at least is far more likely to.(Original post by thunder_chunky)
It would be an aye from me (were I an MP.)
My only question on this would be is there a social reason for restricting adoption on race? Has there ever been a logical calculated social reason for whatever reason? Or was it just a silly one?Last edited by JPKC; 09-04-2012 at 22:38. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: Oxford | Posts: 25,830
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012There currently is no official restriction. What happened was a law intended to give local authorities preferential capabilities (that is, if child X is of Black Caribbean descent and Potential Adoptee A is of Black Caribbean descent and Potential Adoptee B is of White British descent, Potential Adoptee A will be chosen) has been misconstrued into giving local authorities the ability to reject Potential Adoptee B outright.(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I see. So it wasn't because someone decided socially speaking a black kid would have a harder time if raised by whites in a certain part of society, it was just discrimination? That's what I meant.
Prefential treatment is important, because transracial adoptions do suffer from recognisable and well-documented problems (see Dr. Perdita Harris's work). However, some transracial adoption, I think we can all agree, is better than no adoption at all, which is why I absolutely agree with the sentiment that the law needs to be more clearly defined in that local authorities have preferential treatment only, rather than ability to reject outright. That's why I've suggested changes to 1.(1)(a) that'd allow this.Last edited by TopHat; 09-04-2012 at 22:35. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: Hertfordshire
- Posts: 4,130
Re: B422 - Transracial Adoptions Bill 2012I believe the reason for not allowing transracial adoptions was due to the child not having a proper connection with their roots and then feeling as if they don't belong to either community of their genetic race or their adopted parent(s). I somewhat support that thinking and am leaning towards abstention or voting nay.
