Rehoming, also known as "adopting from disruption" or "non-legalized adoption," occurs most often on discussion-based sites like Yahoo and Facebook. In 2013, Reuters published an investigation into a group on one such site. They tracked over 5,000 posts, which were made at a rate of about one per week. Each post offered a previously adopted child up for a second adoption.
Many of the children are foreign-born, and they often have mental or emotional problems born from a life of upheaval. In the case of Justin Harris, his two adopted daughters had grown up with methamphetamine addicts, who had sexually abused them. These issues can often prove difficult for adoptive parents to address. If the parents are not offered the proper support from the government -- Harris says he was threatened with abandonment charges if he returned his children -- they will find another way to rid themselves of this stress. Harris did so, giving his daughters to a family friend and employee, Eric Francis. Francis sexually assaulted one of the girls; in the end, he rehomed them a second time. |
|
There are no restrictions on rehoming, besides the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC), which is largely ignored. In some cases, "successful" transfers can be carried out in a matter of hours. Just like that, a child has a new family -- one that has not been investigated by authorities. Reuters details several of these cases in their study. In many of them, the second adoption goes very, very wrong.
Arkansas has proposed two bills to address the problem of rehoming. The first criminalizes private, unregulated rehoming; giving away your adopted child to an un-investigated home would be considered a felony, punishable by jail time and a fine. The second creates a network of support for struggling adoptive parents, requiring annual check-ins with childcare authorities. In Arkansas, this support comes from the Department of Human Services. In Pennsylvania, the Statewide Adoption and Permanency Network works closely with the DHS to facilitate adoptions.
It would not be difficult to model Pennsylvania's legislation on that of Arkansas (which, in turn, is based on bills from Louisiana). The only challenge might be funding the home investigation system that would be put in place: under the new bill, if an adoption truly was not working, the authorities would be required to investigate the potential new family to be sure that they were qualified. However, that money is being spent now in prosecution, therapy for the traumatized children, and the same placement services after they have been rehomed. It is a matter of paying now or paying later, and the true cost later includes mental scars and a loss of personal security.
It is surely preferable that these children are removed from the homes that don't want them. However, it is not guaranteed -- or even likely -- that their former parents will choose an equal or better new home. Often, the new parents have not been investigated by authorities, and they are less than qualified to deal with the profound emotional struggles of many rehomed children. Regulating this process and forcing parents to carefully consider their decision to rehome their child will only improve the lives of overwhelmed parents and hurting children.
Arkansas has proposed two bills to address the problem of rehoming. The first criminalizes private, unregulated rehoming; giving away your adopted child to an un-investigated home would be considered a felony, punishable by jail time and a fine. The second creates a network of support for struggling adoptive parents, requiring annual check-ins with childcare authorities. In Arkansas, this support comes from the Department of Human Services. In Pennsylvania, the Statewide Adoption and Permanency Network works closely with the DHS to facilitate adoptions.
It would not be difficult to model Pennsylvania's legislation on that of Arkansas (which, in turn, is based on bills from Louisiana). The only challenge might be funding the home investigation system that would be put in place: under the new bill, if an adoption truly was not working, the authorities would be required to investigate the potential new family to be sure that they were qualified. However, that money is being spent now in prosecution, therapy for the traumatized children, and the same placement services after they have been rehomed. It is a matter of paying now or paying later, and the true cost later includes mental scars and a loss of personal security.
It is surely preferable that these children are removed from the homes that don't want them. However, it is not guaranteed -- or even likely -- that their former parents will choose an equal or better new home. Often, the new parents have not been investigated by authorities, and they are less than qualified to deal with the profound emotional struggles of many rehomed children. Regulating this process and forcing parents to carefully consider their decision to rehome their child will only improve the lives of overwhelmed parents and hurting children.