CARE admits it lacks an implementation strategy
I’ve been sitting around waiting to see what kind of legerdemain CARE was going to use to pull AB 372 out of the suspense file of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and doing my daily perusal of the CARE website to see if they were going to acknowledge the pickle that they’re in. Instead, they published a summation of their effort thus far entitled “Keep Your Eye on the Ball”, which is an apologia for the compromises they were compelled to make and a half-hearted indictment of folks like me, who think they’re basically clueless.
Achieving adoptee rights by amending the laws that seal records is more than simply revising statutes. CARE acknowledges this in EyeBall, inadvertently indicting itself:
“Asking a state which has selected a policy that is unbalanced on the birthparent right to privacy to completely disregard 32 years of regulatory practices and revert to a balance that errs on the side of adoptee rights lacks an implementation strategy.” Stephanie Williams.
This statement wraps CARE’s effort in a big red bow and then sends it straight to the recycling bin. It’s been evident from the beginning of 2009 that CARE was oblivious that to the fact that their effort required the skills and tools necessary to effect social change, not simply revise statutes. They had and have no strategy to effect the social changes necessary to reverse decades of discriminatory law and practice.
I wrote on February 9th that CARE had no answer to the ACLU and the adoption attorneys. CARE minimized the opposition of the ACLU, “they haven’t been around much in Sacramento…” CARE found out, much to their surprise, that the ACLU has a lock on the Judiciary, just as the adoption attorneys have a lock on interpreting family law. What exactly was CARE’s strategy to deal with these groups, other than to roll over and pant?
CARE’s strategy for dealing with the DSS was to tell the Judiciary Committee that social workers and shrinks were leading the charge to open records, only to have the state’s own social service department oppose them from the ground up. Again, CARE’s strategy was to cave and cringe.
All the time CARE was telling the adoption community to not worry, that AB 372 would get better, that we should trust them. EyeBall finally levels with the adoption community, AB 372 is as good as it’s going to get. All that talk about amending it over the next two years, well, those were just words coming out of their mouths and those words don’t mean anything.
EyeBall closes with a plea for incremental change. On its face I have no problem with incremental changes leading to full rights. The problem with AB 372 and CARE’s effort is that their increment doesn’t lead anywhere. They have looked at the existing social dynamic of power and thrown up their hands. This is the BEST THEY CAN DO.
It's lonely being incompetent; success has a thousand authors, failure only one. EyeBall bemoans the fact that they have no allies... well, get used to it.
Achieving adoptee rights by amending the laws that seal records is more than simply revising statutes. CARE acknowledges this in EyeBall, inadvertently indicting itself:
“Asking a state which has selected a policy that is unbalanced on the birthparent right to privacy to completely disregard 32 years of regulatory practices and revert to a balance that errs on the side of adoptee rights lacks an implementation strategy.” Stephanie Williams.
This statement wraps CARE’s effort in a big red bow and then sends it straight to the recycling bin. It’s been evident from the beginning of 2009 that CARE was oblivious that to the fact that their effort required the skills and tools necessary to effect social change, not simply revise statutes. They had and have no strategy to effect the social changes necessary to reverse decades of discriminatory law and practice.
I wrote on February 9th that CARE had no answer to the ACLU and the adoption attorneys. CARE minimized the opposition of the ACLU, “they haven’t been around much in Sacramento…” CARE found out, much to their surprise, that the ACLU has a lock on the Judiciary, just as the adoption attorneys have a lock on interpreting family law. What exactly was CARE’s strategy to deal with these groups, other than to roll over and pant?
CARE’s strategy for dealing with the DSS was to tell the Judiciary Committee that social workers and shrinks were leading the charge to open records, only to have the state’s own social service department oppose them from the ground up. Again, CARE’s strategy was to cave and cringe.
All the time CARE was telling the adoption community to not worry, that AB 372 would get better, that we should trust them. EyeBall finally levels with the adoption community, AB 372 is as good as it’s going to get. All that talk about amending it over the next two years, well, those were just words coming out of their mouths and those words don’t mean anything.
EyeBall closes with a plea for incremental change. On its face I have no problem with incremental changes leading to full rights. The problem with AB 372 and CARE’s effort is that their increment doesn’t lead anywhere. They have looked at the existing social dynamic of power and thrown up their hands. This is the BEST THEY CAN DO.
It's lonely being incompetent; success has a thousand authors, failure only one. EyeBall bemoans the fact that they have no allies... well, get used to it.