Re: The Median Voter Theorem and Adoption Law

[John Driessnack]

I did not see the special, but I'm an adoptive parent (trans-racial) and my wife is a social worker that has worked these issues.   Dislike the system compared to what!  Having seen close hand the power of social workers in some states (I'm military and have moved around..so my wife has worked in numerous states) people should be a lot more worried about losing their own biological kids.  I think it explains a lot...but what would be interesting is a review of local and state rules and the actual results from those rules.  Compare Mass and Texas...an aggressive state with lots of money in the system (this was the location of my adoption) to Texas or other states that have a higher bar for the social worker (government) to step into the situation.   What is the long term impact on the children.   Also...those impeccable adoptive parents?"   How do you tell that!  What is the measure?   The state can provide enough funds if they want to make any parent able to care for the needs of the children.  The state can provide the day care, professional support, schooling,  after school sports activities, etc.  What does the parent really provide?  Is a child better off in a  home with rich resources but lacking in true love (child is just a symbol of the family being complete) and caring (parent takes the time to talk about life and the child's concerns vis going to that all important business dinner).    The problem for the median voter is they are NOT the perfect parent....hardly anyone is...so were does the median voter want the bar placed.   I would say not too high.  It is low because most parents can hit that low point at least once in their parenting career.    The median (parent) voter knows they really don't want big brother government looking over that shoulder too closely.  It is the measure of intentions that is tough.   True care for the child from an imperfect parent is much better than the appearing perfect parent with no true care for the child.   PS...I also have two nieces that live with me...so my house has 6 children in all.  The interesting question is the structure of the family.  Why do we have the need for adoptive families?  Why can't extended families handle the situation.  Do extended families get the same help from society as a child that is formally taken away from the family and put up for foster care or adoption?   Would the state be better off putting resources towards extended family care.  Some states do, some don't....  Then you get into the reason why people have children to begin with and what control does the state want in that...or what does the median voter want...gain how high do you want the bar placed?    jdd >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/06/02 02:31PM >>> Two weeks ago there was a John Stossel special on adoption.  Does the median voter really want the system we have, where basketcase biological parents can take their crying offspring away from impeccable adoptive parents?  How about the de facto efforts to avoid trans-racial adoption?  Etc.?  I rarely expect the median voter to agree with me, but this seems like a case where a comfortable majority of normal Americans dislike the existing rules. You might say that people are a lot more worried about losing their own biological kids than they are about other people's adoptive kids being taken away.  But I doubt that explanation is right. --                         Prof. Bryan Caplan                       Department of Economics      George Mason University         http://www.bcaplan.com      [EMAIL PROTECTED]    "Who are they?  Why are they running?  Could they be coming to     me?  Really coming to me?  And why?  To kill me?  *Me* whom     everyone loves?"         Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*