Adoption Backlog

The System is Broken. (Coincidence Committee Journal Statdate 926.1031)

Artwork Source: https://ko-fi.com/krspeace

Public Statement of Concern

In Nevada’s foster-care system, families are told that the goal is always permanency — a safe, stable, lifelong home for every child. Yet what I witnessed raises serious questions about whether that promise is being honored.

We became insterested in the foster-to-adopt program in Northern Nevada because of a news story featuring a foster child who had been waiting for a home for 4 years and nearly aging out. We inquired of the child.

We were told before applying that DCFS “need[s] homes that support reunification through fostering, not homes that will only adopt.” We fully accepted and supported that plan with the understanding that each child in foster care is on one of 2 paths, sometime on both paths concurrently: A reunification plan or an adoption plan.

The child ultimately placed with us was not the one we originally inquired about — she had already aged out before our approval process was complete. However, against all odds, the child who was placed with us — whom I’ll call “Oliver” for privacy — did not have a reunification plan, meaning he would likely become eligible for adoption.

After months of caring for him and asking how we could move toward adoption, he was removed from our home shortly afterward, without apparent consideration for continuity of care or the emotional impact of that abrupt separation.

When we sought clarification through the proper channels, the response was not dialogue but disciplinary action. Our foster-care license was revoked even though every training requirement was completed and all documentation was in order. The process left us questioning whether foster parents who pursue permanency for children risk retaliation for speaking up.

This is not about one family or one case; it is about a system that must be accountable to the values it proclaims. If Nevada truly wants to place children in safe, permanent families, the message to caregivers should never be “don’t ask about adoption.”

Families who open their homes deserve transparency and support. Children who have already lost so much deserve stability — not bureaucracy that punishes those who try to give it to them.

I believe the public has a right to know when policy and practice no longer align. My hope is that shining light on this issue will help restore focus on what matters most: the best interests and permanency of every child in care.

The child we cared for is now listed by Nevada DCFS as available for adoption. We continue to seek clarity about the decision that led to his removal and the process that followed. From what we understand, he has expressed a desire for permanency and continues to hope for a family.

Our family remains ready to comply with every requirement placed before us, because our only wish is to see this child in a safe, permanent, and loving home — whether with us or another family truly committed to him. Yet our experience raises a difficult question: if the system itself discourages adoption, how many children who are listed as “waiting” ultimately age out of care without finding permanency?

Every child deserves stability, belonging, and the assurance that the adults making decisions for them are guided by their best interests, not by policy contradictions or personal bias.