The Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 is one of several congressional initiatives to address child welfare in the U.S. The original law provided that the placement of children in foster or adoptive homes could not be denied or delayed solely because of the race, color, or national origin of the child or of the prospective foster or adoptive parents. The 1994 act also acknowledged and allowed for the consideration of the racial, ethnic or cultural background of the child and the capacity of prospective parents to meet the child's needs in these areas when making placement decisions--if such a consideration was one of a number of factors used to determine the best interests of a child. States were also give the mandate to undertake efforts to recruit foster and adoptive families that reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of children in need of care.
It is obvious that the Act was concerned more with children who stayed in the foster care system too long. These children were seen as a burden on the system especially those who were not chosen by prospective parents due to their race, color or national origin. While disguising the Act as beneficial to the diverse communities, Congress in effect attempted to get rid of unnecessary delays in placing children. The true sentiments became obvious in a 1996 amendment to the Multiethnic Act of 1994.
Efficiency over Ethics?
Encouraged by the 1994 Act, many social service agencies undertook aggressive campaigns to recruit foster and adoptive families that were more reflective of the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in need of care. Despite their best intentions, there was a considerable delay in the placement of children due to a few reasons. First, there was a nationwide shortage of prospective foster parents. Second, due to a lack of education about the foster care program, not enough ethnically and racially diverse people stepped forward to open their homes for foster care. Admittedly, the problem of delayed placements arose again. Again, in the name of efficiency, Congress struck hard. Rather than encouraging a nationwide campaign to recruit prospective parents, or an education program that informed diverse communities about the foster care program, an amendment to the 1994 act was introduced.
The 1996 amendment to the act changed the tone of the 1994 Act. This Amendment allowed that race, color or national origin may be considered only in rare circumstances when making placement decisions. The amendment also removed language that allowed routine consideration of these factors in assessing the best interests of the child. In addition, the amendment called for an assessment of the capacity of prospective foster or adoptive parents to meet the needs of a child. This amendment completely disregarded the positive impact of making placements decisions based on sensitivity to race, ethnic, and national origin. A further negative blow to minorities in general came in the same year when the 1996 Welfare Reform initiatives were introduced and passed.
Implications for Muslims and other Religious Groups
Needless to say, the language was carefully chosen so as to exclude the religion of the child as a factor in making placement decisions. While other religious groups currently have foster agencies of their own, Muslims will perhaps feel the greatest impact. For Muslims, the exclusion of religion is especially threatening. Children are most vulnerable to potential confusion in identity if they are placed in non-Muslim homes. For further insight on the impact on Muslim children who are placed in non-Muslim homes, please refer to the article by Sr. Judi Muhammad in this week's Society section of the GlobalExaminer.
Altaf Husain, MSW, LSW is a contributing writer to the Islam-Online social section.
Society
