About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 303 (2006)
Federally Mandated Destruction of the Black Family: The Adoption and Safe Families Act

handle is hein.journals/nwjlsopo1 and id is 303 raw text is: Federally Mandated Destruction of the Black Family: The Adoption and Safe Families Act Christina White I. INTRODUCTION When it comes to matters of the home, the constitutional provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment give substantial deference to the independence of the familial unit to make its own decisions.' There are instances, however, where the government deems it necessary to intrude upon the independence of the familial unit. This intrusion is especially evident in the foster care system. Although the system by its very definition requires some governmental intervention for the welfare of the child, the goal of foster care should be assistance and eventually reunification to allow the family to function as an independent entity. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) represents a stark deviation from that goal. With black children representing an overwhelming percentage of the foster care population, the ASFA represents federally mandated destruction of black families. The ASFA devalues the essentialness of preserving the familial bond with regard to black children. It advocates earlier termination of parental rights and makes adoption, instead of reunification, its priority. This comment criticizes ASFA and its aim of removing black children from their homes as a means to achieve permanency in their lives. Preservation of black families is essential to the advancement of the black community. Legislation must be directed at addressing the underlying social ills that are at the root of foster care dependence. Instead, under the pretext of advancing child welfare, ASFA promotes destruction of black familial bonds and represents a serious threat to black communities. ' See, e.g., McGuire v. McGuire, 59 N.W.2d 336, 342 (Neb. 1953) (noting the living standards of a family are a matter of the family's concern, not the court's); Prince v. Mass., 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944) (recognizing the traditionally private realm of family life in which the state must not interfere without a compelling justification).