Diverse Perceptions of Cross-Racial Adoption in South Africa

Abstract

Purpose:

This study explored the perceptions of stakeholders regarding the practice of cross-racial adoption (CRA) in East London, South Africa.

Method:

A qualitative research design was used. Data were collected through individual interviews and focus group discussions from 23 participants. The data were analyzed qualitatively, using thematic analysis.

Results:

The results show that there are mixed perceptions among the participants, with White participants more likely than participants of other racial groups to support the practice of the CRA. The findings also revealed that the practice of CRA is a controversial, yet an increasing phenomenon in which most Black children are being adopted by White parents.

Conclusion:

It is concluded that although the practice of CRA is an acceptable form of custody of children in need of care and protection, it is still an area that requires more attention from scholars and researchers. Pertinent recommendations have been made to various stakeholders.

Keywords

adoption cross-racial adoption child in need of care and protection children’s rights parental care adoptive parents

One of the key principles adopted by the South African government with regard to the care and protection of children is the concept of cross-racial adoption (CRA). This principle has paved way for many children to live in stable family environments. Accordingly, this is in line with some of the stipulations of the Bill of Rights as contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa 38 of 2005, which stipulates the following in relation to the care and protection of a child to include (a) (i) a suitable place to live; (ii) living conditions that are conducive to the child’s health, well-being and development; and (iii) the necessary financial support and (b) safeguarding and promoting the well-being of the child. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of literature that offers a range of arguments, some of them acrimonious, concerning the perceptions regarding CRA as an appropriate, expedient, and “most accepted” form of child custody in international, regional, national, and local contexts (Gerrand & Nathan e-Taulela, 2013; Johnson, Mickelson, & Davila, 2013; Mokomane & Rochat, 2010; Randall, 2012). In Johnson, Mickelson, and Davila (2013, p. 11), “the adoption of children of one race by parents of another has grown rapidly since the 20th century, but this adoption option is controversial.” The conclusion of the study that CRA is an “acceptable” form of custody of children in need of care and protection, despite legislation pertaining to it, but that it requires more attention from scholars and researcher is a challenge for all stakeholders involved in CRA.

Owing to the legalization of CRA in 1991 accompanied by an escalating number of children who are in “need of care and protection,” the practice in South Africa has increased drastically (Freeman & Nkomo, 2006; Harber, 1999; Snyder, 2012; Wainwright & Ridley, 2012). However, in South Africa, the practice of CRA still presents a social quandary, despite the government’s efforts toward achieving color blindness within child custody (Snyder, 2012). In addition, Moos and Mwaba (2007) point out that during the apartheid rule, the practice of the CRA was simply illicit as a result of the apartheid government’s internationally denounced racial ideology. According to Gerrand and Motlalepule (2013), racial prejudice and segregation still play an influential role within the practice of CRA owing to diverse incongruities in societal perceptions of the practice.

At present, although there seems to be a dearth of research relating to the practice of CRA in South Africa, Johnson et al. (2013) and Snyder (2012) noted, most of the research that was conducted focused, to a very large extent, on the adoptees and the adoptive parents in general. Contrary, little research has focused on gaining an in-depth understanding of the perceptions of CRA within the context of postapartheid South Africa. In this study, which was conducted in East London, the researchers sought to compensate for the lack of research in this area which exists at present. The practice of the CRA has, for a long time, been viewed within the child welfare system as a contentious issue and one which is capable of causing much resentment and misunderstanding among the very adoption workers who should be assuming a key role in the provision of care and protection to vulnerable children. Consequently, this study had sought to explore the diverse incongruities of societal perceptions of the CRA that eminent from the quagmire of racial issues in South Africa, with particular reference to the case of East London.

A blend of Critical Race theory (CRT) by Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, and Richard Delgado (1970) as cited in Dixson and Rousseau (2006) and Delgado and Stefancic (2001) together with the Crisis theory (CT) by Caplan and Felix (1964) has given rise to the racial perspective that provides the theoretical background for this study. The theory is relevant to this study owing to the fact that the practice of CRA in South Africa is believed to be mired in unresolved racial issues and prejudices emanating from the apartheid era. The CRT addresses the societal perceptions engendered by institutionalized racism that have become ingrained in the fabric of South African which is also affecting the practice of the CRA. The CRT is great significance to this study, as it calls for a change and reform in the attitudes of all people regarding racial issues and a will to achieve color blindness in South African society. In addition, the CT explains dynamics such as the crisis faced by childcare professionals in terms of racial fixations, their reactions, and dilemmas concerning their roles within the practice of the CRA (Caplan & Felix, 1964). The theory also locates the practice of CRA within the wider perspective of society’s mind-set, which facilitates the analysis of the perceptions of adoption social workers, adoptive parents and community members as well as the social quandary which they face regarding the practice of the CRA (Caplan & Felix, 1964).

Although the practice of CRA became legal in 1991 in an effort toward the fostering of a color-blind approach to child custody, the practice is still a perturbing issue across South Africa. There is also a great deal of empirical evidence to suggest that in South Africa, both intentional and unintentional racial integration, alongside with racial segregation, has often influenced and frequently contributed to varying views and perceptions held by social workers, adoptive parents, and community members (Gerrand & Nathan e-Taulela, 2013; Katz & Doyle, 2013; Mokomane & Rochat, 2010). In addition, most culturally conservative Black people tend to maintain that the practice is a form of cultural genocide, an indirect means employed by White people to emasculate the Black community and its culture and traditions, which is not in accordance with the best interests of the child (Butler-Sweet, 2011; Ferreira, 2009; Hall, 2010; Hollingsworth, 1999). Conversely, most White people maintain that the practice of CRA is the most viable alternative form of child custody for the “children in need of care and protection” since “every child has the right to parental care” and deserves a permanent home (The children’s Act 38 of 2005). Nevertheless, the remarkable persistence of such arguments surrounding the practice of CRA suggests that there are some core issues pertaining to this practice, which cannot simply be discarded into the dustbin of academic history (Butler-Sweet, 2011; Snyder, 2012). As such, this study sought to have an understanding of such veritable quagmire of conflicting cultural and ideological perceptions by means of in-depth research conducted in East London in the Buffalo City municipal area.

The aim of this research was first to provide a detailed exploration of the perceptions of social workers, adoptive parents, and community members with regard to the practice of the CRA. The second purpose was to make recommendations on the basis of the findings for a comprehensive program of intervention to address the impediments of the success of the practice of the CRA.

Method

A qualitative research design that was contextual, explorative, and descriptive in nature was used in the study (Babbie, 2007; Hair, Bush, & Ortinau, 2000). Hair, Bush, and Ortinau (2000, p. 216) add that “qualitative research is used in exploratory designs to gain preliminary insights into problems and opportunities concerning decisions to be made regarding the research.” Data were collected from the participants using individual interviews, one focus group interview with 10 participants from all the three different categories of participants. The use of more than one method and source of data collection contributed to the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings of the study. It also allowed for a dense exploration of the phenomenon studied. The central questions asked from all the participants were “What are your perceptions with regard to the practice of CRA as an alternative means of child care and protection in South Africa?”

The study made use of a sample consisting of only 20 participants, and the choice of the sample size was based mainly on the need for the accuracy required by the researchers and the required variation in the sample (Babbie, 2007; Creswell, 2009). The population in this study consisted of social workers, adoptive parents, and community members living in East London. The sample was purposively selected from the target population with subjects chosen according to specific criteria (Babbie, 2007). Parahoo (1997, p. 232) describes purposive sampling as “a method of sampling, where the researcher deliberately chooses who to include in the study based on their ability to provide necessary data.” The following criteria were used to select all the participants: race, gender, and experience with CRA, voluntary participation as well as informed consent for audio-taped interviews. Sampling of the participants was done as follows: (a) The researchers sought the assistance of the adoption social workers from all the adoption agencies in East London to identify potential participants. (b) Possible participants were then selected after the researchers preselected participants according to their experience with CRA. (c) The research project was then explained to the prospective participants who were on the shortlist and consent was sought from them to take part in the research. (d) The researchers then selected the prospective participants for a focus group discussion. Each interview was transcribed verbatim and the transcripts read and analyzed to gain a holistic picture of the perceptions of the participants. The researchers highlighted thoughts, words, phrases, and actual quotes that reflected possible themes. The researchers then identified the major categories into which units of meaning related to them were underlined and placed. Subcategories within the major categories were then identified. Relationships between major and subcategories were identified and reflected as themes. Also, the participants were coded as S1–S6 for the social workers, M1–M2 for adoption managers, P1–P7 for the adoptive parents, and C1–C7 for the community members.

In an attempt to answer the research questions of this study, a pragmatic approach was adopted for the analysis of data, which made use of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) Content Thematic Discourse Analysis in which important themes or clusters of coherent meanings from a set of data which was related back to the research questions was captured. Finally, the results were prioritized according to the number of participants who had experienced the same aspect. The researchers then analyzed the data and checked if they had managed to reach consensus on the findings. Lincoln and Guba’s (1985, pp. 290–300) model was used to ensure reliability and validity of the study, while several ethical measures were adhered to. These included the informed consent of the participants so as to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. The participants were informed that involvement in the research was on a voluntary basis, and they had the freedom to withdraw without any penalty (Silverman, 2010). A plan was drawn up to provide them with regular feedback on the study.

Results

The 20 participants who were interviewed were made up of 7 males and 13 females. Their ages ranged from 27 to 55 years. Six of the participants were Black South Africans, three colored, one Indian, and 10 Whites. During the apartheid regime in South Africa that ended in 1994, people were classified according races and one of the groups called colored are people whose parents or foreparents are a mixture of two races (Black and White or Indian and White). Three of the participants were cross-racial adoptees, while seven were adoptive parents. The rest were social workers and community members. The experience in CRA of participants ranged from 3 to 24 years. The perceptions of social workers, adoptive parents, and community members with regard to the practice of CRA in East included cultural genocide, enhancing the well-being of the child, a perfidious act against the best interests of the child, distorting racial identity, breaking the barriers of racial segregation, enhancing a more color-blind South Africa, the necessity for acculturation, enhancement of racial consciousness, and distorting the notion of role modeling. These themes are dealt with in the proceeding paragraphs.

Theme 1: Cultural Genocide

The study found that three Black social workers and all of the Black community members interviewed perceived the practice of CRA as a social taboo that needs to be abolished at all costs. According to these participants, the practice of CRA leads to loss of cultural ties, resulting in cultural genocide. In this vein, one of the community members said:

Children adopted across racial lines face a dilemma on whether to follow their own culture, for instance, or to adopt the new cultural values which they become exposed to since these two different cultures are, unfortunately, incompatible. Hence it leads to a struggle on the part of the child in order to strike a balance between them. (C3)

Nonetheless, the study found out that there were mixed feelings regarding the practice of the CRA. All of the White participants interviewed were not much concerned about the issue of culture within the ambit of providing care and protection to the child but tended to be more concerned with attaining a more color-blind society. Moreover, these participants were concerned only with making sure that those children who were in need of care and protection got permanent homes and were able to live in a family environment. One of the participants said:

Is culture on its own contributing to the care and protection of children … isn’t having a child losing his culture worth it to him than actually having … you know, like cross-racial adoptive parents who care for them. Ummmm, I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong … what do these children benefiting from culture if they are denied access to family environments and yet they become street kids? … and we parents with homes keep on arguing about the cross-racial adoption in the name of preserving culture Yah, that’s what I just think. (M2)

Two of the other participants expressed their feelings as follows:

I don’t think people must penalise the practice of cross-racial adoption because of this so-called culture. If a parent of a different race adopts a child that’s older, obviously he or she comes with his or her culture, which is not even more important here than the well being of that child and I do not think, culturally, the practice of the CRA has got much impact on the child. (C4)

This practice represents White people’s supposed goodness in rescuing the vulnerable and needy orphans …… Ok fine … For instance, I’m living with him, but it doesn’t mean I should take away his choices you know. He has a right, like every child, to choose which culture, he wants to follow and I wouldn’t take that away from him. (S5)

Theme 2: Enhancing the Well-being of the Child

It was significant that five of the participants interviewed, two Black social workers and three Black community members, perceived the practice of CRA to be inadvisable and not in the best interests of the child, despite the fact that the practice is formally encouraged by policy enshrined in the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which provides the legal basis for the practice. However, 15 of the participants seemed to have different perceptions from those of the 5 whose views are articulated earlier. These participants maintained that the adoption of children across racial lines is a necessity if the well-being of the child is to be considered an important criterion. The sentiment of one of these participants is as follows: “Although the practice of CRA can be treated with much antagonism and as an undesirable form of child custody, in some instances, it is necessary for the wellbeing of a child” (S3).

Theme 3: A Perfidious Act Against the Best Interests of the Child

As has already been noted, five Black participants, two Black social workers and three black community members, maintained that the practice of CRA is a very problematic practice which is not in the best interests of the child and that the adopted child can be seriously disadvantaged as a result of it. The study found that, for these five Black participants the practice of CRA needs to be avoided at all costs, even if its avoidance results in the children having to remain in institutional care until a “perfect” racial match can be found. All of the White participants interviewed disagreed with this perception. The study found that all of these participants were of the opinion that allowing a child to have a family, regardless of racial boundaries, seemed to favor the child’s best interests as opposed to making the child wait in an orphanage home because a family of his or her own race is not available. One of these participants said:

No child should be denied the opportunity to grow up in a family environment, purely because of cultural differences … Denying the child the opportunity to have a family is contrary to the best interests of the child than what people perceive to be the case with the practice of the CRA. (S3)

Although the findings of the study indicate that a great many Black people may perceive the practice of CRA to be bad and not only not in the best interests of the cross-racial adopted child but also not in the best interests of society as a whole, one Black participant, together with all the White, Indian, and Colored participants interviewed, supported the practice. The study found that 15 of the 20 participants interviewed had perceptions beyond the rigid codes and taboos of traditional society, espousing a more color-blind society in which custody of needy children needs to be the responsibility of everyone, regardless of skin color, race, or ethnicity.

Theme 4: Racial Identity

Another important finding of this research pertains to the issue of the racial identity of children adopted across racial lines. The study found that five of the participants interviewed, three social workers and two community members, alluded to the view that the practice of CRA subjected children to the norms and ways of a different race, which often caused them to lose their sense of identity. These participants held the opinion that a child would find it difficult to integrate the challenging demands of two dissimilar cultures that he or she would be expected to undertake. One of these participants expressed his view in the manner which is recorded subsequently:

Some of the children adopted across racial lines get confused … Their lives are caught between two different worlds and to linger on a dilemma of the culture they belong to, hence leading to the loss of their identity. (C2)

Nonetheless, the study findings established that, despite the incongruities in the perceptions of the practice of the CRA which were noted among the 20 participants interviewed, 15 of them were found to have a positive view of the practice of the CRA. These 15 participants perceived the practice of CRA to be a panacea for most children in need of care and protection, particularly in terms of socioeconomic benefits, as opposed to their being impoverished as street urchins. One participant said:

Yeah, personally I believe that the issue of identity being threatened is not of much significant value given a situation that most of the children would have been rescued from further abuse and street begging and absorbed into a proper family…. What matters is the safety and well-being of the child and not this identity. (S1)

Although this finding focuses on promoting the idea that having parents is more expedient than placing much value on the Black identity of any particular child, there is a possible ideological assumption to be detected. This response reflects a dismissal of the importance of one’s identity in society in general, which correlates with Collier’s (2005) observation that Black social norms were constructed negatively by Whites. A comment of this sort, made by well-meaning Whites, could be perceived as being inherently patronizing and chauvinistic, placing little value on Black culture as being important to Black people or as constituting a distinct culture in South Africa. Alternatively, this view could be seen as expressing a progressive school of thought, placing the needs of children above the petty racial debates of adults.

Theme 5: Racial Segregation

The findings of the study revealed that 10 of the participants interviewed, 1 social worker, 1 adoption manager, 7 adoptive parents, and 1 community member, perceived the practice of the CRA to symbolize a cure for what is termed “racial segregation.” One of these participants expressed her feelings in the manner recorded in the paragraph subsequently:

The truth is that the mind-set of segregating people, according to race must change, or we are in trouble in this country. One’s race should not be a hindrance when one decides to adopt since what matters is the child’s life and safety. (C3)

Theme 6: Acculturation

It is worth mentioning that this perception aroused a great deal of emotion during the focus group discussions. Eleven of the 20 participants interviewed, 1 social worker, 2 managers, 7 adoptive parents, and 1 community member, agreed that the practice of CRA could only enhance the prospects of the emergence of a color-blind South Africa with racial integration because these adoptions signify an amalgamation of diverse races. One of these participants expressed her opinion as follows: “The practice of CRA is an opportunity to embrace the South African cultures and celebrate diversity and this has to spill over to all who see it” (S1).

Nonetheless, the remaining 9 participants seem to have an antagonistic perception regarding the practice of the CRA, and their views diverged greatly from those expressed by the other 11 participants. These nine participants were of the opinion that a child adopting more than one culture would lead to behavioral problems for that child. One participant said:

Before this practice, children use to behave well, but now look at what is happening …. Most children are at the verge of crossing parental rules every day … Children are imitating wrong things. Personally I don’t approve this so-called acculturation brought by this practice. To me this is totally wrong. (C2)

Theme 7: Racial Consciousness

The issue of racial consciousness provoked a tense debate during the focus group discussions when the participants were asked to give their perceptions of the practice of the CRA. Three Black participants, one social worker and two community members, voiced the opinion that most children who are adopted at a tender age may be of a particular race externally, which is often identified in terms of their skin color, yet their internal conscious experiences are not those of that particular race. On the other hand, all of the White adoptive parents interviewed disagreed strongly with this idea, praising the practice of CRA as a way of promoting a race-free or color-blind society as opposed to the so-called racial consciousness which characterized South Africa’s sad and traumatic past. This group of participants felt that rescuing children from their desperate situations was of far greater importance than racial identity. Seventeen of the participants interviewed, seven adoptive parents, five social workers, two managers, and three community members, recognized the fact that, as a result of the practice of the CRA, many children in East London had benefited a great deal in terms of financial and social support, regardless of the so-called threat to racial consciousness, which includes one’s way of dressing, religious orientation, language, physical characteristics, history, culture, and traditions.

Theme 8: Role Modeling

In this section, two community members voiced the opinion that most of the cross-racially adopted children’s ideation concerning role models seemed to be influenced by the practice of the CRA. These participants argued that most children adopted across racial boundaries become confused as a result of having caregivers of different races and may end up lacking a proper definition of right and wrong. However, three of the interviewed participants, two social workers and one manager, disagreed with this perception. These three participants maintained that children adopted across racial lines seem to appreciate and to want to emulate their adoptive parents and, in many cases, show these feelings toward their adoptive parents even more strongly than they do toward their own biological parents. One of the participants said:

And when I was consoling her, I remember her saying that she just sees her cross-racial adoptive mom as a role model and as her own mother and whatever the adoptive mom says she takes it as coming from her own biological mom. She went on to say that her adoptive parent’s character is better than that of her own biological mom. (S3)

This section has tried to explain some of the perceptions of the CRA which emerged from the field work which was conducted by the researcher in East London. The findings revealed varied perceptions among the participants from the racial groups who were interviewed. The discrepancies noted in the findings can be attributed, to a large extent, to differences in the degree of exposure to the implications of the racially fixated rule of the apartheid regime among the members of the various racial groups. The following section will focus on the challenges facing social workers, cross-racial adoptive parents, and agencies in the practice of CRA.

Discussion and Implications for Practice

This study examined the perceptions of social workers, managers, adoptive parents, and community members in East London regarding the practice of the CRA and determined that there were varying perceptions among the participants from the various racial groups interviewed, with most Black social workers and Black community members perceiving the practice of CRA as a social taboo that needs to be abolished at all costs. However, of interest here are the ways in which both Black and White people appear to contest or to ignore various arguments pertaining to the practice of the CRA and to position themselves as individuals, as representatives of particular races, and as members of other social groups in the current postapartheid milieu (Roby & Shaw, 2006). Women were found to disapprove of the practice more than men did, and participants who had experienced cross-racial custody were found to be more willing to adopt cross racially themselves. The vast majority of those who opposed the practice of CRA perceived it as a weapon which is being used to destroy the African cultural ties of Black people, considering it to be a form of cultural genocide. This finding found support from Blackie cited in the Eastern Cape Today Newspaper (March 6, 2015, p. 3) that “for many South Africans, the CRA is not viewed as culturally relevant in the African context.” It is believed by these people that children adopted across racial lines will face a dilemma regarding whether to follow their own culture or to adopt the new cultural values to which they have become exposed. Johnson et al. (2013, p. 12) support this view by stating that “ … one’s birth culture is an integral part in forming a healthy cultural identity.” This argument goes in the same line with a statement by the president of the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW), Merrit, who stated that “Black children should be placed only with black families, whether in foster care or for adoption” (Doubell, 2014, p. 60).

However, as this perception was found to be predominant among Black participants, it seemed feasible that it could be the result of the Black participants having a far greater exposure and adherence to Black culture compared to the White participants. The findings of the study seemed to suggest that the lack of a proper framework for cultural involvement could support the assertion of Dubinsky (2007) who maintains that cross-racial child custody always becomes a theoretical weapon for enhancing the social–political positioning of Whites. By contrast, not only did all the White participants express a disbelief that Black children adopted across racial lines would lose their culture, but most of them also believed that the practice of CRA helps to promote racial harmony and cultural tolerance, as South Africa is a melting pot of many different cultures. Moreover, it was also maintained that it is good for a Black child to have a family, even when that means being raised by White parents in a “White” culture, rather than that child having no family at all, simply because of the belief of some people that the child needs to be raised in his or her “Black” culture. Ferreira (2009, p. 220) noted that, “ … the need to be part of a family is greater than the need to preserve an (often unknown) biological or inborn culture.” Also, Callahan (2011, p. 1) argued that “CRA is a means of providing children with what they need and deserve above all else: a loving family of their own.” To date, it seems that little or no research has been done concerning the efforts of those people, who vociferously condemn CRA for reasons of race or culture, to provide care and protection to these children whom they feel need to be raised in a “Black” culture. These findings support discourses in the literature pertaining to the CRA, which suggest that the benefits of family outweigh those of “same-race” acculturation when the two cannot coincide (Roby & Shaw, 2006).

It is also significant to note that the study found that many of the participants perceived the practice of the CRA not to be in the best interests of the child, although the practice is formally encouraged by policy enshrined in the Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005, which provides the basis for this practice (Snyder, 2012). This view seems to have been borrowed from the perception, promoted in particular by the NABSW (1972) in the United States, which argues that White parents are incapable of socializing Black children. It should be mentioned that a number of the Black participants were of the opinion that although the practice of the CRA is regarded as rescuing homeless children and providing them with a family environment, it is nevertheless detrimental to these children. These support the assertion of the CRT that race is a social construction which permeates all aspects of life and which is difficult to eradicate (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, as cited in Ortiz & Jani, 2010).

It was also established that most of the disapproval of the practice of CRA voiced by most of the Black participants was based on the premise that CRA threatens the racial identity of the adopted children. This is in line with the view of Hollingsworth (1999) who argued that a child finds it difficult to integrate the challenging demands of the two dissimilar cultures which he or she is expected to undertake. This statement highlights a personal perception of the view of the vast Black population regarding the difference between themselves and people from other races. Accordingly, the difference is perceived not only in terms of outward physical differences, but it is transformed to act as a mechanism to determine the differences between the people whom one values and who belong to one’s group and those who are less valued and regarded as being outside the margins of the group.

Although a great deal of opposition to the practice of the CRA was expressed, there were positive comments made by other participants who perceive the practice as a panacea for most children who are in need of care and protection, particularly in terms of socioeconomic benefits, without which they might otherwise have been condemned to the lot of impoverished street urchins. These challenges question the supremacy of race as a determinant of identity and suggest that ethno-racial identity is not a unitary fixed ending point. Frasch and Brooks (2003, p. 4) noted that “ … One should not assume that a strong Black-focused identity is the desired goal or most positive outcome, or that Black identity is a single trait.”

A general trend within the practice of the CRA is to submit that White parents can help their Black children achieve a positive and healthy Black identity. Much of the evidence of the findings concurs with Roby and Shaw (2006) who maintain that the practice of the CRA is a viable means of providing homes for orphaned and vulnerable children. Although this finding focuses on promoting the idea that having parents is more important to a child than having to place a great deal of value on the Black identity of that child, there is a possible ideological component to be detected, namely, the dismissal of the importance of one’s identity in society in general. This correlates with the observation by Collier (2005) who vied the Black social norms as having created negatively by Whites. This might suggest that Black culture is of little significance to most Whites, but it may also be indicative of a wish to transcend the old boundaries of traditional societies and their beliefs, in order to attain a modern, racially harmonious society. Very significant for the findings was the fact that all the participants who had been cross-racial adoptees supported the practice of the CRA and refused to accord any importance to issues pertaining to racial segregation when discussing the care of children who are in need of care and protection. This accords with the CRT as a paradigm shift toward the enhancement of diversity in child care and the creation of a color-blind society in which race is of no significance in decisions pertaining to human life (Ortiz & Jani, 2010). If the notion of a color-blind society can be embraced by all the people of the postapartheid South Africa, the practice of the CRA will be a panacea for social workers, managers, adoptive parents, and the community at large. This hope was shared by all of the White cross-racial adoptive parents interviewed who were not concerned with issues of race and preferred to regard themselves as being race free and color blind.

The finding that the practice of the CRA is most prevalent among Whites and is supported by the assertion of Moos and Mwaba (2007) that there is a scarcity of Black adoptive parents who are willing to offer custody for vulnerable children, which was noted in Chapter 1 of the Constitution and maintained by most of the social workers interviewed. Moreover, the research study found that most cross-racial adoptive parents are in support of the notion of a color-blind South African society, which means that cross-racial adoptive parents have broken the barrier that prevents most people from giving love and protection to vulnerable and homeless children of other races. The findings of the study make it abundantly clear that there are people who view the practice of CRA as a remedy to the racial segregation which has scarred and scourged South Africa’s past. This finding showed that the narrower mind-set, which causes people to support racial segregation, can be changed, which is made evident by the fact that within the practice of the CRA, many White South African couples have recognized the need to look after vulnerable children, regardless of race.

This in turn demonstrates that although some people are extremely antagonistic toward the practice of the CRA, there are some who are of the opinion that the whole point of adopting a child is to take him or her out of a bad situation and put him or her into a caring and loving home, where he or she can enjoy safety and protection. Whatever may motivate them, the feelings of this sort contribute more positively toward the welfare of children than those expressed by those who oppose the practice of the CRA, as they are in line with both international and national legislative frameworks such as the UNCRC (1989) and the Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005 and Children’s Amendment Act No. 41 of 2007, which stipulate the right of every child to parental care and protection. Accordingly, it is of utmost importance to insist that one’s race should not be a hindrance when one decides to adopt, as the first priority is, and always must be, the best interests of the child.

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the practice of CRA can play a vital role in the evolution of a color-blind South Africa and in racial integration because it is a practice which, by definition, involves an amalgamation of diverse races (Hansen & Pollack, 2007). This is perfectly in accord with the CRT, which seeks to eliminate all forms of racial segregation from the fabric of the society (Derrick Bell & Allan Freeman, 1970, as cited in Delgado & Stefanic, 2001). In addition, the practice of CRA provides opportunities for children to learn about different cultures, which will stand them in good stead to cope in a world which is becoming increasingly globalized. It was found that the practice of CRA offers an opportunity to embrace all of the South African cultures and to celebrate diversity, which must inevitably affect anyone becoming exposed to this phenomenon (Snyder, 2012). The practice of CRA has also been praised for rescuing homeless children, and it is incontestable that many children in East London have benefited a great deal from it in terms of financial and social support, regardless of the so-called threat to their racial consciousness. These perceptual differences may be ascribed to differences in exposure to the impact of the apartheid rule among the members of the various racial groups in terms of the wider South African context. As noted by Gerrand and Nathane-Taulela (2013, p. 5), “… racial categorization is still common in adoptive practices.” This article has explored on the perceptions of social workers, adoptive parents, and community members with regard to the practice of the CRA. Not only has this article identified these perceptions, but a social quandary was noted among the participants with more Black participants having been more antagonistic toward CRA as opposed to the White participants.

In the light of the findings of the study, their analysis and conclusions, and the perspective provided by the literature review, the following recommendations are made.

First, stringent macro policies addressing racial attitudes in society, such as those directed by the moral regeneration initiatives of the government, should be the basis of improving racial relations that have a great bearing on the perceptions pertaining to and the assumption of the responsibility of caregiving. Second, it is significant to note that education in general, and specifically in terms of the adoption of children across racial lines, has a vital role to play in helping South African society to overcome its racial problems. Third, the practice of CRA needs to be promoted through awareness campaigns in which awareness of the need for color-blind care and protection of children needs to be fostered. Awareness of this sort will enlighten many people concerning the practice of the CRA and ultimately reduce racial bias. Also, there is a need for social workers and child welfare professionals to play their pivotal role in facilitating CRA and racial integration within child custody at the same time being able to deal with all the controversies surrounding the practice of CRA in a professional manner. Furthermore, all stakeholders, including social workers, the Department of Social Development, and policy makers, should work together and address/mitigate the challenges surrounding CRA. Finally, there is also a need by all adoption social workers and policy makers to implement a program of intervention to address impediments of the success of the practice of the CRA.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Babbie

E. R.

(2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Butler-Sweet

(2011). A healthy black identity: Transracial adoption, middle-class families, and racial Socialization. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42, 193–212.

Callahan

N. M.

(2011). Race and identity in cross-racial adoption: Suggestions for adoptive parents. Washington, DC: National Council for Adoption.

Caplan

Felix

R. H.

(1964). Principles of preventative psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Children’s Act 38 of 2005. (RSA). Retrieved from http://www.westerncape.gov.za/text/2015/12/childrens.act.final_regulations26jan_2015.pdf

Collier

(2005, 5 23–24). Post-conflict economic recovery. Paper presented on ‘Development and Security’ at the 7th Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics (ABCDE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press.

10.

Dixson

Rousseau

C. K.

(2006). Critical race theory in education: All God’s children got a song. New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Doubell

L. S.

(2014). Views of social workers on trans-racial adoptions of abandoned children (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch. Retrieved from http://scholar.sun.ac.za

12.

Dubinsky

(2007). Babies without borders: Rescue, kidnap, and the symbolic child. Journal of Women’s History, 19, 142–152.

13.

Ferreira

(2009). Interracial and intercultural adoption, A South African legal perspective (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria.

14.

Frasch

K. M.

Brooks

(2003). Normative development in transracial adoptive families: An integration of the literature and implications for the construction of a theoretical framework. Families in Society, 84, 201–212.

15.

Freeman

Nkomo

(2006). Guardianship of orphans and vulnerable children: A survey of current and prospective South African caregivers. AIDS Care: Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV, 18, 302–310.

16.

Gerrand

P. A.

Nathane-Taulela

(2013). Developing a culturally relevant adoption model in South Africa: The way forward. International Social Work, 58, 55–62. doi:10.1177/0020872812461043

17.

Hair

J. F.

Bush

R. P.

Ortinau

D. J.

(2000). Marketing research: A practical approach for the new millennium. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

18.

Hall

V. A.

(2010). Perceptions of cross-racial adoption in South Africa (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/WQR/interviewing.pdf

19.

Hansen

Pollack

(2007). Trans-racial adoption of Black children: An economic analysis. Washington, DC: American University.

20.

Harber

(1999). Transforming adoption in the ‘New’ South Africa in response to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic. Adoption & Fostering, 23, 6–15. doi:10.1177/03085759990 2300103

21.

Hollingsworth

L. D.

(1999). Symbolic interactionism: African American families and the transracial adoption controversy. Social Work, 44, 443–453. doi:10.1093/sw/44.5.443

22.

Johnson

F. L.

Mickelson

Davila

M. L.

(2013). Transracial foster care and adoption: Issues and realities. New England Journal of Public Policy, 25, 9–22. Retrieved from http://scholarsworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol25/iss1/5

23.

Katz

Doyle

E. K.

(2013). Black and White thinking? Understanding negative responses to transracial adoptive families. Adoption Quarterly, 16, 62–80. doi:10.1080/10926755.2012.754812

24.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

25.

Mokomane

Rochatt

T. J.

(2010). Study report on the perceptions, understandings and beliefs of people regarding adoption and blockages that prevent communities from adopting dhildren in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council.

26.

Moos

Mwaba

(2007). Beliefs and attitudes about transracial adoption among a sample of South African students. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35, 1115–1119.

27.

National Association of Black Social Workers. (1972). Preserving African American families-research and action beyond the rhetoric. Washington, DC: Author.

28.

Ortiz

Jani

(2010). Critical race theory: A transformational model for teaching diversity. Journal of Social Work Education, 46, 175–193.

29.

Parahoo

(1997). Nursing research: Principles, process and issues. Houndmills, England: Macmillan.

30.

Randall

(2012). Interracial intimacies: Sex, marriage, identity, and adoption. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday.

31.

Roby

J. L.

Shaw

S. A.

(2006). The African orphan crisis and international adoption. Social Work, 51, 199–210.

32.

Silverman

(2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.

33.

Snyder

C. R.

(2012). Building kinship and community: Relational process of bicultural identity among adult multiracial adoptees. Family Process, 49, 26–42.

34.

Wainwright

Ridley

(2012). Matching, ethnicity and identity: Reflections on the practice and realities of ethnic matching in adoption. Adoption and Fostering, 36, 50–61.