Serious misconceptions about the adoption process persist when private adoption is conflated with the foster care system. Adoption is often cited as common ground for conservatives and liberals, yet disagreements abound on just how we go about adoption reform to improve the system in the U.S. Conservatives consider adoption a meaningful alternative to abortion, while liberals decry the “broken foster care system” as a reason for pro-choice. One Axios headline last month read, “End of Roe v. Wade may overwhelm foster care systems.”
Liberals claim the foster care system and adoption are both in need of too much reform to eliminate abortion, yet private adoption and foster care are not the same. Conservatives must understand the difference in order to achieve genuine reform. Many conservative and red states prioritize adoption and the foster care system by allowing religious organizations to operate with fewer regulations. Thanks to executive orders under the Trump administration and recent Supreme Court rulings protecting religious freedom, the foster care system is able to see improvement with the help of contracted private agencies. Yet obstacles to this type of reform still stand in the way of a conservative approach. Here are three arguments you need to know as a conservative defending adoption and foster care.
-
The end goal of foster care is reunification, not adoption.
Many liberals and pro-choicers argue that abortion is necessary to keep children out of foster care, but this idea leads to erroneous conclusions about the system and adoption itself. Just after Governor Brian Kemp signed a pro-life heartbeat bill in the state of Georgia, Hollywood actors raised criticism of the bill. Much of the criticism emphasized the supposed ramifications of banning abortion, such as the overburdening of the foster care system. One actress, Jameela Jamil, tweeted, “So many children will end up in foster homes. So many lives ruined.” Jamil added in a later tweet, “if Georgia becomes inundated with children who are unwanted or unable to be cared for, it will be hard to find great fostering for them all.”
Jamil’s statement implies that a majority of foster children are “unwanted.” But considering the primary federal goal of foster care is reuniting a child with his or her biological parent, that is hardly a fair assessment. Most foster children are removed from their homes due to abuse and/or neglect. These children are put in foster or group homes temporarily. Meanwhile, state social services work individually with biological parents to assign them a “case plan,” or rehabilitative program, to help parents regain custody of their children. Case plans may involve a parent obtaining a steady job, attending parenting classes, finishing rehabilitation, et cetera.
More than half of foster children are reunited with their biological parents. CDC research shows that children flourish best when they are raised by their biological parents. As the pro-life organization, Live Action points out, “helping parents overcome their addictions, treat their mental health concerns, and become better parents is still a vital part of the foster care process.” Parents who regain custody of their children thanks to federally funded services demonstrate that they “want” their kids. This is the number one requirement and end goal of foster care for all social services in the U.S. When liberals state that “unwanted” children will be placed in foster care, they demonstrate a lack of awareness of the system and the needs of many families across the country.
The number of children placed in foster care is on the rise. According to the federal Children’s Bureau, an estimated 407,000 children were in foster care as of 2020. Just over a quarter of those children were waiting to be adopted. Still, adoption is on the rise, too. Pew Research in 2020 stated that “a record number of children in foster care are being adopted, partially a reflection of the continuing toll of the opioid crisis but also of efforts in many states to promote adoptions.” In the foster care system, adoption is never the first perfect solution for a child. Adoption becomes necessary for foster children due to extenuating parental circumstances, oftentimes painful and traumatic.
Misunderstanding the purpose of the foster care system does little to address the realities foster children face or the needs of their biological parents. Many times, liberals make the argument that the foster system will surely be overburdened if abortion bans take place because they assume foster care adoption is similar to private adoption. In private or at-birth adoptions, a biological mother may place her child up for adoption for a variety of reasons. However, children placed for adoption at birth do not automatically end up in the foster care system. Removing a child from their biological parent due to abuse or neglect differs from at-birth private adoptions, where there are an estimated 36 waiting families for every one child up for adoption.
-
Conservatives are working to improve governmental oversight in foster care.
Liberal mainstream media paints a grim picture of the foster care system. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, author Dorothy Roberts argues the child welfare system “disproportionately targets, surveils and disrupts impoverished Black and Native American communities.” Roberts also highlights research finding that “children’s developmental outcomes did not improve during their stay in foster care.”
Roberts is correct to point out that child development may still be harmed in foster care, even if a child is placed in a safe, nurturing environment. Yet Roberts makes these points to argue children are wrongfully removed from their homes and that foster care’s so-called racist origins persist today. Each state operates its own foster care system according to federal regulations. Very real problems exist in the foster care system nationwide. Conservatives should not ignore this reality. Instead of generalizing the entire system, however, we must acknowledge that each case is unique; and instead of demeaning the positive role foster care plays in society, we should uplift it as community support.
Liberal thinkers like Roberts view the foster care system as racist because a majority of foster children are Black or minority, so the system “disproportionately” affects these communities. In some instances, children are removed from the home due to poverty, not intentional neglect. But conservative leaders are working to correct governmental oversight so that no child is needlessly removed from their home. In 2020, then-President Trump signed an executive order to provide greater legal representation for both parents and children in foster care. The order provided “flexibility in the use of federal funds” to support all communities. Trump’s foster care reform worked to give local governments more flexibility to address the needs of foster children on a case-by-case basis. In other words, fewer federal regulations on the foster care system helps address the needs of minority and impoverished communities.
-
Faith-based communities lead the way in changing the system.
The Trump administration’s foster care reform further encouraged partnerships between state and nongovernmental agencies. This included collecting accurate data on the number of children in foster care, patterns of reentry into foster care, and the goal of keeping siblings together. Nongovernmental organizations play a critical role in foster care and adoption. Faith-based agencies play an even greater role: recruiting and inspiring other families to help foster children.
Private and faith-based child placement agencies partner with the state to bring reform. According to the Heritage Foundation, “[faith-based agencies] may be able to tap into faith communities and attract new populations of foster and adoptive parents. In some instances, private providers may supplement the money they receive from the state to care for foster children.” These private child placement agencies provide greater community support for foster parents themselves, as well as improved homes for children. Most foster families cite their faith as a reason to become involved.
Faith-based agencies provide such large benefits to the foster care system that states have come to depend on them. In Arkansas, one Christian agency called The CALL recruited half the foster and adoptive homes in the state.
Unfortunately, state and local governments across the U.S. prevent faith-based agencies from providing placement services due to their religious beliefs. Some states, like California, require foster parents to accept the “gender transitions” of children in their care, discouraging traditional families from being involved. Ohio, Illinois, and Washington DC have all threatened to or have ended their contracts with faith-based agencies. Researcher Elizabeth Kirk at the Charlotte Lozier Institute states, “Numerous state and local governments across the country have effectively barred faith-based child placement service agencies from providing adoption and foster care services because of their religious beliefs, either through non-discrimination legislation or administrative regulations.”
Other states, such as Tennessee and South Carolina, seek to improve their foster care systems by strengthening religious freedom. Last year, Governor Bill Lee established a new partnership between the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services and two private partners. Lee stated, “When we join forces with the faith community and trusted partners like Tennessee Kids Belong and Show Hope, we can help Tennessee foster kids find permanent, loving homes. I am calling on the faith community to join us as we work to build one of the most adoption-friendly states in the country.”
In South Carolina, Governor Henry McMaster passed a religious freedom “waiver” to ensure faith-based agencies could continue partnering in foster care. Governor McMaster passed an exemption in South Carolina for private partners to continue contracting with the state, despite Obama-era requirements that states must not discriminate on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion to receive federal funds for foster care. Such an exemption upholds religious freedom and the continued expansion of foster care homes.
It is more important than ever for conservatives to prepare for significant foster care reform. In a post-Roe v. Wade America, foster care is a larger part of the conversation. Conservative reform to governmental oversight, by allowing local agencies to play a greater role, will allow families to flourish. Protecting religious freedom will also strengthen the services we are able to provide to children, their parents, and foster families. The foster care system should be one of our greatest priorities because it seeks to care for our most vulnerable children and America’s fundamental institution: the family.