Adoption Journal #6

Another week down in the ever-present pursuit of our forever family. Mandy and I are now over half way through the required PRIDE classes mandated by the county. We feel pretty pleased about this. I've been conflicted about a concept recently, especially how it relates to our adoption and issues I am passionate about in general.Here is the question, or questions. When few people anywhere (let alone the church) are addressing social needs (full participation of persons with disabilities, child welfare needs, etc.) is it ok to critique the manner in which they approach these needs? or rather, Should efforts be spent encouraging those on the sidelines to get into the game? I realize that too few people are involved in direct service, and those who do get involved are too often overworked and under trained. Yet, that should not excuse them from failing to put forward their utmost to value the individuals they are supposed to serve.Let me talk about TMR (trainable mentally retarded) and EMR (educable mentally retarded). These terms were used before modern special education legislation that guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) to EVERYONE. TMR and EMR where used to distinguish students with mental retardation who could benefit from education from those for whom schooling was "a waste of time." There is an implication in the term that some students cannot be benefit from ANY type of education. We know now that while all students do not benefit at the same rate, all individuals can be improved through proper methods of instruction and training. I essence the terms TMR and EMR are backwards, insensitive and outright ignorant. Therefore, it was of great surprise to me when Mandy and I were reviewing our "Child Desired Checklist" and discovered that we were asked if a child that was TMR was acceptable or not. Following that question we were asked whether a child that was EMR was acceptable or not. The assumptions inherent in those questions, let alone the anachronistic nature of those questions reveals the attitude modern social service agencies have toward the children they are mandated (and funded through my tax dollars) to serve.Mandy and I have reviewed those checklists and were surprised (well, maybe not surprised, but disappointed) at the labels used and the attitude it conveyed. We were even more disappointed when the trainers (and I use that term loosely) took a group from the class to walk through the county social service offices to observe some monitored visits in progress. (I need to explain the visit rooms real quick. These visits are between a parent in the midst his/her reunification plan and a child who has been ripped from their home and is emotionally Fraggle. . .oops, I mean fragile. These visits are in rooms alongside the walls with windows allowing observation. Typically a social worker or officer is in the room as well. Despite the fact that the rooms are viewable from the main office floor, these are still a private matter and most people, especially the ones in visits, try to act like the other few visits going on in adjacent rooms are not really going on at all. This allows for the belief that others are treating visits the same way.) Sorry about that, I'm back. It is unconscionable that a trainer would take a group of class members through the visiting area looking in the windows as though it's a zoo with strange animals on exhibit. But this is exactly what happened. I am grateful that Mandy and I did not choose to join the little tour. I have been in enough of these visits and felt the pain and awkwardness firsthand, I don't need second hand anguish. Apparently our trainers do.So, back to where I started. I believe it is ok to critique those who serve as well as those who refuse. Trust me I got enough critique for them and myself. None of us are perfect and we all need someone to keep us honest and accountable. This is the journey. Mandy and I are partners in this and we keep each other honest. I think it's the way it was meant to be.