Adoption prioritised based on race/culture - is this not a bit outdated?

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,182
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-40416237

A Sikh couple claim they were advised by an adoption agency not to apply because of their "cultural heritage".

Sandeep and Reena Mander said they were told by Adopt Berkshire that white British or European applicants would be given preference as only white children were in need.

It is not illegal for adoption agencies to prioritise on the basis of race.

A spokesman for Adopt Berkshire said: "We do not comment on ongoing court cases."

"They took the colour of our skin as the overriding reason not to progress with the application," Mr Mander said.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has also not responded to a request for a comment.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought that these day's we'd surely be past this sort of thing? Why should it matter if a white couple adopt say a black baby etc..? In this case we've got a well spoken, middle class British Indian couple, they're apparently Sikh and their skin is a bit darker than the average white person (aside from those living in Essex).

Just judging at face value from a brief clip and throwing in a load of personal bias etc.. I think they seem like decent people - culturally, religion aside, they're hardly 'fresh off the boat' so to speak - if that is supposed to be a concern.

If religious culture is an issue then would a non religious white couple have trouble adopting a 'Christian' baby too? Surely a baby doesn't have a religion yet and the biological parent(s) ought to give up the right to influence that when adoption happens.
 
The issue here is one of supply and demand assuming they want to adopt a baby then there are significantly more couples wanting to adopt than there are babies available so decisions have to be made and I can't see a problem with prioritising the placing of babies with people from the same ethnic background. Would be interesting to see what they were told if they wanted to adopt an older child where the balance is totally reversed.
 
I don't see what the problem is, it's no different to gay couples adopting and that is now considered acceptable.

The decision should be based on who is the best and most stable couple to bring up the child, so long as the couple are not going to force their religion/sexuality on the child it should make zero difference in the selection process.
 
Indeed and from the article they seem like they ought to be suitable:

"Although my cultural background is Indian, I don't have any links with India, I'm a British person," Mr Mander said.

"We are a great couple, we're happily married for 10 years and financially stable.

"We have a five-bedroom house with four spare bedrooms.

"We thought we would be able to at least get to an application stage."
Click to expand...

So culturally British, stable relationship, stable finances... oh but they've got slightly darker skin.
 
Lakeland said:
I don't see what the problem is, it's no different to gay couples adopting and that is now considered acceptable.

The decision should be based on who is the best and most stable couple to bring up the child, so long as the couple are not going to force their religion/sexuality on the child it should make zero difference in the selection process.
Click to expand...


arent you contradicting yourself there?

they're specifically saying white babies to white parents, black to black, etc.

not sure how it relates to gay adoption unless you think they will only give gay kids to gay parents?
 
Good to see you posting something I agree with, dowie. I can understand why it might be preferable, if you're looking to have a matching set, to adopt children of the same race. But surely that's your own preference, and to cut people off immediately for wanting to adopt but for being the wrong race is so so stupid and short sighted.

@Tefal, I think Lakeland's point came across wrong. If you re-read it, he's (she's?) saying that every sort of couple can adopt - why can't someone of a different race to the baby.

Frankly, I think that it could be beneficial to the wider world to experience a completely different culture to what they might have been raised in. Hopefully some bigots will see a white person, who's culturally asian or whatever, and change their opinion of asians.
 
Utterly outdated if it ever were s good idea!

It's ******* insulting to think people can't be good parents to a child of a different skin colour. Should get one of those parliamentary petitions going to iverturn this.
 
Sounds like someones personal prejudice was brought into this decision at some point. These policies are just as or more of an injustice to the children that they are denying a loving home to.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Sounds like someones personal prejudice was brought into this decision at some point. These policies are just as or more of an injustice to the children that they are denying a loving home to.
Click to expand...

Possibly the agency even thinks it's doing right by the child thinking it will be best placed with "its own kind". A notion that physically nauseates me.
 
Tefal said:
arent you contradicting yourself there?

they're specifically saying white babies to white parents, black to black, etc.

not sure how it relates to gay adoption unless you think they will only give gay kids to gay parents?
Click to expand...

I was suggesting that if we don't discriminate against gay parents why discriminate against racial differences? The parent's background is irrelevant imo and it should be based on how stable the people are.
 
Last edited:
h4rm0ny said:
Possibly the agency even thinks it's doing right by the child thinking it will be best placed with "its own kind". A notion that physically nauseates me.
Click to expand...

Having spoken to a social worker I know, this is the general guidance amongst local authorities and councils. It might make you sick but the evidence they have available shows that children develop better and have a more grounded understanding of their identity when they are raised with parents who share their heritage. It is not racist or discriminatory. The media seems to be trying to turn it into that unfortunately.

There is actually nothing stopping this couple from going to a different local authority and applying to adopt a child there instead.
 
reflux said:
Having spoken to a social worker I know, this is the general guidance amongst local authorities and councils. It might make you sick but the evidence they have available shows that children develop better and have a more grounded understanding of their identity when they are raised with parents who share their heritage. It is not racist or discriminatory. The media seems to be trying to turn it into that unfortunately.

There is actually nothing stopping this couple from going to a different local authority and applying to adopt a child there instead.
Click to expand...

Would said evidence also suggest that a male child is best raised by two male parents in order to have a better understanding of their sexual identity?
 
Yeah, I was confused by this article too. They seem to be perfectly loving and capable potential parents. What's the bloody problem?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom