[blparent] Why Blindness shouldn't work against us

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Jo Elizabeth,

I respect your response and agree about the safety of any child. My
husband and I have been through the ringer with multiple adoption
agencies for infant, private and foster, so I have a good idea of the
involvement and what prospective adoptive parents are asked to do. So
based on my own experience, and hearing the experiences of others such
as Miranda, I see the inconsistancies between what is asked of sighted
adoptive parents and what is often asked of blind adoptive parents;
usually it involves discrimination, and no, it's not recognized as such
nor is it always intentional, but my point is that certain questions
shouldn't be asked and certain information shouldn't be collected. The
minute this is required because of blindness, it's wrong. When all the
other test have been done, other info collected and other demands made
just as any other adoptive parent has to undergo, then extra is required
because you can't "see," this crosses the line between ensuring safety
and plain discrimination. There was a time when certain racial and
ethnic groups were not allowed to adopt period, or couldn't adopt
children "outside" their own racial or ethnic group because of long-held
perceptions and stereotypes; this is now being done with people who have
disabilities especially blindness. When initially researching adoption,
my husband and I found resource after resource with the disclaimer that
people with a drug addiction history, AIDS or who are blind
automatically will have "points" taken off the criteria allowing them to
adopt and it's not likely these people will have children placed in
their home, and this was info coming directly from agencies and not just
information about adoption in general. Some things shouldn't be
allowable, right or wrong. Blindness is in no way similar to drug
addiction, nor is it similar to a disease such as AIDS. I have a family
member with AIDS so I won't go into this topic, but no one is in as
immediate danger from a person who is HIV positive, or with AIDS, as
many believe, but for the sake of this argument, blindness is not the
same at all. And my biggest point is that this attitude needs to be
changed because blindness can't be an initial red flag; we shouldn't
have to prove above and beyond what any other family has to. We're not
talking about the safety of children but the discrimination of a group
of people. We've been somewhat lucky in our own adoption journey as
we've yet to meet a caseworker who wasn't willing to work with us and go
to bat for us, but the agencies we potentially may adopt from is another
matter especially when it comes to the state. No matter why the state
and/or agency ask for extra info on blind people, it's discrimination
and we know blindness has no part in the safety of raising children. And
if cases like this were simply about ensuring safety, then biological
blind parents wouldn't face the same discrimination, and yet they do.
You say, and it's very true, that anyone can make a baby and usually
noone ask  questions until it's too late, but with blind parents, we
know these questions are raised even before the birth of a child. So, in
my opinion, this goes far beyond wanting to ensure the safety of a child
even if that's the reasoning behind the problem. What you say is true
and I completely agree with that most children in the foster-care system
already come from "bad" homes, and their safety must be paramount,
however, a person's blindness should play no part in the equation as
long as said parent has demonstrated their ability along with others
going through the same process. If I "pass" all the criteria necessary,
that should be enough; I've obviously already proved my ability to care
for a child, and yet time after time, we see this happen to blind
parents. More is required, and doubts are allowed to be used as criteria
working against us even though many have already exhibited their ability
to care for kids through the classes and studies required of others.
Wrong is wrong no matter the reasoning behind it.

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
Read my blog at:
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
 
"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:33:55 -0700
From: "Jo Elizabeth Pinto" <jopinto at msn.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Parents Mailing List" <blparent at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blparent] Keeping young children safe with a visual
	impairment
Message-ID: <SNT116-DS18AE4C723E5928E3A3C786AC930 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

Hi.  I don't mean to have the dissenting voice, as I agree with most of
what 
you said, Bridgit.  Frankly, it isn't fair that blind people have to
prove 
themselves, or that they are questioned more than others when it comes
to 
their ability to parent.  You're right about that.  But there are two
things 
you might want to consider in the particular case of the foster system.

The first and most important consideration is that the state has a 
responsibility to ensure the well-being of the children in its care.
Those 
children have already been through too much in their lives to take risks

with their safety.  I'm not saying that Amanda and her husband wouldn't
make 
good foster parents, by any stretch of the imagination.  I've never met
them 
or spoken with them personally.  But I believe the state has not only
the 
right but the duty to ask questions of any couple, blind or otherwise,
until 
the case workers are satisfied that children will be safe in a
particular 
home.  Is it fair?  Maybe not.  But it wouldn't be fair to the children
to 
put them in homes that hadn't been very thoroughly checked out and
deemed 
safe and nurturing.  Foster parents or prospective parents have to prove
a 
lot more than biological parents do, blind or sighted, because the fact
is 
that anybody (or nearly anybody) can go out and make a baby, and they're
not 
usually questioned till something bad happens.  The system is designed
to 
try to prevent bad things from happening to the kids in state custody.

The second consideration goes along with the first, and that is the fact

that everybody is questioned incessantly and examined under a microscope

when it comes to the process of applying for foster children.  I know it

because my brother and his partner took on the challenge and have been 
fostering a baby from the time he was seven months old, till now when he

just turned two.  Neither one of the parents are disabled, so that
didn't 
come under scrutiny, but they had to provide a lot of details about
their 
finances, their extended families, and how they would handle an
astronomical 
number of situations that might come up.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to the safety and 
well-being of the kids the state has taken into its charge, if the case 
workers feel they have to ask more questions than usual of a disabled 
couple, so be it.  Give the best possible answers, because more than 
anything else, the kids need to be looked after.  Is it fair?  No.  But
it 
beats the way things used to be, when homes weren't checked out well
enough. 
I have a very close friend who was raped two different times in bad
foster 
homes, once when she was only seven, and again as a teenager.  I realize
I 
might be taking an unpopular stance, and again, I mean nothing at all 
against Amanda and her husband.  But I think, in the big picture,
questions 
aren't necessarily a bad thing.  They can make you think and plan, and
know 
ahead of time how you'll handle things.

Jo Elizabeth