Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T23:08:03.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transracial adoption in England: a critical race and systems theory analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

Sarah Sargent
Sarah Sargent*
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of Buckingham. Email: Sarah.Sargent@buckingham.ac.uk.
*
Sarah.Sargent@buckingham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The legal requirements of transracial adoption of children in England changed in 2014. An amendment to the law removed a requirement that due consideration be given to the ‘child's religious persuasion, racial origin and ethnic and linguistic background’. This change was motivated by the belief that to do so would increase the number of transracial adoptions and thus decrease the number of children in care awaiting adoption. The likelihood of this change being successful is examined through a combination of critical race theory and systems theory. The combination of these theories permits an investigation into the communications between the political, legal and child welfare systems. This paper offers an enriched evaluation of the interactions of the child welfare, legal and political systems that should be of use to those who work in those systems, as well as providing a basis for understanding why this legal amendment will not achieve its objectives.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 4: Critical Socio-legal Engagements with Systems Thinking , December 2015 , pp. 412 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Neils Ackerstrom (2001) ‘Polyphonic Organisations’, Working Paper 13, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Barn, Ravinder and Kirton, Derek (2012) ‘Transracial Adoption in Britain: Politics, Ideology and Reality’, Adoption and Fostering 36(3/4): 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Sumi (2009) ‘Post-Racialism’, Iowa Law Review 94: 1589–1649.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberle Williams (1988) ‘Race, Reform and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law’, Harvard Law Review 101(7): 1331–1387.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberle Williams (2011) ‘Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking Back to Move Forward’, Connecticut Law Review 43(4): 1253–1352.Google Scholar
Delgado, Richard and Stefancic, Jean (eds) (2000) Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, 2nd edn.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Eskay, Bo (1996) ‘HB 2168–Codifying a Shift in Social Values Towards Transracial Adoption’, Arizona State Law Journal 28: 711–733.Google Scholar
Espinoza, Leslie and Harris, Angela P. (2000) ‘Embracing the Tar-Baby: LatCrit Theory and the Sticky Mess of Race’, in Delgado, Richard and Stefancic, Jean (eds), Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, 2nd edn.Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 440–447.Google Scholar
King, Michael (1991) ‘Child Welfare within the Law: The Emergence of a Hybrid Discourse’, Journal of Law and Society 18(3): 303–322.Google Scholar
King, Michael (1993) ‘The “Truth” About Autopoiesis’, Journal of Law and Society 20(2): 218–236.Google Scholar
King, Michael (2002) ‘An Autopoetic Approach to “Parental Alienation Syndrome”’, Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 13(3): 609–635.Google Scholar
King, Michael and Piper, Christine (1995) How the Law Thinks About Children, 2nd edn.London: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (1996) A Sociology of Jurisprudence. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (2006) A Sociology of Jurisprudence. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (2013) Observing Law Through Systems Theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Perry, Twila (1993) ‘The Transracial Adoption Controversy: An Analysis of Discourse and Subordination’, New York University Review of Law and Social Change 21: 33–108.Google Scholar
Perry, Twila (1998) ‘Transracial and International Adoption: Mothers, Hierarchy, Race, and Feminist Legal Theory’, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 10: 101–164.Google Scholar
Phillipopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (2010) Niklas Luhmann: Law, Justice and Society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Price, Patricia (2010) ‘At the Crossroads: Critical Race Theory and Critical Geographies of Race’, Progress in Human Geography 34(2): 147–174.Google Scholar
Smith, Carole (2004) ‘Autopoietic Law and the “Epistemic Trap”: A Case Study of Adoption and Contact’, Journal of Law and Society 31(3): 318–344.Google Scholar
Villadsen, Kaspar (2008) ‘“Polyphonic” Welfare: Luhmann's Systems Theory Applied to Modern Social Work’, International Journal of Social Welfare 17(1): 65–73.Google Scholar