Adoption Of Children With Special Needs: Why Some Homes Are Used And Some Are Not

Why Some Approved Niagra County Adoptive Homes are Used and Some are Not: Views of Home Study Social Workers

Jane F. Gilgun, Ph.D., LICSW University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA Sue Keskinen, M.S.W. St. Paul, MN, USA

May 23, 2002

Jane Gilgun is professor, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA, and Sue Keskinen is a consultant in St. Paul MN, USA.

adoption placements Page 2 of 14

Why Some Approved Niagra County Adoptive Homes are Used and Some are not: Views of Home Study Social Workers The purpose of this report is to present the points of view of Niagra County home study social workers on why some families approved for adoption have children placed in their homes and some do not. In the course of discussing this issue, the social workers shared their thinking about • • • • •

the types of families they believe best fits the special needs children whom the agency would like to place for adoption; characteristics of families who have children placed in their homes; characteristics of families who have difficulties in having children placed in their homes; characteristics of parents who do not have children placed in their homes; and barriers to the full use of approved adoptive homes.

The social workers advocated for a team decision-making model for adoption placements. They believed that such a model would increase the rate of placement of children in County-approved homes and would have other advantages including • • • •

multiple points of view on the match between the children and prospective families; shared responsibility for decisions about adoption placements; a safe place to discuss preferences and possible biases that could contribute to unfairness in placement decisions; and increased job satisfaction that would result from a shared sense of ownership of the processes related to adoption placement.

This report is about the views of home study workers only. We also will be interviewing child service workers and adoption resource workers for their views on why some approved homes are used and some are not. Background The advisory committee of the Niagra County Adoption Project requested the study on which this report is based. They were concerned that some approved families do not have children placed with them, or they wait a very long time. They wanted some insight into processes that lead to adoptive placement and processes that do not. To respond to this request, we first reviewed the children’s case records that contain forms on which adoption workers state why they did not place particular children with families. We found that the forms were uninformative or not filled out at all. Examples of uninformative comments are “This family was our second choice” or “The child was placed with another family.”

adoption placements Page 3 of 14 The advisory committee then suggested that we interview the home study workers, the child service workers, and the adoption workers to gain the information necessary to understand the issues. The present report is a draft of our findings on the viewpoints of the home study workers. They are the professionals who interview prospective adoptive parents, who visit their homes, and do background checks. These social workers get to know the prospective adoptive families better than any other of the social workers. We interviewed members of the home study unit three times: in January, February, and April of 2002. Seeking Parents With Capacities for Parenting Special Needs Children The home study social workers are aware that the children available for adoption through Niagra County present serious challenges to adults who want to parent them. The children typically have experienced a series of traumas, such as separation from parents, siblings, and other family members; confusion and shame as to reasons for these separations; histories of abuse and neglect; and major behavioral, psychological, and often neurological difficulties. Many have had multiple placements, and this often affects their capacities for attachment, which already may have been damaged through earlier negative experiences. Furthermore, the children often are older than children that adoptive parents typically seek, many have diagnosed mental disorders such as oppositional disorders, and some have special education needs for both behavioral and learning difficulties. Finally, a disproportionate number are children of color. Besides the extensive services they often require in schools, the children may participate in psychotherapy, need extensive medical attention, and require commitment of adoptive parents to help them maintain relationships with biological family, including siblings, parents, grandparents, and other members of extended families. These are special needs children who present serious parenting issues. The home study workers operate on the principle that adults who have capacities for parenting these children have themselves experienced adversities and have successfully coped with, adapted to, or overcome them. These experiences have resulted in the development of empathy and insight into children with special needs. These adults can use what they learned through their own life experiences to connect with and facilitate the positive capacities of the children that they have adopted. The home study workers have found that many of the families with these characteristics appear to be non-traditional. They believe that such families can be the best match for the children who are available for adoption. Some examples of non-traditional homes that they have approved include • • • •

A couple whose home could be mistaken for a brothel, with red and black décor and mirrors on the ceilings; A single mother who has been in chemical dependency recovery for 10 years and who successfully raised three mixed race sons on her own; A single African-American gay man who has been mistaken for a homeless person on the basis of his appearance, which is disheveled; and A lesbian couple who are highly educated, have a good income, and one of whom grew up with foster siblings.

adoption placements Page 4 of 14 The home study workers attempt to get beneath appearances and seek clear indicators of capacities to parent children who present serious challenges. Successful management of adversities is one of the key criteria for home study workers’ approval of a home. They pride themselves on producing honest, open depictions of the families and state that they want to tell the whole story and not just the surface glitter. They also seek parents who might not fit the “mainstream” ideal of the younger, two-parent family with good educations and income and who own their own homes. One of the home study workers summed up this point of view: “People who overcome adversities and show they can cope might be good candidates for the types of children we have.” The downside. Home study workers worry that such openness about the backgrounds of prospective adoptive parents and their acceptance of unconventional parents works against approved parents’ chances of adopting. They fear that other social workers who have responsibilities for child placement might not understand the importance of a proven track record of successful coping. They worry that social workers looking for homes may not understand the importance of managing adversities and instead see the families as “broken.” In addition, being just a little bit non-mainstream could be a liability. As one social worker said,” There is a danger of being too honest—families not chosen because we are too honest. If we are less than honest, then this is not full disclosure.” One home study worker spoke for the unit when she said, “Families who are competent may be non-traditional.” They pointed out that “Sometimes this one non-traditional parent or parents are this kid’s only shot. If this family doesn’t take the child, then no one else would.” As an example, she told of a 13 year-old African American boy just out of residential treatment. The best match was an African-American gay man who has great insight into children and who can manage the boy’s provocative behaviors. “He’s a really neat person,” she said, “but his oddities go out the window--a hair style that is different, head often in the clouds. At first he was very uptight, and he seemed scrunched up.” When this man was in the agency’s waiting room, someone mistook him for a homeless man. Home study workers say, “It’s understandable that we want to place children who are like us, but this might not be what kids need.” Instead, the kids may respond to someone nontraditional, such as the man described below. A guy with a biker jacket and tattoos will do a lot better with some kids than Ozzie and Harriet sitting over there. The biker may have overcome CD and can help adoptive children who are at risk to become chemically dependent themselves. As one home study worker said, “You’ve got ‘whacky’ families who do well with kids. Living with a kid with RAD [reactive attachment disorder] for 24/7 is different from 9 to 5.” An example of this is an adoptive father with an extremely high activity level was asked how he is doing with his daughter who was diagnosed with hyperactivity. He said, “Hyperactivity? What hyperactivity?”

adoption placements Page 5 of 14 Adversities as disqualifiers. Besides non-conventionality as an issue, the home study workers sometimes suspect that simply having adversities in their backgrounds disqualifies some adoptive parents in the eyes of other social workers involved in decisions about adoption. Child care workers supervise children in foster placements and adoption resource workers bring children and approved families together. Some of the home study workers showed concern about a tendency to pathologize prospective adoptive parents. As one social work said, “We get trained into thinking in terms of pathology. We pathologize people. It’s crazy.” She pointed that it’s possible to pathologize the birth of Jesus: “single mom, older man, homeless, and birth in unsanitary conditions.” The home study workers sometimes are confused and concerned when adoption workers do internet searches and go to other agencies for children when they believe that several of the approved Niagra County families would make good placements. They wonder, Is this because the families they approve do not fit a white middle class ideal of a well-adjusted, Ozzie and Harriet type of family? They simply do not know. From the points of view of home study workers, The approved adoptive parents are not clients to us—they are resources. Don’t pathologize them—look at what they have to offer the children we have to place. These parents are performing services. The question is do they fit our program? They had concerns that other agencies (“privates”) sometimes withhold unflattering information about prospective adoptive. They wonder if these home studies leave out chunks of information that would detract from idealized versions of adoptive families. They gave as an example a woman who was approved by a private agency and received her a 5 year-old white girl through Niagra County. This adoptive mother had lost her license to drive a car because of drunk driving. She therefore had no way to bring her adoptive child to medical and other appointments. This mother also had a criminal record. She said she had told the private home study worker about this. One social worker summed up the dilemma as she sees it: We have shown that our families can handle these challenging kids. Families who have had adversities and have shown they can manage them can handle our kids. Other home studies look squeaky clean, but this leads to disruption because so much might not be in the home study. They don’t pick ours, and ours contain all the information. Characteristics of Families Who Have Children Placed in their Homes The home study workers have observed a rough order of preference in adoptive placements. Conventional appearing heterosexual couples are highly sought, especially for the “easier” children. The perhaps unintended consequence of this preference is that nonconventional and single people either are offered the most challenging children or may not be referred for placement at all. Couples or single people who have adopted successfully are also highly sought, with some exceptions, to be discussed later.

adoption placements Page 6 of 14 Relatively “easy” Caucasian children who are five or younger usually are placed with younger heterosexual couples who appear to be part of the mainstream in terms of qualities such as personality, personal appearance, style of home, and type of religion practiced. If heterosexual couples have some non-conventional qualities, they might wait a long time or perhaps not be offered children. For example, an otherwise conventional-appearing couple who home schooled their biological children found it difficult to adopt because social workers appear to prefer conventional schooling practices. The home study worker said it didn’t seem to matter that this couple gave their children marvelous educational experiences, such as taking a trip to see how slaves escaped from the south through the Underground Railroad. Gay or lesbian couples often wait a long time for a child. Preferences for heterosexual couples are not stated overtly, although there are indirect indicators that sexual orientation can be an issue. For example, the home study workers observe that such couples may be offered children who are much different and more challenging than the children they requested. In one case, a social worker became angry when the home study social workers offered an approved lesbian couple for a child under two. As a home study worker said, “The child service worker didn’t want to place the child with lesbians, but you can’t say that. They are doing great. They finalized. The adoption worker made the decision [that the lesbian couple offered an appropriate home.]”. “Single people get the hardest kids,” say the home study workers. The overrepresentation of older boys leads to more placements with single men than with single women. Single people with conventional qualities are more likely to be offered children than people who appear non-conventional. Single people who know their limitations in terms of the types of children they can handle often get calls for children with severe acting problems. If they turn these children down, this lessens their chance of getting other referrals. Once approved families have waited for a while, social workers start wondering what is wrong with them. Consequently, over time, unused homes become even less likely to be used. The home study workers wonder why the agency is placing the hardest kids with them. Finally, race appears to play a part in preferences. A home study workers said, “By law, we can look at cultural competence, but by law we can’t look at racial things.” In other words, social workers cannot consider race when placing children but they do. A conventional, heterosexual African-American couple is likely to be preferred for a younger African-American or mixed race child over any other potential placement. The following expands upon these observations. Conventional-appearing heterosexual couples. There is a strong preference among placing social workers for “ideal” families: younger, heterosexual, married, educated, middle class or better, and who are part of extended families eager to provide social and instrumental support (e.g., babysitting, encouragement, parenting tips, child care, inclusion in social events, money, help with transportation, and clothes for the children. They practice a mainstream religion and appear to have into white middle, class values.

adoption placements Page 7 of 14 These families tend to be offered the “easiest” kids. If for example, a five year-old girl with relatively few adjustment issues is available, she is highly likely to go to this kind of approved home. There are exceptions to this general observation: A social worker refused placement of two “easy” children to a heterosexual couple with an income of more than a million dollars a year, a large home in Grouse Point, a home on one of the East Coast islands, a couple of horses in the backyard, and two biological children who were doing well. The prospective adoptive mother had been adopted as a child and wanted to give opportunities to other children who need homes. The social worker chose not to place with this family two children who were well adjusted and were performing exceptionally well in school. She thought the couple’s expectations would be too high for these children. It was unclear whether the social worker had met the couple. Parents who have adopted successfully before. In general, said one of the home study social workers, “The sought-after families are those who have adopted before. People fight to get these kinds of homes for children.” The kinds of children they typically are offered, however, are not the “easy” children that conventional couples are offered, but the challenging children that the County typically has available. Sometimes, however, parents who had adopted successfully before are refused for the second placement. Finding out why can be hard. It can appear that the reason is the social worker preferences for placing younger children with heterosexual couples, but sometimes it appears to be a matter of unfair judgment and conclusions about the sexual orientation of prospective adoptive parents. The following is an example. A single man who is not admittedly gay was refused a second placement after doing well with the first. He has been active in adoptive parent support groups and participates in adoptive parent training. He has raised money for the agency. He has a good income and a well-kept home. The home study worker believed that this man has “everything in place.” There was a 2 ½ year-old boy free for adoption. The child’s worker said she wants a two-parent family for the boy. The home study workers asked the social worker and her supervisor, “What’s the bottom line? Tell me why aren’t you placing this child with this man?” The social worker said, “because of his undisclosed gayness.” One of the social workers responded, ‘He’s no stud master but he’s saying, “I’m not gay. I hope eventually to find my soul mate.” He dates women. That apparent non-disclosure about sexual orientation is an issue implies that if the prospective adoptive parents did disclose then the social workers would place the children. Whether this actually is the case is unclear. Those single persons who are heterosexual and say so but who are thought to be homosexual appear not to have any recourse.

adoption placements Page 8 of 14 Non-conventional parents who have a track record of managing difficult situations with their biological children. Sometimes single women or men have children placed in their homes if they have successful raised non-conventional biological children. An example is a woman who has been clean and sober for 10 years and raised three bi-racial sons on her own. She was offered older, bi-racial children for adoption and she is doing very well. Single heterosexual men. Single heterosexual men of any race are likely to be offered older boys of color who have serious behavioral difficulties. These children are overly represented in County case loads. To the home study workers, this doesn’t make sense. As one worker said, “Right now kids from residential treatment and who have the most risk factors are going into single homes. Wouldn’t this kid need a two-parent family? High risk kids need families with substantial strengths. Some egregious harm kids have lots of risks.” African-American heterosexual single women have some hope of adoption because there are some older girls of color who are available. These are children who social workers believe are not suitable for heterosexual couples. Although this is not clear, they also might believe that such children are unsuitable for gay men, single or coupled. Although race is not supposed to be a factor in adoption placement, it is possible that social workers would choose an African-American single woman over a Caucasian women in placing an African-American child, if all other factors are similar. Single women with parenting experience are preferred over single women with no parenting experience. As one social worker said, “Single women are out of luck unless they have raised other children successfully.” These women prefer younger girls and few are available. Those who are available tend to go to heterosexual couples. An example of experience winning over inexperience is the following A relatively ‘easy’ young girl became available for adoption. The home study workers wanted to place with a single woman with little parenting experience. Instead the child went to a single woman with extensive experience. The home study workers thought the woman who did adopt could’ve handled a much more challenging child. It is not clear where there is a worker preference for the race of single women. It is quite clear that non-conventional single women would have a difficult time adopting unless they have a proven track record of parenting other difficult children. Like the gay man discussed earlier, single women thought to be lesbian and who say they are not also are not likely to have an easy time getting referrals for children who might be placed with them. Gay and lesbian couples have adopted through the County, but the home study workers find that they often wait and often are offered the most challenging children. They worry that the word is getting out that the County is unreceptive to gay and lesbian couples and singles, and these person are going elsewhere to adopt. Gay single men who are otherwise conventional have a chance at adopting through the county and some have. Eccentric-appearing gay single men often have extreme difficulties adopting. The man with the “scrunched” up appearance is an example. He took a very difficult

adoption placements Page 9 of 14 13 year-old into his home. Yet, this man now is having a difficult time because some people in this man’s community are concerned that an eccentric-appearing gay man has adopted a 13 yearold. The County has received three phone calls in a short period of time from neighbors who complain that he is abusing the boy. They suspect but have not evidence of sexual abuse. The County has to investigate every allegation. Each time the man is cleared. As the home study worker said, “This is the boy’s last shot. If he doesn’t make it here, where will he go?” The home study social workers don’t know how many more reports of abuse the man can handle. Lesbian single women. It’s unclear whether single lesbian women have adopted through the County, though their chances would be lessened further if they had non-conventional qualities. The home study workers observed that In some counties whether or not gay people adopt depends on the worker. A single gay person is thought to be different from a single straight person. The Bill of Rights don’t cover gays and lesbians. There is no protection of their rights except agency policy. Characteristics of Families Who Do Not Have Children Placed in Their Homes The home study workers discussed both subtle and overt reasons for not placing children in certain homes. The subtle reasons have to do with images social workers have of the types of families they want the children in their caseloads to have. As one social worker commented, “We have biases. I have seen classicism, homophobia, and racism” in the comments of social workers about families. The home study workers recognize that to be human is to be biased, as discussed in other parts of this report. On the other hand, working through bias to find the placements that are fair to both parents and children is an important goal. Another example of bias is the example elsewhere in this report of a man who was refused a second child because the social worker was convinced he was gay and was not admitting it. Single people, gay or straight, with little parenting experience may not get referrals, but in some cases when they do, their enthusiasm and commitment make up for their lack of experience. A more overt factor in whether persons adopt is if they have had a disruption of a previous adoption. Social workers are afraid to use the families again, although sometimes they do. For the home study workers, it’s important to understand the factors leading to disruption and not assume, as is sometimes the case, that “the parents are crazy and the kids are fine.” The home study workers worry that some other social workers “get charmed by the kids” and blame adoptive parents for disruptions. Full disclosure can be a factor in disruptions. A social worker said,

adoption placements Page 10 of 14 Some disruptions are related to lack of full disclosure. Twenty-four/seven is different from 9 to 5. A child who is RAD [reactive attachment disorder] cannot seem that way to a social worker. The child can ‘suck up’ to social workers, be on their best behavior, charming. Yet, children can pathologize a family. Social workers can say, “This mom is crazy. She wasn’t crazy before the child was placed.” Said a home study worker, “Some disruptions are understandable but parents are not given a second chance. We placed a hyperactive 2 year old with a family who had requested a milder child. The mother’s health was affected: she started vomiting and losing weight. Her arthritis flared up.” In disrupted situations, the home study workers said it’s important to see whether the adoptive parents take appropriate responsibility, such as saying “I failed. I did the best job I could.” Unstated factors can play a part in families not getting referrals for children. The home study workers gave an example of successful placement with an approved family, when the child came from outside of Niagra County. The family could not get a referral within the County: The mother had been in foster care. She had been sexually abused by her mother’s boyfriends. She got herself out of foster care and took care of her siblings and did well. She got married and then wanted to adopt. She and her husband at first were rejected. They got a kid from another county. This kid was in bad shape and had lots of issues. They worked hard with him. This is the best match I’ve ever seen. He’s an honor roll student and a star athlete. They did all kinds of things for this kid—Sylvan Learning Center, paid teachers to tutor the kid during summer so kid got to know teacher ahead of time. They had the philosophy of making the bad parts good. This family was not seen as a resource within Niagra County. Another factor is a disagreement between prospective adoptive parents and social workers about what is best for children. The home study workers gave an example of a “gay gentleman” who did volunteer work and got to know three of five children in a sibling group who were subsequently freed for adoption. He already had been approved for adoption through the County, and he asked to adopt all five children. One of the five children was acting out in the foster home to the point where the foster parents wanted him to be removed. The child’s social worker asked this man to take this lone child. The man refused, saying he wanted all five children. He thought the boy might act up worse if he were separated from his siblings. The social workers took offense, but they told him he was their choice. Then they recruited another family for all five. The reason? Because he wouldn’t take the one kid. Why not say he wasn’t their choice. What was upsetting was how he was treated. Air your concerns up front. They feel they can’t give honest feed back. Afraid they’ll get jumped on. This man became frustrated and hurt. He wrote a letter to the home study workers stating he was dropping out of the program. He felt that Niagra County social workers are reluctant to place with him and that he had invested enough time in Niagra County.

adoption placements Page 11 of 14 As a home study social worker said, “It’s difficult to do public relations for the County. All these things [preferences, biases, preferences for conventionality] are working.” She observed that which approved homes get offered which children, whether they are offered children at all, and how they are treated, “depends upon workers and their attitudes.” The home study workers pointed out many dilemmas in the placement of children in approved Niagra County homes. They saw the Five-Family Rule and team decision-making as appropriate responses. As a home study worker said, “We really need the Five Family Rule. This combats the bias.” Team decision-making has the potential to help with many issues, according to the home study social workers. Important to them is having a safe place to discuss preferences and to deal with biases that may be affecting fairness in placements. Changing the Order of Preferences: The Five-Family Rule Because of social worker preferences, the home study workers strongly support the rule of five, where children under 2 years old who are available for adoption get five home study referrals. The workers who make decisions about placement must choose one of these families for the available child. The home study workers refer three approved families who have waited the longest, and the African-American Adoption Program social workers refer two. The home study workers showed how this rule works to change the typical order of preference: A lesbian couple received a mix-race girl under two, unusual except for the rule of five. A single woman, who was unlikely to be offered a child, did adopt a young child. She also practiced Wicca, which disqualified her in the eyes of some social workers. Team Decision-Making and a Safe Place to Talk In addition to identifying barriers to using some adoptive parents, the home study workers suggested that a team model might help in several current problematic areas of adoption practice. A team model is not a new concept in the agency; it is currently used in permanency planning. A team model could be responsive in the following areas: • • • •

foster improved decision-making about appropriate placements through taking multiple perspectives into account; create a safe place where social workers can examine and challenge their assumptions about the kinds of homes they want for children in their case loads; increase communication among the various units involved in adoption placement, especially regarding feedback to prospective adoptive parents about why children they’ve requested were not placed in their homes; and provide a place for social workers to grieve and process disruptions when they occur.

Multiple perspectives. When social workers -- home study workers, child service workers, adoption resource workers, and child placement workers -- share their perspectives on the families and children and share in the decisions for placement, the responsibility for the placement would also be shared. No one worker would feel responsible for a placement's success or failure in what is an agency decision. The home study workers noted that placement “really is an agency decision.” One social worked stated,

adoption placements Page 12 of 14 If the responsibility is shared, then one person won’t feel the whole burden of a disruption. The bottom line is that we just don’t know when we place whether the placement will work out. With a team, there is no blaming. We need more people to share the accountability. The home study workers thought shared decision-making would reduce worker stress, burn-out, and turn-over. The downside of team decision-making, said the home study workers, is that some social workers like to be able to make the final decision about placement on their own, in consultation with others. They feared that “some workers don't want to give up that responsibility and have it be a team or agency decision.” For example, a social worker who previously had a great deal of control about where a child could be placed could be overruled through the team process. When workers with various roles involved in the placement process contribute their insights into the child or families, better decision-making on placements should occur. This could also lead to more individualized post-adoptive services and the provisions of other resources for the family and child because the adoption worker knows so much more about both children and their new families. Safe place for examination of preferences. Team discussions could also provide a safe place for discussing personal preferences, biases, and concerns about families and children. The home study workers know from experience that the sharing of biases requires acceptance of the idea that people have them. The home stud workers think that identifying and challenging preferences and biases could lead to better placements. Workers could check whether their concerns about prospective parents or situations are shared by others or a matter of personal concern. However, in order for this to occur, there must be an atmosphere of trust and mutual support among workers, with a sense of everyone working toward a common goal. The home study workers are concerned that sometimes other social workers make decisions about child placement based on what they would’ve wanted as children in their own families. An example is a situation where a social worker was opposed in principle to separating siblings. She did not want to separate two sibs who were sexually active with each other. The home study workers noted, “Sometimes sibs need to be separated.” Team discussions could help social workers become open to exceptions to principles that for the most part are humane. The home study workers thought a team approach could help deal with conflict over which children are to be placed with which families. A home study worker gave the following example. There as a single mom who bought a home and did a wonderful job with her two teenage daughters, She overcame a cocaine addiction. The adoption resource worker loved her. The child service worker put up lots of barriers and started jerking her around. The women wanted to drop out. The children were placed with this family. The child worker got really mad and quite. She was so attached to the kids that she wanted them in two parent home in the suburbs.

adoption placements Page 13 of 14 The home study workers were concerned about this situation and others that might not have had such consequences. A safe place to work through differences could improve morale. The agency would also keep social workers who have a great deal to offer but who at times get “stuck’ on what they think is best. Communication. Currently the feedback given to prospective adoptive parents about why they were not selected typically is unavailable, inaccurate, or untimely. The home study workers themselves also want this feedback for themselves. Team decision-making would help in communicating to prospective adoptive parents why children referred to them were not placed. One worker said Feedback? I’ve come to the point where I don’t expect it. What were my family’s strengths? What were the strengths of the families that were chosen? What makes the lack of feedback particularly hard is when families get lots of referrals and we don’t hear back. In the meantime the kids don’t get placed.” The general sense of the home study social workers is that feedback should be part of the respectful relationship between workers and adoptive parents. With accurate feedback, adoptive parents can either make changes in their lives to increase their likelihood of being matched or change their expectations about the children available to them. As a home study worker said, “If we know what the issues are about a family from feedback from the adoption workers, then we can talk to the family about changing.” Another said, “Often, these approved families are left in the dark about reasons for their being passed over.” When social workers go outside of the agency to recruit, home study workers would like to know why. A social worker said The county has a 1 and 3 year old available for adoption, Caucasian kids. The social workers are going to register them on the exchange when we have wonderful families. Why are private agencies being used? We get no feedback. Our services are costing taxpayers lots of money. Team discussions could provide feedback that the home study workers very much want. Grieving. Finally, a team process for matching would also allow the team to grieve and process disruptions when they occur. The grief and disappointment can be talked about and shared as a group. A team analysis of the disruption would help to better prepare the next family for the child and would help prepare the adoptive family for another child. A team processing of a disruption would lead to more learning and less blaming. A home study worker noted, “There is no place of safety to discuss our biases and losses. We need an atmosphere of trust.” A home study worker said The grief and disappointment can be talked about and shared as a group. A team analysis of the disruption would help to better prepare the next family for the child and would help

adoption placements Page 14 of 14 prepare the adoptive family for another child. A team processing of a disruption would lead to more learning and less blaming. Discussion The home study workers pointed out the many dilemmas involved in the adoption of Niagra County children in Niagra County approved homes. Many of these dilemmas are related to the expressed and unexpressed preferences of social workers and a lack of communication about preferences. They saw the Five-Family Rule and the implementation of team decisionmaking as approaches to dealing appropriately with these dilemmas. They know that everyone involved in the adoption process want what’s best for children. The issues are how we arrive at our decisions about which children go to which families.