Many years ago, I attended a lecture in which the speaker attempted to distinguish what “authority” means to a lawyer as opposed to a psychologist. According to the speaker, greater weight is given to legal opinions based on who issued them.
For example, a decision of an appellate court carries more weight than that of a trial court. In contrast, psychologists make decisions based the “what” of the field’s research, i.e., the rigor of the scientific method and the reliability of the resulting data. Thus, the final catchphrase from the presentation was “says who” vs. “says what.”
Reflecting at the end of another year, it seems to me that a better question for any discipline is “says why?” Specifically, with regard to adoption matters, the core question for the adults making decisions about a child’s welfare should always be “why?”
- Why is this birth family making a plan for adoption?
- Why are the services offered to the birth family sufficient and appropriate?
- Why is this child being removed from the birth home?
- Why can/cannot this child maintain a connection with the birth family?
- Why am I accepting this child into my home?
- Why am I adopting this child?
- Why is this permanent placement (adoption, kinship, APPLA) appropriate?
- Why is this post-adoption/placement service plan sufficient and appropriate?
- Why does this law/regulation/procedure exist?
- Why? is an inherently judgmental question. However, only when “why” is answered and understood, can an individual decide “what” to do next.
heARTbeat is a publication of the KingSpry Adoption/ART Law Practice Group. It is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.