Hugh Muir (diary editor) thinks there are two ways of looking at the debate triggered by Tim Loughton (children’s minister) after he said that there should be no barrier to minority children being adopted by white parents. One is the voice of sanity. For ethnic minority children, the wait is three times longer as for white children. His alternative conclusion is that Loughton may have been angling for an appreciative headline in the rightwing press. The columns by different writers that followed were long on opinion and anecdote but short on evidence. Loughton said that too many children languish in care because social workers hold out for ‘the perfect match’. The result is that ethnic minority children are over-represented among the young people in care who never find permanent homes. Jane Rowe’s studies (published in 1973 and 1989) showed that the black and minority ethnic children and the disabled children, had to wait longer. Improvement in the past has often been associated with community action or development of specific provision. It is of concern that an ill-informed debate will not address the real issues.
Reaction on article
I agree with Tim Loughton, who said that there should not be any hindrance to the adoption of minority children by white parents. I think it is sad that minority children, black children and disabled children have to wait longer to get adopted, or do not even find a permanent home. According to me, social workers should get better instructions about adoption procedures and their work should also be checked in a better way.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten