Forward Focus Therapy, LLC

Adoption: Power, Policy, and Lived Experience

Adoption creates family. It also creates loss, rejection, guilt and shame, grief, identity, intimacy, and control.

Adoptees may be at higher risk for difficulty when adoption erases the past, or grief and loss are minimized. Risk also increases when records or identity information are restricted, when transracial or cultural needs are unsupported, when adoptive parents are unprepared for trauma and attachment needs, or when support ends after finalization.

Openness, honest communication, access to information, and continued connection when safe are repeatedly identified as important protective factors.

In Pennsylvania, once an adoption is finalized:

If there is no formal agreement, adoptive parents have full legal authority. They can decide whether any contact happens at all—including visits, calls, or updates.

This is why “open adoption” is not guaranteed, and why connection can ultimately depend on adoptive parent decisions—not the child.

Adoption is also a system shaped by power and policy. In private infant adoption, significant financial costs exist, expectant parents may face pressure—especially when resources are limited—and there are real power imbalances in decision-making. These concerns have been raised in research and policy analysis. (National Academies; Child Welfare Information Gateway; Smolin; Briggs)

Some adoptees are not asking for better messaging—they are questioning the structure itself. They ask why belonging requires legal erasure, why connection is optional, and why records are still restricted. Some want reform. Some want alternatives like guardianship. Some want adoption rethought entirely.

Adoption can be the best available option in some situations. And it can still carry loss, power, and lifelong impact. Both can be true.

Sources:Child Welfare Information GatewayNational Academies of Sciences (Parenting Matters, 2016)Donaldson Adoption Institute (Openness in Adoption, 2012)American Academy of Pediatrics (2012)Smolin (2006)Briggs (Somebody’s Children)Vandivere, Malm & Radel (2009)Miller et al. (2000)

Not All “Placements” Are the Same: How Pennsylvania Decides Where Children Belong

When a child can’t safely remain with their parents, the decision about where and how they are raised isn’t just legal—it shapes their:

sense of stability
identity and family connection
attachment and belonging
long-term emotional outcomes

In Pennsylvania, there are several different paths a child may be placed in. They can look similar on the surface—but they function very differently.

Foster Care (Dependency System / CYS)The child is placed in care through the state due to safety concerns.
The state has legal custody
Foster parents provide temporary care
Parents still have rights, but they are limited and overseen
The court reviews the case regularly
The primary goal is usually reunification

AdoptionAdoption creates a permanent legal family.
Parents’ rights are terminated
Adoptive parents become the child’s full legal parents
The child becomes a permanent member of that family in every legal sense

Guardianship (Private / Orphans’ Court)A guardian is given legal authority to raise the child and make decisions about their care.
The child lives with the guardian
Parents keep their legal rights
The guardian handles school, medical, and day-to-day decisions
The arrangement can be changed through the court

Subsidized Permanent Legal Custodianship (SPLC)(Pennsylvania’s form of subsidized guardianship through the foster system)
Used when a child cannot return home, but adoption is not the right fit
Custody is transferred to a caregiver (often a relative or foster parent)
Parents keep their rights
The caregiver receives financial support
There is less ongoing court involvement than foster care

These categories matter because they define:
who makes decisions for the child
whether parents remain legally connected
how stable or changeable the placement is
And for kids, those differences are not abstract—they are lived every day.

Current kids in care have voices.
They deserve agency — even when we don’t like what they say, or what they want.

Kids in care consistently say they want:
to be heard
to have a say in decisions about their lives
to be included in what happens to them

One qualitative study of older youth in foster care identified three core needs in their own words:
Agency
Genuine support
Emotional connection

They are not asking to be managed.
They are asking to be included.

Research also shows that kids define family in ways that go beyond legal labels.

They talk about:
• who shows up
• who stays
• who they feel connected to
• where they feel connection
If we are going to talk about what’s best for children,
we have to start with their voices.

Even when it’s uncomfortable.
Even when it challenges our beliefs.

That’s what agency actually means.

Sources:
• Samuels et al., Children and Youth Services Review (youth perspectives: agency, support, connection)
• Boddy et al., Children and Youth Services Review (how foster youth define family)
• ACF Youth Engagement Team (youth voice in permanency decisions)

What support do guardians actually need?

Guardianship is often talked about as if it’s a simple legal fix.

But in real life, guardians usually need a lot more than a court order.

They may need:
• financial support
• help navigating schools and healthcare
• legal clarity
• trauma-informed guidance
• respite, community, and practical help

Because taking legal responsibility for a child is one thing.

Sustaining that care over time is another.

In many cases, guardians are stepping in during crisis, grief, instability, or family disruption.

That means they are not just caring for a child.
They are often managing:
loss
transitions
complicated family dynamics
and systems that may not be built for them

What kinds of children tend to benefit most from guardianship?

Guardianship tends to work best when a child needs stability without changing their existing family structure.

Common situations:
A child is already living long-term with a caregiver
Stability needs to be made official and protected
Continuity (home, school, relationships) matters most
The child has a clear sense of their family identity
Older youth who want stability without redefining family roles

What does guardianship actually look like day-to-day for kids?

Day-to-day life in guardianship often looks very familiar.

Kids:
Go to school
Eat meals with their caregiver
Do homework, activities, bedtime routines

Their guardian is the one who:
• signs school forms
• takes them to doctor appointments
• sets rules and provides structure
• shows up for the everyday moments
In many homes, it feels like a typical family life

Especially when:
• the child already knew the caregiver
• routines are consistent
• the home is stable

To the outside world, it may look like:
a grandparent household
an aunt raising a child
a family friend stepping in

At the same time, there can be small differences in daily life

Kids may:
hear different language used (“guardian” instead of “parent”)
notice differences on school forms or paperwork
have moments where their family structure is explained or clarified

These things aren’t constant — but they can be part of the experience.