Debate and Persuasive Speech Topics for High School and College

Are we over-promoting adoption rather than helping kids stay with relatives?

Adoption is a feel-good solution to the problem of all those kids in foster care (and promoting adoption gets politicians elected) - but are we over-promoting adoption? Are there other solutions that are better?

US Adoption Law Tears Family Apart - Shocking but true story!

From the Franklin First News: New Jersey DYFS Takes Father's Child At Birth In Hospital. by Jessica DelBalzo, free-lance writer and researcher

How Poverty Separates Parents and Children: A Challenge to Human Rights a study by ATD Fourth World - with forewards by United Nations and UNICEF, includes a description of how United States child protection system (CPS) separates family members. Discusses 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and it's contribution to the "unfair dissolution of many families"...States that "A child in the United States blames her parents for not protecting her from the child protection system."

Reject sweeping generalizations and look for what is appropriate for individual cases. For a time, the government took children from Native American families thinking the children would be better off. Who should decide whether children will be "better off" in a boarding school or foster care or adopted rather than with their parents? Consider what might happen if, for example, the government decided that children are ALWAYS better off raised by people whose income was over $40,000/year. Or that a child was always better off raised by two married people - could it happen that they remove every baby born to single parents and adopt these children out? Who should decide what's best for kids - the mother and father or the government? Some politicians and officials say they need to have more funding so they can put more kids into foster care - if not then the kids will turn to crime. On what basis do they make these statements, if any? They say they want to provide "safe and stable homes".

Try incorporating this reasoning into your persuasive speech or debate on child protection:

If a social worker happened by when Jesus was born, she might have decided that the teenage Mary was too young to raise her baby, that she was cohabitating with Joseph, that the conditions in the stable were unsanitary. She might say that Mary and Joseph exhibited poor judgement and lack of planning and that's why they didn't get there in time to get a hotel room. There was no food in the refrigerator, not enough diapers and Mary did not know how to nurse her baby already. Mary and Joseph might be reported as "drifters".

If Mary and Joseph could not afford a good lawyer, the baby Jesus might be whisked away to "save" him from this neglect and an unstable, unsafe situation. People might say Mary made "poor choices" in getting pregnant in the first place and they might rationalize that she would probably have more children later.

At what point are citizens individual rights being violated by child protective services? Sometimes when parents just need a little help, it's more compassionate to help, than to criticize.

The1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act terminates parental rights after a specified period of time - even for a non-abusing parent who has never been proven to be unfit. Some professionals in the child protection system (CPS) say they give relatives ample time to "come forward" but should these professionals do more to assist the relatives in getting custody or adopting rather than just wait to see whether the relatives will be able to navigate the "system" well enough to get their child back?

Many entities profit when a child is placed into foster care (psychologists, lawyers, social workers and more). Because of funding, there is an incentive for CPS to "place" kids with foster care providers - rather than relatives who are not foster care providers - while they decide whether a parent is fit. Many foster care providers today are what's called "fost-adopts" - "fost-adopts" are people whose goal is to get a child.

Ordinary citizens may not realize there are time limitations and they may not know that there are bonuses to get children adopted. When the professionals they trust tell them they cannot file for custody while a case is being heard in Juvenile court, how many parents, grandparents and other relatives will figure out that they must ask for concurrent jurisdiction to file for custody, adoption or other things in District Court while the case is being heard in Juvenile court? Parents and other relatives do not know how to navigate the system and all it’s pitfalls. And they must navigate the pitfalls while in a state of shock, with no idea where to obtain real help and worried their children will be lost to them forever.

There are federal incentives to get kids into foster care and then incentives to get them adopted. Does it make sense to have incentives for one child "placement" over another? When there are quotas of the number of supposedly "abused" kids that need to be met in order to obtain federal funding, does the definition of "abuse" start encompassing things that are not really serious enough to warrant removing a child from his family and everyone he knows? (A parent might be accused of providing an "unstable" environment if they live with their kids in their camper during the summer while they re-model the house. Having no electricity may be considered "denying critical care".) Officials claim all the kids are in foster care because of drug use, but a federal report showed only 7% of cases were for drug use or manufacturing drugs in the home. The statistics make it sound like it is only natural parents who are the abusers. It might be revealing to break the statistics down to show what percentage of the abusers are natural parents, foster care providers, state employees, adopters and others. Americans deserve to know the truth about how their tax dollars are being spent and more detailed statistics will help with decision-making.

If children were raised by their own family the state would not have to scramble to find solutions when the adoption subsidy money runs out. This adoption subsidy is provided to adopters monthly, right up until the child turns 18. The subsidy is for adopters of "special needs" children - but "special needs" is a designation that can be applied to any child - just give her ritalin and she is "special needs".

If children were raised in their natural family, by a non-abusing relative, we’d have fewer children feeling they were unwanted by their own family.

Many families in the United States - sometimes adoptive as well as natural - have been needlessly torn apart. Parents - especially those who are less affluent and unable to fight back effectively - are guilty until proven innocent. Read the following:

Using Language to Demote and Destroy the Family

Freedom Of Speech - Should Adoption and Foster Care be Excluded?

False reports of child abuse and neglet are a big problem as well. Hotline callers are not required to identify themselves and there is no penalty for knowingly making a false report. False accusations of abuse and the way these accusations are handled are a real problem for the adults and a tragedy for the children they care for. Real abuse is of course a tragedy as well and it would help if officials had more time to attend to real abuse cases. American Family Rights Association is one group that has proposed some changes to the Child Abuse Reporting that they think will help reduce the false reporting. (Below)

Proposed by American Family Rights Association (AFRA):

Reforming the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act CAPTA (PL 108-36), which was signed into law on June 25, 2003

1. Anonymous Tips: As a condition of receiving federal funds, CAPTA should be amended to mandate states to require all reporters of child abuse to give their names, addresses and phone numbers.

2. False Reporting: As a condition of receiving federal funds, CAPTA should be amended to mandate that states make it at least a class C misdemeanor to knowingly make a false report.

3. Specific Declaration of the 4th Amendment Probable Cause Standard: Social workers must be held accountable to the same 4th Amendment standards as the police and other law enforcement authorities. As a condition of receiving federal funds, states should be mandated to declare in their state code that a warrant, supported by probable cause, must be obtained before a social worker can enter the home without consent of the parents.

4. Requirement that Individuals Have the Right to Know Allegations and Certain Rights: Individuals subject to investigation for child abuse allegations should have the right to know the allegations and be informed of their 4th Amendment rights.

5. Specific Recognition that Reasonable Corporal Discipline by Parents is Not Child Abuse: As a condition of federal funds, states should be required to recognize reasonable corporal punishment as not abuse. Many parents are routinely investigated for engaging in traditional discipline for children.

Next: Open Adoption - The Truth About Open Adoption