|   When the County 
              of Los Angeles Department of Adoptions (then called the Bureau of 
              Adoptions) was established in June 1949, it was charged with the 
              special responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children who 
              are difficult to place—children of minority racial groups 
              or of mixed racial parentage and children with severe medical problems. 
              The agency services were also offered to all mothers or expectant 
              mothers who were considering relinquishing a child for adoption. . . . 
            The Department has supplanted its spotty and spasmodic recruitment 
              efforts with an aggressive, full-time publicity program. It has 
              also reconsidered a longtime policy of automatically rejecting lone 
              adults as potential adoptive parents. Late in 1965, it began placing 
              selected children for whom no other homes could be found with persons 
              who had no marital partner in their home. 
            This practice became possible because that year the California 
              State Department of Social Welfare revised its adoption regulations 
              to allow acceptance of single persons as adoptive parents. The new 
              policy clearly reiterated the established principle of adoption 
              practice that a two-parent family is the best of all possible 
              choices for an adoptable child, but it recognized the fact 
              that two-parent families could not be found for all children needing 
              the security of a permanent home. 
            In late 1965 the Los Angeles Department of Adoptions had registered 
              with it more than 300 children available for adoption for whom adoptive 
              couples were not readily available. This group included about 275 
              healthy Negro and part-Negro children of various ages, 60 Mexican-American 
              babies, 18 children of mixed racial background other than part-Negro, 
              and several Caucasian, Negro, and Mexican-American children who 
              had severe medical problems. When intensive efforts to find two-parent 
              adoptive homes for these children failed, the Department decided 
              to look into the possibility of finding them one-parent families. 
            The Department made its first one-parent placement in December 
              1965. . . . During the 2 years 1966 and 1967, the 
              Department placed 40 children for adoption in homes with only one 
              parent—approximately one-half of 1 percent of all the children 
              placed by the Department for adoption during that period. They were 
              placed with single women, divorcees, widows, and even a single man. 
            To learn what kind of parents these children acquired, the agency 
              in 1969 reviewed the records of 36 of these 40 placements. . . . 
            Male companionship 
            The need for children, especially boys, to have a father figure 
              to serve as a role model for sexual identification has been a major 
              reason adoption agencies have avoided placing children in one-parent 
              homes. . . . 
            The records show that the workers have paid special heed to the 
              availability of male companionship for both the adoptive mother 
              and the adopted child. Most of the 35 lone women with whom children 
              were placed had close male relatives interested in the adopted child—fathers, 
              brothers, sons, nephews, and, in a few instances, even former husbands. 
              Thus the children had grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, and 
              even adult male friends who could give them the kind of intimate 
              contacts needed for male identification. . . . 
            Two thirds of the women had been married. This prior experience 
              plus a yearning for the opposite sex, evident in all the mothers, 
              suggests that these single parents could compensate effectively 
              for not having a man in the home. Most of them dated regularly. 
              Many had interests and hobbies involving group activities that included 
              both sexes. Men, both in and outside their families, seemed interested 
              and willing to become father surrogates. . . . 
            Income and employment 
            Placing children for adoption with women who are employed full 
              time is another break with traditional adoption practice. But today 
              the working mother is commonplace. The agency has therefore not 
              regarded such employment as a sufficient reason for keeping a warm, 
              emotionally stable woman from becoming a parent of a child desperately 
              in need of a home of his own. It does, of course, look into the 
              adoptive applicant’s plan for providing child care while she 
              is at work. . . . 
            Evaluation planned 
            The Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions has shown that many 
              persons without marital partners do have a great deal to offer children 
              and that they will do so when given an opportunity. The review of 
              these 36 case records strongly suggests that the children involved 
              have found true “familiness.” It does not tell us, of 
              course, anything about how the children are responding to the experience. 
              Only time can tell—time for the children to grow up and for 
              the agency to make a careful evaluation of their adjustment at periodic 
              intervals. 
            The Department is now planning such a longitudinal study. . . . 
            The one-parent home is just one resource for helping to close the 
              gap between available hard-to-place children and adoptive families. 
              Communities committed to the welfare of their children will explore 
              every feasible plan for providing children with adequate permanent 
              care. . . .  |