Having loving and devoted parents are a reality for many children. However, there are “500,000 children in America foster care system who do not have that advantage” (Adoption Law Reform, 1997). Many children are disadvantaged because their parents couldn’t cope with life’s misfortunes. Other children are disadvantaged because their parents died. Then, there are the many children who are disadvantaged because their parents were abusive or neglective ( Adoption Law Reform, 1997).

For years, among the child welfare professionals, has been the idea of “family preservation” in which strong efforts should be made to repair broken families before a child is put up for adoption. Unfortunately, some families cannot be repaired. Therefore, emphasis on family preservation can mean sending kids back home to more abuse and even death. Emphasis on family preservation can also delay the children to be placed in safe and permanent homes. Because the early childhood years are precious and significant to the the development of a child, delay can be destructive (Adoption Law Reform, 1997).

In 1997, President Clinton signed a “bipartism bill reforming the nation’s adoption laws” (Adoption Law Reform, 1997). This bill makes it easier for foster children to find permanent homes. The new bill keeps in mind the concept of family preservation, but it is emphasized in favor of the children. Clinton said, “The new legislation makes it clear that children’s health and safety are the paramount concerns of our public child welfare system” (Adoption Law Reform, 1997). Instead of the current 18 months, the law hopes to increase adoption through requiring the states to have hearings within 12 months of removal of the child from the family (Adoption Law Reform, 1997).

In cases where kids were tortured, abandoned, or repeatedly abused, “reasonable efforts” to return a child to the birth parents will no longer apply. The bill also pushes a concept called “concurrent planning” (Adoption Law Reform, 1997). Often, child welfare agencies will wait to see if efforts to reunite the family is successful before searching for an adoptive family. Now the agencies will do both during the same time. Therefore, if family preservation is not successful a new family may be waiting to accept the child.

The bill passed by Clinton certainly has it’s advantages. It puts the children first, taking them out of disastorus situations as soon as possible. Requiring the states to have hearings within 12 months rather than 18 months can certainly speed up the process of placing a child in a permanent home. However, in looking at the flip side of this, one might discover that applying little emphasis on family preservation can also have enduring affects on the child. Taking a child away from the birth parents, , the only family they may have ever known may lead the child into more depression and isolation. This detachment may have serious cognitive affects on the child.

From my own experience, I can say that growing up in a dysfunctional family of alcoholism and neglect has been one hell of an obstacle. I am aware that my parents did the best they could with what they knew. That enables me to forgive easily. Growing up in that type of situation has affected me mentally and emotionally. I have endured the pain of being neglected of the simple things in life such as affection, compassion, and deep understanding from my parents. However, I am one of the more fortunate ones because I have broken the cycle of dysfunction in my family. I have been in counseling for years, I also attend support groups weekly for addictions. My 12 year old son goes to counseling as well. My whole life has changed because I learned a new way. As a child I knew no other way than what my parents taught me. I have become a stronger person because of the misfortunes I have endured. However, it was a painful and lonely journey. Therefore, I am for the children. If these disadvantaged families can seek the necessary therapy to rebuild a new way of life, I say let the child stay with the birth parents. On the other hand, if the efforts to rebuild the family are not successful and progressive, I say put the child in a permanent home where they can become stable and get their needs sufficiently met physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Adjusting to a new family can be tough on a child but in the long run the rewads are well worth it!

In closing, many children in American foster care do not have the advantages of a loving, nurturing family. The bipartism bill passed by Clinton makes it easier for a child to find a permanent home. The bill keeps in mind family preservation but favors the child. The concept of concurrent planning enables the agencies to make efforts to reunite the family while searching for an adoptive family. Therefore, if efforts to reunite the family fail there will be a new family waiting to take in the child.


The Washington Post. (1997) Adoption Law Reform . Retrieved December 1, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-src/WPlate/1997-11/20/0061 -112097-idx.html

Page © 1997-2004 Wild Angel

Back to Social Issues Main Page

Back to Main Page: [Frames][No Frames][Break Out of Frames]