Lived Xperience

Table Of Contents

The air in the hallway crackled with anticipation as families emerged from the juvenile courtroom. Two cases, two starkly different outcomes. One family, beaming, celebrated an adoption with matching “Gotcha Day!” shirts. The other, devastated, learned a child was being returned to biological relatives. The contrast was a punch to the gut, raising questions about fairness and the system’s priorities.

---

The Triumph of “Gotcha Day!”

The first family practically floated out of the courtroom, their joy infectious. It was a scene straight out of a heartwarming movie. The adoptive parents beamed, their faces alight with the kind of pure happiness that radiates outward, embracing everyone in its path. All five children sported matching outfits, a playful touch that underscored the celebratory nature of the day. Their excitement was palpable, buzzing in the air around them like static electricity. This wasn’t just a legal proceeding; it was a “Gotcha Day!” a term affectionately used in the adoption community to mark the official finalization of a child joining their forever family.

Even the court staff, typically reserved and professional, seemed caught up in the happy moment. Their smiles were genuine, their voices softer as they offered congratulations and well-wishes. There were murmurs of “How wonderful!” and “Congratulations to your beautiful family!” The little girl at the center of it all, the newest member of this newly formed family, was radiant with excitement. Her eyes sparkled, and a wide grin stretched across her face, a clear testament to the love and security she now felt. It was a joyous occasion, an undeniable triumph for a child who had found a permanent, loving home after what was undoubtedly a journey through the foster care system. Everyone present seemed to share in the collective happiness, celebrating a new beginning and the promise of a bright future for this child. The atmosphere was one of profound relief and unbridled hope, a picture-perfect ending to a long and often arduous process.

---

The Quiet Despair of Reunification

The second case was a stark contrast, a sudden plunge from elation into a profound, heavy silence. The biological family was undeniably happy; you could see the light in their eyes, the subtle shifts in their posture that spoke of a deep, inner relief. They were getting their child back, a child they loved, a child from whom they had been separated. Yet, a palpable tension hung in the air around them. They suppressed their excitement, a visible effort to contain the joy that must have been bubbling up inside. It was an unspoken act of empathy, a recognition of the heartbreak unfolding before them. They were likely holding back out of respect for the foster parent, who was visibly heartbroken.

The foster parent stood there, shoulders slumped, tears streaming down their face. Their sobs were quiet but wrenching, a raw display of grief for a child they had nurtured, cared for, and undoubtedly grown to love. For them, this was not a triumph but a profound loss, the severing of a bond that had formed over what was likely an extended period. What struck me most acutely was the reaction—or lack thereof—from the caseworker and others in the courtroom. They remained stoic, their expressions unreadable, offering no words of comfort to the distraught foster parent, and, perhaps even more tellingly, no congratulations to the biological family. The atmosphere was one of detached professionalism, a stark departure from the warm communal joy that had just filled the hallway. There was no recognition of the biological family’s accomplishment, no acknowledgment of their hard work and dedication to regain custody of their child. It was as if their success, while legally sanctioned, was not to be celebrated. This quiet indifference spoke volumes, creating an uncomfortable silence that amplified the foster parent’s distress and, by extension, the biological family’s subdued joy.

---

Unmasking the System’s Priorities

This experience highlighted a deeply troubling aspect of the child welfare system, one that often remains hidden behind closed courtroom doors and legal jargon. The stark difference in emotional responses, both from the families directly involved and from the professionals witnessing these moments, paints a vivid picture of where the system’s priorities truly lie, and where its sympathies are most readily extended.

It became abundantly clear that in the second case, there was not only a lack of overt support for the biological family in getting their child back, but a complete absence of care or happiness for their profound accomplishment. This was a family who, presumably, had overcome significant obstacles to rectify the circumstances that led to their child’s removal. They had navigated a complex and often intimidating system, fulfilled requirements, and demonstrated their capacity to provide a safe and loving home. This should have been a moment of immense celebration, a testament to their perseverance and the system’s supposed goal of family reunification. Yet, there was nothing. No congratulations, no words of encouragement, no acknowledgment of the “righting of a wrong” that had separated them from their child. It was as if their success was merely a procedural necessity, rather than a cause for joy.

This indifference is particularly jarring when contrasted with the effusive celebration surrounding the adoption. Both outcomes represent a form of permanency for a child, yet one is lauded as a triumph while the other is met with emotional neutrality, or even thinly veiled sadness. This disparity suggests a system that, perhaps unintentionally, prioritizes the feelings and experiences of foster parents over the fundamental right of biological families to be together and to heal. It also speaks to a systemic bias, where the narrative often frames biological parents as inherently flawed or incapable, while foster parents are viewed as saviors.

---

The Disparity in Rights: A Telling Detail

One of the most telling details that underscores this imbalance is the existence of a Foster Parents’ Bill of Rights. Many states, including Missouri, have clearly defined rights and protections for foster parents, outlining their responsibilities, access to information, and avenues for expressing concerns. These rights are vital for ensuring that foster parents, who open their homes and hearts to children in need, are supported and respected.

However, a crucial question arises: where is the Biological Parents’ Bill of Rights? In my observations, and indeed in my research, there is no widely recognized or systematically implemented equivalent for biological parents. This absence is not just a procedural oversight; it represents a profound philosophical gap in the child welfare framework. It implies that biological parents, particularly those who have had their children removed, are viewed primarily through the lens of their past challenges or alleged failings, rather than as individuals with inherent rights and a fundamental desire to parent their children.

This disparity creates an unequal playing field. Foster parents are empowered with documented rights, while biological parents often navigate the system from a position of vulnerability, struggling to understand their legal standing and advocate for themselves. This can exacerbate feelings of powerlessness and distrust, making the already challenging process of reunification even more arduous. The focus often remains on what biological parents must do to regain custody, rather than on their inherent rights as parents and the support they might need to meet those expectations.

---

The True Meaning of “Best Interests of the Child”

This entire experience begs a critical question that lies at the heart of the child welfare system: are we truly acting in the best interests of the child, or simply perpetuating a system that favors those who can provide the most resources or, perhaps, who fit a preferred narrative?

The “best interests of the child” is a legal and ethical cornerstone of child welfare decisions. It is meant to guide every action, every placement, and every reunification effort. But what does “best interests” truly mean in practice? Is it solely about providing a stable, loving environment, or does it also encompass the preservation of familial bonds, cultural identity, and the inherent right of a child to grow up with their biological family when safe and possible?

The bias observed in the hallway reactions suggests that “best interests” might, at times, be interpreted through a lens that prioritizes perceived stability in a foster home over the complex, yet vital, journey of family reunification. It implies that a child being adopted into a new family is inherently more desirable and therefore more celebrated than a child returning to their biological roots, even if those roots have been strengthened and are now capable of providing a safe and nurturing environment.

Furthermore, the lack of support and celebration for biological families achieving reunification can be deeply demoralizing. It can inadvertently send a message that their efforts are not truly valued, and that their success is merely the lesser of two outcomes. This undermines the very goal of family preservation and perpetuates a cycle where biological parents feel alienated and unsupported. For a child, returning home can be a complex emotional experience, and a system that fails to acknowledge and celebrate this transition, both for the child and the family, misses a crucial opportunity to reinforce a positive narrative around reunification.

Ultimately, this observation in the juvenile courtroom hallway serves as a powerful reminder that the child welfare system, despite its noble intentions, is not without its flaws. It highlights the need for a more equitable approach, one that not only protects children but also empowers and supports biological families in their journey towards reunification, ensuring that the celebration of family is universal, regardless of how that family is formed.

---

Resources for Support and Advocacy in Missouri

For those navigating the complexities of the child welfare system in Missouri, here are some valuable resources: