to think that being so ideologically pure won't help these kids?

[upsylazy]

DH and I have begun to very tentatively think about fostering/adopting when DCs are older. I have been looking at a few adoption websites and there are a couple where they basically "advertise" kids up for adoption or fostering. I know that the current practice is to match children's ethnic and cultural background with their adoptive parents. While I totally agree with this in theory, the reality is that many children from minority ethnic backgrounds remain in care because they can't find a "matching" family.However, like I said, I do agree with the principle. What has made me really angry is that I've seen 2 children recently where it is specified that they can only be adopted by parents from the same RELIGIOUS background as the child. One of them is a Muslim and one is Jewish. Also, both of them have major special needs - one has autism and a severe learning disability and the other has Down syndrome and is nearly blind. It is hard enough to find people willing to adopt these kind of children without narrowing prospective adopters down to a minority religion (there are only 300,000 Jewish people in the UK. AIBU?

Ephiny - It's a Childs entitlement because it is their heritage, their birth family history, their identity and culture. A baby cannot choose this, all parents bring children into this world inline with their own beliefs, rightly or wrongly. Of course it's everybodies right to chose a faith when they are old enough but none of us had any choice regarding how our parents chose to bring us up. We all had the choice to make informed decisions when we became old enough to understand our options.

I don't agree that we are talking about mostly babies, as most adoptions are between the ages of 1 - 4 years. These children would have an awareness of religious practices.

I mean bloody hell, its a controversial topic, who are we to impose, take away or change the religion of any child through adoption. It's unfair (and ludicrous!) suggest that a child has 'no rights' to their birth religion just because they are too young to understand!!

Onlyjuststillme - I feel for your friends, it's very sad especially if a family want a child so badly. I suppose what I meant before is that it is not as simple as ' they were refused as they didn't have the right hair colour', if two couples are equally suitable then someone is always going to lose out, it doesn't matter what the reason. I'm sure if the other couple hadnt been suitable then your friends would have been matched without issue, despite the colour of their hair. And I am v surprised that a SW would be so dim as to explain the outcome in such terms!

Agree with Ephiny.

For argument's sake, what about a child that is born into a strange cult or the Klu Klux [sp?] Clan? Is it then in the child's best interests that they are placed in a family that has the same ideology/beliefs as biological family.

I do not necessarily see that a religious upbringing is the most beneficial way of being raised. I do feel that children should be informed about their biologocal cultural heritage but then feel it is up to them if they choose to follow this path themself when they are old enough to do so.

Religion is not the same as ethnicity. We can choose our religion but ethnicity is a part of our inherent identity imo.

I am going to set the cat amongst the pigeons here.
As a foster carer I had a child placed with at birth (not of the same culture as me or any of my family). Social Services were hell bent on trying to place the child for adoption within her birth culture. This would be an almost impossibility as a cultural "norm" they do not accept anyone outside of their birth family to be encompassed within the family.

We applied to adopt the child. Social Services were dead against this as their remit was that the child should be brought up within his birth culture.

When the child was nearly 7 years old (and despite a huge amount of money spent on Court fees, solicitors, barristers, psychologist assessments, Court Guardians etc) the Court decided in our favour.

Throughout his minority the child has been provided with clothing, foods, jewellery etc from his cultural background. We have also made it our utmost impotance to ensure he has contact with his birth family - and we have also befriended people from his birth culture so that he is able to experience and maintain a part of his cultural identity.

This little boy is loved unconditionally and wants for nothing. We strive to ensure he has a good education and aim to give him the best possible start in life.

We fully accept that a child should, IF POSSIBLE, be raised within its birth culture.

However when this is not possible can anyone tell me where the child should be raised throughout his minority??

Surely these little mites just need love and stability and can research their birth origins later on, I know somebody who was adopted by a white middle class couple, who have utterly fcked the children they adopted lives up but would look like a perfect match on paper.

CheekyChoppers but also who are we to impose a religious upbringing upon a child because they happened to be born into a religious family?

How are we to say this is what the baby/toddler wants - to be brought up Jewish, Muslim or Christian just because their biological parents practiced this faith?

How do you know the child wants the right to be brought up a practicing anything?
Can't they make this decision themselves when they are old enough to do so, wouldn't that be more respectful of the child and their rights?

I think everyone would agree that the most important thing is to find each child a loving permanent home.

Probably we would also agree that, where possible, children are best placed in a family that reflects their ethnic and cultural heritage.

Where there may be disagreement is how that gets interpreted. For me, being Jewish is as much an ethnic identity and cultural heritage as it is a faith: I do not practise Judaism but that does not make me non-Jewish. However, IME of adoption there are plenty of birth parents who specify a religion that they themselves don't practise, and I think it's ludicrous for those preferences to then carry much weight. Perhaps, in practise, they don't. We adopted a child whose birth father said he wanted her raised in a particular faith - not ours. When the social workers checked back with him if he'd object to us raising her in a different faith, he said, 'Oh no, I like that religion too".

Ultimately, it's about what might be problematic for the child in coming to terms with their identity, isn't it? I can see that it might really mess with a child's head to find out that, while they were raised Jewish, they were born into a Muslim family. I struggle to see that a child whose parents went to church only for weddings and funerals needs to be raised in a practising Christian home.

And Fish I agree with you - you had a 7 year old who had had regular contact with his birth culture. It would have been cruel to suddenly deny him of this.

And I agree that if possible a child should be raised within his/her birth culture. But I don't see that religion is necessarily a part of anyone's "culture" and I feel it is disrespectful to have this imposed on a child arbitarily, unless the child was of a similar age to your son and had made a personal connection themselves with this religion.

I do not believe that a very young child, ie under the age of 3 would have made this connection without having it imposed on them.

So, if we are not going to impose religion on children, what does that mean in terms of finding prospective adopters?!

Sorry, we're only looking non practicing adopters here!! We don't want you imposing your views on our children! Or is it just the Childs birth faith that we are willing to stamp all over?!

By default a Childs faith will follow that of a birth parent, but it is still the Childs faith -ie an individual, not the birth parents! I agree, of course it is not the same as ethnicity(!) but it all contributes to a Childs heritage and identity, and this is so important.

There's always going to be circumstances where it is not appropriate to place a child, your example of klu klux etc are perfect to illustrate this. This is all common sense though surely, nobody is going to argue that children should be placed with bigotted, racist communes etc etc.

Fishtank - sounds like you had a hard time with the LA

Booty the thing is that cultural and heritage go hand in hand. I suppose it could be surpassed if a child is of "white" ethnicicity and placed with "white parents".

However when a child is of obvious ethnic origin s/he already stands out as being "different" to his adoptive family (and neighbours).

To have at least some knowledge of their birth culture must be beneficial. As someone else pointed out there are many children growing up who see themselves as neither fish nor fowl (they do not fit in with their peer group because of their racial heritage.

It makes no difference whether others see them as their friends. It is how the child sees himself that is important.

If a child is placed ad hoc in a culture that is not his own he WILL see himself as different - and sometimes inferior.

To want to raise a child outside of his birth culture the (adoptive) parents need to recognise the importance of the child's cultural heritage.

And just to clarify the child in this instance had no contact with his birth parents before adoption. He still has no contact with his birth parents as they are not good parents. We have endeavoured to locate members of his extended family just so he has knowledge of his cultaral background - something we may be able to access via books and internet but obviously have no direct knowledge of.

Btw haven't got a religious bone in my body and none professional opinion would be that it is all a mute point.

All in all, all childrens circumstances for adoption are different and need to be considered on a child be child basis. For some faith will be important, for others it will not. I guess that was what I was saying in my first post. Faith needs to be considered, but it often doesn't dictate a placement for a child, the overall suitability of a family does.

Sorry about the typos - I am typing with a partially sleeping child on my shoulder lol!

Kids arent born with a religion, it is just a set of stories that the parents impose on them. I really dont see why any child should be condemned to a particular brand of brainwashing just because their (absent) bio parents were of that persuasion.

How about picking people with the skills and balanced approach to deal with the actual needs of the child rather than turning great potential parents down because they dont believe in fairytales?..

I don't know that it's as cut and dried as matching a child directly within faith/heritage etc, only that it is preferable given options.
We adopted our DS, who came to live with us at 4 months old, with the guidance from SS that we raise him with knowledge of catholicism, as this was requested by birth mother. We know nothing of catholicism and made it patently clear that this was the case, but that we would respect birth mother's wishes by encouraging DS within his education, and advising him that his birth mother wanted him to know about it.
It's more about respecting the fact that this child, as much as he is ours, is the product of two different families, and we need to integrate the wishes of his birth family where practicable, possible and appropriate to our family.

In terms of matching and hair colour etc, it is definitely something that is taken into account. My SW explained this to me when, the month before we were matched with DS, we were told that we had an unsuccessful link with a little girl.
She was 5 months old, white, with no known health issues (ie - a very sought-after group) and we were one of 9 couples linked with her. All 9 couples were deemed to be "suitable", so it came down to various factors. she was, apparently, very dark haired, and as DH and I are both quite fair, this was one of the reasons that we were not prioritised. She was placed with a family who "matched" her more appropriately, visually.

Equally, we were one of 8 couples who were linked with our DS, and looks were a part of what was considered. adopted children need to "fit in" and sharing ethnicity and looking like your adoptive family can certainly help with that. whilst it is not the most important factor by any stretch of the imagination, sometimes SWs and family finders have to look for tenuous reasons to filter out the many prospective adopters who are put forward for each child.

I think matching by minute details is an awful practice!

eg. a child whose birth father (whom the child has never met) had a parent that once went to church. Is not a good reason for matching whith a devoutly christian couple.

Hair coulour can be changed (done well neither the child nor panel would ever know its not natural)

Choosing between potential parents using factors that should not even be a consideration is not only unfair but it lays the "Blame" at the potential adopters feet. It makes it something personal to them, something they could have done different or changed and yet another reason to believe they are not good enough.

Where there are many potential adopters who are equally suitable why not make the choice on something like the length of time they have been approved or by chance?

Sorry, only read the OP. The rules are changing on multi-ethnic adoption so that ethnicity (aka skin colour) should no longer be a barrier. About bloody time!

Snowy I really hope so. At least we wont be the only weird family in the UK then!

Hester is right - being Jewish is not a religious lifestyle choice, it is your race. Throughout history including during ww2 many jews have been persecuted for their race despite them or even their ancestors converting to christianity. So anyone non-jewish who adopts a jewish child does need to teach them about their ethnicity.

What happens when they are matching children whose birth parents have no religion?

YABNU. I understand there are valid and sensitive issues where ethnicity is concerned, and I realise it's a idealistic preference but I still think it's appalling that so many non-white children (a disproportionate amount of non-white children are in care in the first place, I think, but not 100% on stats so don't quiz me!) are left to fester in the care system rather than be placed with a loving white adoptive or foster family. Tragic.

As for religion, well children have no religion until their parents foist one upon them, so as these children clearly do not have parents who are able/willing to care for them themselves, I would say they are without religion, or any undertanding of what it should mean to them or how it affects them personally.

I hate to say it but this is PC gorn mad.

Acutallu, I don't hate to say it at all. PC has gorn mad. I'm out and proud.

I can only speak from my own experiences, but the "religious" aspect in my LA is genuinely only a factor. The fact that DS's birth family were catholic didn't mean that we had to also be catholic - just that we would be prepared to share that with DS and help him to learn about it if he chooses. This was also a request by them.
Similarly, the "hair colour" thing is less about actually matching hair colour and more about identity - another way of fitting in physically with adopted family, but I agree that it shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Another factor for us not being selected as prospective adopters for a child (prior to DS) was location. We were within 20 miles of some members of his birth family. Yet we do know adopters who live in the same town as some members of their DD's birth family.
It is a bit of a lottery, but I guess there has to be something.

FWIW when we were not selected to be linked with three children before DS, we didn't feel "not good enough" in any way. we understood that there were valid reasons, and that those children weren't supposed to be ours.

We have friends who are white/French/Catholic who adopted (as a baby) a girl (now in her late teens) of North African Muslim descent. They have all had an appalling time of it and all three regret the adoption.

Lara - any child needs to be taught about their ethnicity, but frankly, do you think in the case of severely disabled and/or learning disabled children who are institutionalised, highly labour intensive, and quite possibly unloved by anyone, (they may be tenderly cared for, but it's not the same) that foster carers should be chosen with the main criterion being an ability to show an religious/ethnic connection? Those children are going to sit on the shelf for very long time if that is the case.

I wonder what they children in question would say if you asked them?

Sorry Lara, I wasn't grilling you personally - my comment was off the back of yours, that's all.