Abstract
The experiences of transracially adopted individuals remain diverse, with some narratives revealing ongoing challenges related to racial trauma and identity outcomes. This suggests that cultural considerations within the child welfare system may not always be fully realised. In this study, we apply the concept of ‘post-racial phantasmagoria' as a critical lens to explore the extent to which current social work practices are equipped to address and prevent racial trauma in transracial adoption. Existing challenges around identity are caused by visible and invisible systemic barriers, and colour-blindness resulting in unmet identity needs and identity erasure. Through qualitative co-creation focus groups with a total of 55 participants based in England – including social workers, adoptees and adoptive parents – a significant need was identified for early planning and preparation in transracial adoption, along with the importance of good collaboration with birth families to better understand children’s identity needs before care proceedings get underway to ensure they are considered throughout the adoption process. Our findings indicate that intentional engagement in transracial adoption practice with all involved parties may help to address some of the risks associated with post-racial phantasmagoria; however, further research and ongoing dialogue are needed to fully understand and respond to these complex challenges.
Plain language summary
Despite efforts to be culturally sensitive, many transracially adopted individuals still experience racial trauma and identity challenges due to inadequate cultural considerations within the child welfare system and also within their adoptive families. This study posits that current social work practices are not sufficient to prevent racial trauma in transracial adoptions due to systemic racial disparities and injustice. The research uses the concept of ‘post-racial phantasmagoria’ – the false idea that racial issues no longer matter – to explain why problems in transracial adoption persist and what needs to change. Current systemic barriers and colour-blind attitudes still exist and often lead to adopted children's identity needs being overlooked or erased. Through a number of small-group discussions with a total of 55 participants in England – including social workers, adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents – researchers found that early planning and preparation for transracial adoption is crucial from pre-proceedings, including the need to work closely with birth families to understand children’s identity needs before adoption proceedings begin. The needs of children in transracial adoption must be consciously and intentionally considered and met, without race- or colour-blind approaches from the pre-adoption stage and throughout the adoption process to reduce the risks associated with ignoring or downplaying racial factors in adoption.
Introduction
Recent adoption statistics highlight a significant disparity in the permanency outcomes of Black and Asian looked after children in England. Of approximately 83,840 children in care, only 2,900 were adopted in 2023. Notably, just 3% of adoptees were of Black or Asian heritage, despite these groups constituting 12% of the looked after children population. This imbalance is further reflected in the low proportion of Black approved adopters who represent only 2.7% of those eligible to provide permanency (Department for Education [DfE], 2024). These figures highlight systemic challenges within adoption processes, particularly the high likelihood of transracial adoption placements with their inherent distinct and challenging complexities for both adoptees and adoptive families. There are, however, no official statistics relating to the number of transracially adopted children in the UK.
Children adopted across racial lines often struggle with identity formation, cultural disconnection and experiences of racism, which adoptive parents can struggle to address effectively (Pinderhughes et al., 2021; Samuels, 2022). Research has consistently shown that transracially adopted children benefit from maintaining connections to their birth culture and having open conversations about race and identity (Baden et al., 2012). Race as a term is used as a ‘badge’ to explain social relations, ie., it is a social construction shaped by power, colonisation, slavery and various types of systemic oppression (DuBois, 1984). ‘Post-racial phantasmagoria’ is a term used to describe the illusion that race and racism are not significant in adoption practice, resulting in the minimisation or erasure of children’s complex identity needs. These include not only skin colour and cultural heritage, but also deeper, often invisible, systemic barriers, colour-blind attitudes and institutional practices that lead to identity erasure, inadequate racial socialisation and the neglect of lived experiences of racism. To disrupt this illusion and prevent racial identity confusion and racial trauma among transracially adopted children, intentionality around race, culture and heritage is needed when planning for the adoption of Black, Asian and related Mixed heritage racialised and minoritised ethnic children.
There is conflicting evidence on identity-related outcomes for children and adults adopted transracially (Hrapczynski and Leslie, 2018; Laybourn, 2017; Lee, 2003). Some studies suggest positive racial and cultural identity outcomes, while others have found challenges, such as: colour-blindness or the ignoring of the child’s racial and cultural identity; racism and/or microaggressions within and outside of the family; lack of support and lack of adequate preparation to challenge racism (Kirton, 2000; Morgan and Langrehr, 2019). Scholars such as Bonilla-Silva (2006) and Singh (2022) suggest that racialised children adopted into white 1 dominant cultures often experience a manifestation of white habitus from their parents’ promotion of whiteness, perhaps unintentionally, as superior to the child’s racial and cultural heritage. This leaves children experiencing white messaging, without the experience of white skin. Colour-blindness and the invisible veil of a worldview result in the erasure of children’s culture and language, serving as a tool that perpetuates colonisation (Branco, 2022). Consequently, there are serious impacts to poor racial socialisation and racism within transracial adoption, including poor emotional, social and psychological wellbeing and difficulties with a sense of belonging (Harris, 2014b; Pinderhughes and Brodzinsky, 2019).
A particular social work practice criticism around transracial adoption is the limited time committed to discussing culture, race, ethnicity and religion with birth parents as a way of informing the process of adoptees maintaining cultural connection in adoption (Cane, 2025). As a result, social workers are working with limited information about the child’s identity. These identity gaps can result in the child failing to understand their ‘true identity’ and heritage, possibly leading to identity confusion in later life. Another is inadequate early preparation of adopters for racial and ethnic socialisation (Barn and Kirton, 2012). Many adoptive parents report feeling underprepared to navigate these complex issues, highlighting a critical need for improved pre-adoption preparation and support. When adoptive parents are ill-equipped to comprehend the reality of racism and its emotional consequences where the adopted child is of a different racial, ethnic and cultural background, they are unable to effectively defend their children or to sufficiently prepare them to protect and defend themselves against racism. The long-term impacts can include cultural disconnection, identity imposterism, low self-esteem, lack of belonging, isolation and racial trauma (Cane et al., 2024).
Barn (2013) highlights the need for adoptive parents to engage in cultural awareness courses, learn about cultural diversity, and utilise and engage with community resources/activities to learn about their children’s cultures, heritage and identity. Integrating the child’s racial and cultural facets into their everyday life, including literature and appropriately safe media platforms to educate themselves and their children, has also been identified as a helpful means of instilling cultural pride that positively reinforces the adoptees’ racial and ethnic identity (Lambert, 2024). Key to its effectiveness, however, is that adopters embark on this journey before the process of transitioning a child to the adoption placement (Kleinbardt et al., 2024). The adoption process needs also to embed talks and discussions around transracial adoption in assessments before the child’s transition takes place. This would help to ensure that prospective adopters are fully aware of the child’s needs and the life adjustments they need to make both to prepare for and commit to the journey of adopting transracially. It would also help to prevent feelings of anxiety, ambivalence and shame associated with making contact with birth family in later years (Harris, 2014a).
Quinton (2015) points to the concern that racialised and minoritised ethnic communities in the UK have suffered systemic attempts to destroy their cultures. Hence, terms such as ‘cultural erasure’ and ‘cultural genocide’ have been used to explain how understanding and belonging to one’s culture has essentially been affected, destroyed and killed for lack of supportive structures and resources within transracial families. Lynch (2024) and Lambert (2024) argue for a better understanding of the complexity of intersectional identities – including a combination of adoption, race, ethnic, culture, Mixed-racial, Mixed-ethnic and Mixed cultural identities – that exist through foster care and adoption. The complexity of a transracial identity can induce feelings of liminality and in-betweenness that need to be better understood in practice. Lynch and Lambert urge social workers and adopters to engage in practical strategies to help them to understand and apply effective ways to help adoptees understand their complex identities, while also connecting with and maintaining their cultural heritage (Neil et al., 2015; Selwyn et al., 2010). But there is a lack of evidence of early planning for transracial adoption
This study explores how pre-adoption transition stages might be improved to better address the identity needs and challenges faced by transracially adopted children, recognising the complexity and diversity of experiences within transracial adoption.
Post-racial phantasmagoria
In this study, ‘post-racial phantasmagoria’ serves as a critical lens through which we examine current practices in transracial adoption. To our knowledge, Dr Tam Chipawe Cane is the first to apply this concept to social work and adoption. Post-racial phantasmagoria allows us to identify and challenge instances where racial considerations are minimised or ignored, and to propose more culturally responsive approaches in early planning and preparation for transracial adoption.
The term ‘phantasmagoria’ was first used in the 18th century to describe a theatre of shadows, illusions and superstition. More recently the term has been used in relation to human relations to address the problem of how issues of diversity are understood and managed (Schwabenland and Tomlinson, 2015). In this regard, the term describes deceptive narratives around racial inequality. The term ‘post-racial phantasmagoria’ is used here to acknowledge the illusionary nature of post-racialism which intends to make racism invisible and non-existent. Post-racism ‘insulates white normativity from criticism’ (Cho, 2009: 1644; Sargent, 2015). For example, the idea of post-racism in politics can be seen in how having a Black President or British Asian Prime Minister – as seen in the USA and then the UK recently – implied that these countries had gone beyond issues of race and racism (Wamble and Laird, 2018) and thus allowed societies to ignore systemic racism or accept incidents where discussions of race are seen as divisive rather than unifying.
Buggs (2021) argues that racism is often downplayed in language to the extent that naming racism is avoided as part of the post-racial rhetoric given the refusal to call out racism for racism. The concept of ‘Meghism’ – relating to Meghan Markle being reportedly unwelcome within the royal family because of her ethnicity – is another example of post-racism rhetoric. Markle was seen as a ‘space invader’, a destabiliser of normalcy within a particular family type (Buggs, 2021). Other scholars report intersectional failures where racial inequalities override intersections with others, suggesting that race continues to be used as a tool to determine ‘people or person preference’. A self-identified ‘Mixed-heritage’ princess might be perceived in Britain as a ‘false symbol of racial progression, but... the reality is far worse’ as people’s views around race and difference are shaped by bias and stereotypes (Andrews, 2021: 2). The racist riots in the UK in July/August 2024, reported as far right attacks with slow acknowledgement that this was racism, further endorse this argument. These and other examples highlight that race and racism remain integral to Britain and embedded within institutions and systems of power.
Within the context of adoption, concerns exist around racial bias in the recruitment of Black and Asian adopters and matching for Black, Asian and racialised and minoritised ethnic children (Brown et al., 2023). Thus, the removal of due consideration for race and ethnicity in adoption legislation creates a spectacle of deception within the concept of post-racialism. It operates as a systemic illusion, obscuring racial inequalities under the guise of procedural neutrality which ultimately projects a false image that race and ethnicity no longer matter in adoption. Therefore, post-racial phantasmagoria is the failure to see race, culture, ethnicity or heritage together. It is a dreamlike, distorted version of reality that lulls professionals into a state of complacency and denial about the impact of racism in transracial adoptions and its impact on mental health. The concept is particularly relevant to transracial adoption as it exposes how the illusion of a post-racial society can lead to the overlooking of crucial racial and cultural considerations in the adoption process, potentially harming adoptees’ identity development and wellbeing.
In using the term ‘post-racial phantasmagoria’, we acknowledge the harsh realities of systemic racism, inequality and the ongoing struggles of racialised and minoritised children in adoption. We acknowledge – as with Cane and Tedam (2023) – that racialised and minoritised ethnic children continue to wrestle with race in adoption. To support these children through this challenge, adoption professionals need first to address their own consciousness and awareness of racial and cultural identities, and undertake whatever training is needed and available to gain a critical appreciation of the reality of the power struggles associated with race and how they affect racialised and minoritised children. Practitioners must actively caution adoptive parents against the risks of post-racial phantasmagoria and double deception: a false promise wrapped in a ‘deceptive package of legislation’ that refuses to see ethnicity without giving clear direction about how to deal with the fact that race, ethnicity, and in some cases religion, leave children of racialised and minoritised ethnicities remaining longer in care and the pre-adoption process. This experience is only compounded when there are siblings and/or intersections of disabilities and developmental delays with race, which can create even longer delays.
By intentionally not seeing colour, race, ethnicity, heritage or religious difference in adoption before permanency proceedings and the adoption transition process begins, adoption practice perpetuates systemic racism and oppression towards Black and Asian children in particular who sit much longer in the system waiting for suitable adopters. In March 2025, the Child Safeguarding Practice Panel Review in England, focusing on anti-racist practice in children‘s services, indicated that race is often silent in safeguarding reports (DfE, 2025). There is no current urgency to talk about race, ethnicity and culture in early planning to ensure that important and accurate information about the child’s identity is collected, recorded, passed on and socialised by adopters. This study rejects the premise of continuing to work with a post-racial lens or moving beyond seeing race, as this merely gives rise to missed opportunities to understand children’s racial and cultural needs and the importance of planning early for transracial adoption. Post-racialism can be damaging and confusing for children and birth families as, depending on the race of the message’s source, reactions vary.
Race and cultural intentionality
This paper utilises the conceptual frameworks of race intentionality and racial consciousness to emphasise the need to acknowledge cultural and racial aspects of transracial adoptees, dismantling biases, promoting inclusivity, enhancing cultural competence and supporting identity development (Cane et al., 2024). It encourages social workers and adoptive parents to think critically about meeting the identity needs of transracially adopted children. Race and cultural intentionality involve conscious and intentional efforts to recognise and address systemic racial inequalities and racial trauma. This approach requires practitioners and adoptive parents to actively honour a child’s racial and cultural heritage when planning for adoption and matching with adoptive families, implementing thoughtful practices and policies to ensure these aspects are central to the adoption process (Cane et al., 2024).
Methods
A qualitative, co-creative focus-group-based research approach was used to gather views and perspectives from social workers and adoptees regarding the changes required when planning for transracial adoption pre-adoption transition stages. Co-creation research approaches are novel in the area of adoption research, although they are familiar in other health and social care disciplines (e.g., Baines et al., 2022; Van Bijleveld et al., 2021). Co-creative methodologies complement practice, lived expertise and scientific knowledge, and they provide a collective aspiration to bring about change. The researchers presented a practice-research problem to collectively find solutions to solve the problem with relevant stakeholders, i.e., adoption agencies, social workers and those with lived experience of transracial adoption, through an equal partnership with them (Moser and Korstjens, 2022). This approach aimed to bridge the gap between research and practice to drive positive outcomes for children in transracial adoption.
The study drew on the outcomes of three two-hour co-creation sessions of a larger study conducted in England between February and May 2023 which engaged a collective total of 55 participants, including those with lived expertise of transracial adoption (ie., adoptive parents and transracially adopted adults), social workers from children’s services involved in care proceedings leading to adoption, and adoption social workers involved in linking and matching children with adoptive parents and those providing adoption support within and post-adoption (now known as adoption support). Participants were recruited through targeted invitations to adoption agencies, social work networks, and organisations supporting adoptees and adoptive parents in England. No demographic data were collected given the focus on nuanced understanding and perspectives of practice issues, rather than comparing responses across demographic subgroups.
Sessions took place virtually via Microsoft Teams to maximise accessibility and geographic diversity to ensure broad and inclusive participation and engagement. The co-creation process was focused on participants’ and researchers’ ability to collaboratively identify challenges and co-create new knowledge in the form of actionable recommendations for early planning in relation to transracial adoption. Outcomes included proposed new ways of thinking, the need to change lived experience narratives and an imperative for improved practice. For example: (1) the idea that early planning needs to include discussion about transracial identity; (2) closer work with birth parents to understand what aspects of cultural connections are important to them and the child; (3) acknowledgement that transracial adoption can mean loss of birth identity and culture, as well as that of birth family and foster carers; (4) discussion about racism, microaggressions and challenging white privilege should not be avoided or seen as uncomfortable, but viewed as courageous and a necessary part of a social worker’s curiosity and professional accountability; and (5) the need for specific examples of resources and interventions to promote racial-ethnic-cultural socialisation and what it means to cultivate connection across different identities between the child, professionals, foster carers and adoptive families in relation to transracial adoption.
All sessions were collaborative, incorporating small-group discussions and breakout rooms sensitively designed to foster positive group dynamics. Care was taken to include stakeholders from different practice backgrounds, including those with lived expertise. Questions focused on what social workers can improve on to better ensure positive identity outcomes for racialised and minoritised children moving into a transracial adoption scenario. Sessions were recorded to support future anonymous transcriptions and analysis to protect confidentiality. Potential limitations to the methodology include differences in facilitation style by the researchers and the nature of discussions in focus groups, complexity of topics and achieving the right balance of voices between dominant and quieter participants.
Analysis
Data were analysed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s (2023) approach, which involved repeated listening to the recorded discussions and subsequent reading of transcripts, open coding and notation, systematic identifying of potential themes and theme clustering across focus groups (Levitt et al., 2017), theme review and the establishment of final themes. The co-investigator undertook the initial analysis, with the principal investigator providing consultation and code-checking. The study received ethical approval from the University of Sussex (ER/TC381/9) with all participants providing informed consent.
Findings
Challenging illusions in early adoption planning with birth parents and the consideration of a child’s racial and cultural identity
Early discussions about race, identity, culture, religion and the possibility of transracial adoption for racialised and minoritised children emerged as critical themes. A small selection of examples is used here to illustrate how post-racial phantasmagoria is perceived through the avoidance or deferral of race-related conversations – including with birth families – minimisation of cultural identity in early planning, and the risk of portraying inclusive or efficient practice which masks deeper failures to address racism and cultural loss. These illusions require challenge through the lens of intentionality and consciousness:
Practitioners emphasised the importance of engaging birth parents early – particularly during public law outline stages before care proceedings begin – especially given the ongoing shortage of Black and Asian adopters. Early engagement that actively resists colour-blind approaches and underpins post-racial thinking allows birth parents to consider the possibility of transracial adoption and provides more opportunities for birth parents to share essential and comprehensive information about the child’s cultural background and heritage. Not all birth parents may be open to transracial adoption, especially if they have experienced systemic racism, discrimination and/or racial trauma themselves. A proactive approach directly challenges the illusion that racial identity is secondary to procedural efficiency and helps maintain the child’s cultural connection. It also ensures that the child receives appropriate support for their emotional and practical needs before, during and post-transition, and throughout the adoption process. One participant explained why change is needed: In my experience, engaging with birth parents early is so important. We had a case where we realised later in the adoption process that we lacked crucial information about the child’s ethnicity and cultural background. In fact, some of the identity factors were incorrect. Usually, by the time the case is with the adoption team parents are less engaging, so we have to scramble to get information. So, yeah, it is important this happens from the very beginning. Especially when it’s highly likely the child will end up transracially adopted. (Social worker)
This excerpt raises concerns about the false and inaccurate identification of children in the social care system, perpetuating identity erasure and post-racial phantasmagoria that also treats cultural heritage as an afterthought rather than a core component of the child’s identity. One adoption social worker explained how their organisational approach involved attending planning meetings with court social workers and permanency social workers to contribute to the development of child permanency reports to ensure ‘quality assurance’ around information recorded about the child (including how it is written) and their overall needs – including birth family and identity information – before the case is transferred to adoption teams to prevent gaps when a transracial adoption process begins.
Another participant explained a process whereby social workers involved in linking and matching track children from the permanency planning stages to enable the early sharing of adoption options for the child and to allow the child’s social worker to begin planning and working with birth parents on the possibility of transracial adoption: I totally agree. We need to be proactive and start talking about transracial adoption with birth parents and in our care planning when we do the early permanency work. Not to tack it on at the end. If we wait for later, we are already on the back foot. (Social worker)
This reflection illustrates how delays in discussing race and identity risk perpetuating post-racial phantasmagoria. The emphasis on the need for early conversations signals a welcome departure from the reactive approach that often treats cultural identity as an afterthought rather than a central pillar of the child’s wellbeing. This proactive approach disrupts the systemic illusion of neutrality, making visible the racial inequalities embedded in adoption practices. It also recognises race and ethnicity as fundamental components of a child’s self-conception and future sense of belonging.
Collaboration with birth parents to understand a child’s needs was recognised as important by all participants. Collaborative approaches between and across teams and agencies were also widely viewed as best practice for sharing possible adopter options and tracking children from care proceedings. One participant reported: By sharing information on potential adopters within the local authority tracking meetings, and monitoring children from care proceedings, it helps decrease waiting times. This approach not only speeds up the process, but also improves the quality of matches for children… [including transracial placements]. (Social work manager)
While early collaboration is recognised as vital to reduce waiting times, when viewed through the lens of post-racial phantasmagoria there is a risk that the drive for efficiency might lead to the convenient but incorrect illusion that racial and cultural identity considerations have been adequately addressed. The emphasis on streamlined processes can mask deeper structural issues. For example, if collaboration is focused on logistics without explicit attention to the nuanced identity needs of racialised and minoritised children, a post-racial narrative can be perpetuated – one that assumes a successful match as long as surface-level criteria have been met. Meanwhile, more profound issues of cultural connection, racial resilience and belonging may be overlooked. Overall, participants believed that the child’s racial and cultural identity must be a focus at every stage, ensuring that information sharing is not just about efficiency, but equipping adopters and professionals with the knowledge and tools to nurture the child’s sense of self and resilience against racism. Without this critical lens, collaborative systems may perpetuate post-racial phantasmagoria by creating the appearance of inclusivity and best practice whilst leaving the underlying challenges of identity, belonging and racism unaddressed.
Furthermore, power dynamics within collaborative networks shape how race is discussed with and beyond birth families. Are birth parents meaningfully included in these conversations or does professional expertise override their lived knowledge, experience and expertise? Best practice, then, must embed race intentionality at every stage, ensuring that collaboration is not merely functional but transformative, equipping adopters, professionals and birth parents with the tools to affirm the child’s racial resilience and cultural identity throughout their life.
Challenging the post-racial illusion through intentionality beyond skin colour and appearance
Our findings critiqued assumptions that visual resemblance awarded practitioners with appropriate or sufficient racial and cultural understanding. Assumptions, although quick and pragmatic, ignore cultural nuance and can lead to a failure to adequately explore the complex lived realities of racial and cultural identity in care and adoption planning. Without deeper levels of intentionality, adoption processes risk perpetuating erasure, inequality and identity harm. The following illusions demonstrate how race, ethnicity and cultural identity can be misunderstood or overlooked when planning for adoption:
Participants raised the issue of differences in birth parents’ views regarding their preferred criteria for the adoptive family with whom their child would be placed. Some birth parents, it was related, had firmly held beliefs and preferences which were often culturally rooted and salient. For them, issues around race, ethnicity, tribe and/or religious heritage could be key. Practitioners acknowledged that intentionality required more exploration of differences across identity facets, ways of life and traditions without making assumptions. Some participants indicated that linking and matching decisions are often made based on the availability of potential adoptive families, that ethnic matching tended to be based on commonalities rather than differences and that these decisions often dictated the best family for the child. Others highlighted the need for a delicate balance between respecting birth parents’ preferences and ensuring suitable matches/adoptive placements: If somebody said, ‘I’d like my child to be raised as a Muslim’, for example, we would try to respect that. But actually, if we found a family that was Sikh and we felt they were the right family, then I think we would go with that family and probably still try and talk with parents about them – about mum or dad – and say, ‘This is the family that we found here’. We try to be as respectful as we can. (Social worker)
While the intent to honour parental wishes is evident, the emphasis on finding the ‘right family’ suggests that broader suitability assessments may take precedence over cultural and religious continuity. This approach, though well-meaning, raises important questions about how identity considerations and differences are discussed and explored in greater detail, and prioritised within adoption practice. Practitioners reflected a professional judgement framework in which parental agency may be limited. While some practitioners navigate these complexities with care, systemic constraints often lead to decision-making that can inadvertently reinforce post-racial phantasmagoria, ie., convenient assumptions that cultural and religious transitions can be managed without embedding them at the core of placement decisions. On the other hand, some participants highlighted non-negotiable elements of children’s identity needs to be included in early discussions about the possibility of transracial adoption. For example: ‘exploring racial identity’; ‘acknowledging differences across cultures with prospective adopters’; exploring ‘racial awareness’; ‘racism and microaggressions’; and ‘identity connections with the birth culture and heritage birth land’.
Some participants also reported a strong preference by some Black birth families for white adoptive families rather than same-race matches due to their own personal narratives: One of our Black birth mothers had had such a poor experience being raised within a Black foster family that she became quite blinkered and wouldn’t allow her children to be brought up in a Black family. It was very clear that she wanted her child to be brought up in a white environment. (Social worker)
This case illustrates the complex interplay between personal experience, internalised stigma/racism and cultural beliefs of birth parents, and experiences of systemic racism that can influence adoption decisions and ultimately impact a child’s best interests and long-term identity development. This birth mother’s preference for a white adoptive family stemmed from her own negative experience of being raised within a Black family and demonstrates how post-racial phantasmagoria can manifest in interesting and surprising ways. Her stated preference challenges typical assumptions that same-race placements are always desirable and preferable, but it does not undermine the importance of cultural matches. Issues such as intergenerational racial trauma, the complexity of racial identity (which is not monolithic and encompasses ethnicity, beliefs, traditions and understandings) and the need for nuanced approaches to navigate complex racial dynamics must be considered in order to prioritise the child’s best interests.
Power dynamics may unintentionally reinforce racial hierarchies, positioning whiteness as a perceived marker of stability or opportunity. Professionals must also consider stability, permanency and security when assessing viability of matches. These complex considerations accentuate the need for a deeply reflexive approach, one in which professionals critically engage with the broader implications of placement decisions whilst ensuring that cultural identity remains central to the child’s sense of self. Introducing intentionality and consciousness into the adoption process requires practitioners to engage in reflexive approaches whilst undertaking comprehensive assessments of birth parents’ experiences, including their encounters with race, xenophobia and religious hate.
Intentionality, participants argued, also necessitates ensuring appropriate education for adoptive parents on racial identity, addressing birth parents’ fears and concerns, exploring potential challenges and solutions, and providing ongoing support to the child in developing a positive sense of identity. All participants agreed that these discussions must happen with potential adopters early in the adoption process: I generally think, early in the adoption process, when adopters are thinking of adopting… Adopters must have the openness towards engaging with the birth family. They should be prepared to ask what birth parents want to pass on to the child, what they want adoptive parents to specifically teach them. They have to acknowledge that the child’s life is going to be different from their own, and the child will face certain things about adoption. They should have the willingness to talk about that. (Adoptee and adoptive parent)
This recognition that adoptive parents must be open to dialogue with birth parents aligns with the UK’s modernising adoption agenda and the importance of contact that aims to nurture a child’s sense of self. However, ongoing openness beyond a surface-level or superficial commitment is crucial. Sibling connections, and understanding differences in siblings’ cultures and how to support and cultivate that through open adoption, were also seen as non-negotiable. Early considerations of sibling separation, its impact on the individual and collective sibling identities, and the importance of seeing children beyond skin colour, were regarded as essential. One participant noted: There’s a sibling group that I’ve placed. Two of the children were white with blonde hair and blue eyes. And there’s a sister. And she was very evidently kind of Mixed parentage and they were all from the same parentage and they went to a white family in a very white area. And that was something kind of, [to] be sort of unpicking with… with the family, about how they kind of valued and respected the children’s heritage notwithstanding that two of the children didn’t look like they were from Mixed parentage at that point in time; children’s identities change over time. It’s not just about kind of skin tone or kind of visual appearance, but it’s much more than that. It needs to be respected. Otherwise, it might affect the relationships between siblings. (Social worker)
The case of sibling groups with different paternity, racial, cultural and identity categories challenges the assumption that half- or step-siblings share a homogenous identity experience. The concept of post-racial phantasmagoria is evident where children are categorised based on appearance with race perceived as a clear-cut visual distinction. However, participants demonstrated consciousness and intentionality by recognising that identity extends beyond physical appearance. While biological ties connect siblings, identity formation is shaped by cultural environment, societal perceptions and lived experiences, factors that may vary significantly even within the same birth family. Race, ethnicity and culture are complex and not always visually apparent, requiring deeper consideration in adoption planning. As such, exploration of the communities in which children are raised is important because raising a racialised and minoritised child in a predominantly white community raises additional concerns regarding race, ethnic and cultural representation, role models, identity formation and belonging. The example of the sibling group with visual cultural differences highlights the need to support adoptive parents to actively foster an environment where, in the adoption or separation of sibling groups, race and identity development between and connecting siblings are acknowledged and respected. Without this, racial identity may become a source of unspoken tension, potentially affecting sibling bonds. Ignoring these complexities risks epistemic trauma (Samuels, 2022), where a child’s understanding of their own identity is disrupted due to a lack of cultural reinforcement or misrecognition.
Challenging identity erasure and ensuring accountability to the child
Participants emphasised that decision-making processes surrounding transracial adoption should be characterised by a high level of accountability to the child. Ensuring accountability to the child requires challenging post-racial phantasmagoria which limits transparency, culturally informed documentation and communication. Without these, an adopted child is left without a coherent narrative of their identity, risking detachment from cultural roots and a diminished sense of belonging when revisiting their records later in life. However, accountability is often undermined by persistent misconceptions that obscure the significance of race, culture and identity, leading to inadequate documentation and engagement. The following examples highlight how these myths continue to impact children’s adoption experiences:
Participants argued that accountability requires clear consideration of the child’s needs and existing relationships, sensitive communication, relational work with birth parents and thorough documentation of the reasoning behind each decision. Such transparency ensures that, when children revisit their adoption files in the future, they can see the attentiveness and deliberation that shaped their adoption journey: ‘…to come back and read [their adoption file], they can see what care was taken in the decision-making process’ (Adoptee). This adoptee’s statement highlights the profound impact that thorough documentation can have on their perception of their adoption journey. Revisiting adoption documentation later in life should provide an adoptee with an affirming narrative of care of their identity and cultural needs, and not simply a bureaucratic record. If documentation lacks cultural depth, it can be hard for an adoptee to see how little effort was made to preserve their heritage, leading to feelings of erasure and disconnection. Adoptees asserted that adoption files must reflect
There was a strong argument that: Giving detailed information would give the [adoption] panels more confidence to make a decision. Even if it’s not used as part of the decision-making, it is that analysis we’re doing, otherwise we’re losing some of the finer detail in that. (Social worker)
The above quotation reinforces the idea that detailed analysis strengthens adoption decision-making. The keeping of comprehensive records allows adoption panels to make informed choices whilst ensuring that vital cultural, racial and familial elements are not overlooked. This perspective challenges the reductive view that race and identity are secondary considerations rather than integral to an adoptee’s long-term wellbeing. Prioritising transparency and maintaining detailed records allows social workers to demonstrate a commitment to a child’s long-term wellbeing, whilst providing them with a coherent understanding of their adoption story. It also reflects the importance of culturally informed, respectful communication with birth parents and the need to maintain accurate, accessible records throughout the early permanency process: We need to make sure recording of the process in the decision-making is very clear so that when children or young people are in a position to return to find out the ‘whys’ and ‘wheres’ and how decisions were made and why they were made, it’s very clear. And that it’s clear in an accessible language and not to use acronyms because we’re really good at doing that! There needs to be a trackable process that can be understood by the child and this is important. (Adoption manager)
The concept of post-racial phantasmagoria is relevant here too, as it challenges the illusion that race and cultural identity can be recorded superficially or disregarded altogether. This study found that dismissing these factors or gathering them inadequately leads to the recording of insufficient documentation, a lack of meaningful engagement with birth families and a failure to ensure transparency in the decision-making process. The risk of epistemic trauma is also evident as adoptees may struggle to construct a coherent self-narrative when cultural references and racial identity considerations are absent from their files. Intentional, transparent documentation and communication are not merely bureaucratic exercises. They are fundamental to anti-racist, child-centred practice. As highlighted by the anti-racist AFDiT framework (Cane et al., 2024), such practices ensure that the child’s racial, ethnic and cultural identity needs are actively centred and preserved. High levels of intentionality disrupt the complacency of post-racial thinking and ensure that the complexities of identity, belonging and heritage are neither overlooked nor erased but respected as integral to the child’s lifelong wellbeing and sense of self. Participants emphasised that embedding accountability into adoption decisions is an ethical imperative to ensure children grow up with a preserved connection to their identity.
Early preparation in prospective adoptive parent assessments and preventing racial and cultural erasure
Early discussions with prospective adopters about transracial adoption are important. However, such discussions can create an illusion of inclusivity. Our findings highlighted that the critical need for racial intentionality, cultural literacy and sustained engagement with race, culture and identity must be addressed at the earliest stages. Adoption assessments aim to ensure readiness, but our study participants raised concerns about the risk of deeper preparatory work getting overlooked for transracial adoptive parents, particularly in regard to a child’s long-term identity development and wellbeing. Without intentional scrutiny in the early stages, assumptions about cultural competence may obscure gaps that leave children vulnerable to poor identity formation and at an increased risk of racial trauma. The following points illustrate the specific illusions identified:
Early and thorough exploration of adoptive parents’ racial and cultural consciousness, as well as their capability to parent children of different races or cultures, is essential for supporting positive identity outcomes for transracially adopted children. Participants emphasised that intentionality must be embedded in the early stages, including open discussions about race, culture and identity, and willingness to challenge culture-blind, race-blind and superficial attitudes that may otherwise go unchallenged: It should be from initial enquiry stages asking about openness to transracial adoption, otherwise it can be too late in the process to start teaching and getting a real understanding about whether they can do it. The cultural issues, race, identity, all of it. (Adopter and social worker)
This perspective highlights the need to explore transracial adoption from the very outset. Early conversations about race, identity and cultural competence allow practitioners to better assess prospective adopters’ preparedness and provide targeted support. Participants emphasised that intentionality within the assessment process must also include providing information and appropriate resources to support effective transracial parenting during the early stages of prospective adopter assessments. Existing research indicates that adoptive parents who adopt transracially can have unrealistic views and be underprepared for the realities of raising a child whose lived experiences of race and identity may be profoundly different from their own. Without intentionality, there is a risk of perpetuating the illusion that racial awareness can be developed at a later stage or addressed superficially, which research indicates can lead to poor identity outcomes and racial trauma (Laybourn, 2017; Samuels, 2022).
While predicting parenting capacity can be challenging and uncertain, participants identified that social workers must feel more confident about support networks that prospective adopters propose, as well as their attitudes to race, ethnicity, cultural differences and sometimes also aspects around ‘colourism’: It is important to explore the family and community system to see what sort of links there are already, and what acceptance there will be in understanding about a child whose heritage is different to that of the adopters… (Adopter, adoptee and social worker)
The above quote highlights the importance of exploring prospective adoptive families’ existing networks to determine their ability to support a child’s identity. However, participants also emphasised the need to assess and recognise surface-level assurances of inclusivity which may not translate into long-term meaningful engagement with race and identity. Social work in transracial adoption requires the ability to: (1) recognise and challenge mere lip service; and (2) distinguish between genuine commitment and performative gestures. Whilst adoptive parents may express a willingness and commitment to support racial, ethnic and cultural socialisation, the critical examination and thorough analysis required must be consistent, evidenced, informed and sufficient to meet the child’s short- and long-term identity needs. Study participants also highlighted concerns that assumptions about an adoptive family’s network and exposure to diversity do not always guarantee an ability to address the realities of racial and identity development: As social workers, we rely on adopters while assessing a family. They might say, ‘We have got lots of people of Black or Asian backgrounds in our family’. But what we don’t know is what their experiences are like. What is their lifestyle like? Do they talk about racism? Do they address the issues in any way? We can’t assume that just because this family has got lots of people in their network they are also aware and able to address these issues for the child, because the child will be growing up with the adopters and they need to have positive role models that reflect themselves somewhere. (Adopter, adoptee and social worker)
This perspective challenges the post-racial attitudes that suggest that a diverse network or proximity to diversity equates to preparedness for transracial parenting. Participants emphasised the importance of prospective adopters engaging deeply and intentionally with issues of race and racism, recognising that these issues will continue to shape the child’s experiences and identity development.
Our study participants also cautioned against relying on the presence of racially diverse individuals in a family’s social network as a proxy for cultural competence. Without deeper exploration, such claims risk masking a lack of meaningful engagement with racism, identity formation or development and the lived experiences of racially minoritised children. There was also a recognised need for more focused efforts to identify families that fully reflect the child’s identity. In reality, children in same-race placements are sometimes matched with families that closely align with, or are somewhat nearer to, the child’s own ethnicity and cultural background. The process of identifying the child’s needs relies heavily on the social worker’s understanding of identity, their positioning around difference, and their openness to seeing gaps and advocating for better provision in this area.
Even in cases where children may appear racially similar to their adoptive parents, it is crucial to acknowledge that race is not monolithic. Du Bois’ (1984) concept of ‘double consciousness’ reminds us that racial identity is not merely about appearance but the internal negotiation of self in a society that imposes racialised meanings. A child may share the same racial category as their adoptive family yet experience the world – and themselves – through a different lens shaped by class, culture, history and systemic inequality. We encourage practitioners and adoptive families to move beyond superficial markers of race and instead consider the deeper, often conflicting, layers of identity that children must navigate.
Participants were also concerned that nuances in ethnicity, religion or culture are often overlooked: Often, we see that people also assume that just because they’ve found an Asian Pakistani Muslim family for an Asian Pakistani Muslim child, that this is matched appropriately. But that’s not enough. You still have to address how that family see racial identity, racism or differences in faith. And how they’ll bring up their child to understand their experiences. So, it’s going beyond the normal assessment really all the time. (Adopter, adoptee and social worker)
This excerpt critiques the reductive practice of ‘matching’ – the assumption that matching a child with a family that shares the same race, ethnicity or religion is automatically appropriate. Participants highlighted that such approaches can be over-simplistic which can in itself constitute a form of post-racial phantasmagoria obscuring the need to understand complexities of racial and cultural identity from a child’s narrative and perspective. True intentionality requires a more nuanced evaluation of how prospective adopters understand and are prepared to support children’s evolving racial, ethnic and cultural identity, including their experiences of racism, faith and belonging.
Participants also highlighted that even with appropriate matches, broader family dynamics and wider community acceptance must be examined to reduce the risks of the adopted child feeling rejected or unwanted by their adoptive family: Social workers should make sure they say to adoptive parents, if a family member doesn’t accept them adopting transracially or something or a different looking child then well it would likely [be] problematic for the rest of the family. If social workers can talk to extended family, they need to be aware of what’s happening. Otherwise, adoptive parents should try as much as possible to explain to the extended family the situation with ethnicity and the nationality, especially if the family is close. (Adoptee)
This adoptee’s insight emphasises the importance of assessing understanding and acceptance to include the wider family. Whilst initial acceptance is important, it does not guarantee longer-term support from wider family, nor protection from bias, microaggressions or rejection.
Participants stressed the importance of assessing extended family’s views and readiness to embrace a child of a different race, culture and identity. Other studies recommend education, not just for the prospective adopters but also for the wider family, to ensure the child’s future networks welcome the child’s identity, celebrate their diversity and support the child’s need to remain connected with their heritage and birth family (Baden et al., 2023; Neil and Beek, 2020).
Some adoptive parents, it seems, commit to embracing and complying with the ‘requirements’ of parenting a child of a different race and culture, and to providing whatever might be needed for the child to thrive. Intentionality, however, is a commitment to ongoing cultural education, diverse community engagement and open discussions about race and identity throughout the adoptee’s life. The concern of some participants was that, following withdrawal of services post-adoption, adoptive parents’ stated commitments regarding the child’s cultural and identity needs are relaxed or become superseded by other issues or concerns (social workers do not have legal rights or duties to impose support). The importance of adopters demonstrating understanding and commitment to a child’s cultural connections from an early stage, along with an appreciation of the degree to which mental wellbeing can be negatively affected by unmet racial and cultural identity factors, was summed up in the following quote: I think, for a child, it could feel like that if you’re not gonna be open and celebrate a child’s ethnicity you’re gonna celebrate some parts of it but not others. And actually that, for a child, can feel quite shameful and can have a detrimental effect. (Adoptive parent)
The quote highlights the potential for emotional harm from selective or superficial engagement with a child’s cultural identity. Participants warned that when adoptive parents only acknowledge the more comfortable or visible aspects of a child’s ethnicity while ignoring the more complex or challenging elements, it can lead to feelings of shame, confusion and disconnection in the adopted child. This form of post-racial phantasmagoria minimises the importance of comprehensive cultural socialisation. Race and cultural intentionality involve a comprehensive approach to cultural socialisation, not a tokenistic or selective one resulting from illusionary post-racial attitudes (Barn, 2013; Barn and Kirton, 2012). To challenge superficial commitments, as with other studies, participants advocated for a more comprehensive approach to cultural socialisation through a programme of ongoing cultural education, diverse community engagement, and open discussions about race and identity throughout the adoptee’s life.
The role of foster carers in supporting children’s identity and cultural preservation
Cultural preservation efforts made by foster carers can play a vital role in shaping a child’s identity prior to adoption, yet these efforts are often dismissed once a child transitions into their adoptive home. This study found that, despite foster carers’ often crucial role in laying the groundwork for cultural preservation, misconceptions about continuity and identity formation often lead to gaps post-adoption. The following illusions illustrate how these assumptions can obscure the realities of cultural retention for adopted children:
All participants agreed that preparing children to understand and connect with their racial and cultural identity in the early stages is part of the foster carer's role. The foster carer is seen as a crucial bridge in the process of culture-keeping, racial-ethnic-cultural socialisation and collecting information from the birth family, especially when relations with social workers are fractured: Foster carers could also contribute in the process… That would lessen the losses for the child, or make it better for the child. Probably quite a lot they can do in terms of life story work and about their roots. Even the bits of identity that they passed on through their time with the child. If they are of similar ethnicity, maybe they could stay in touch. (Social worker)
Participants suggested that, to support the child’s exploration of their race and culture, prospective adoptive parents should demonstrate a genuine interest in connecting with birth parents and the information that they provide directly and indirectly to social workers and foster carers. They also need to value the role of foster carers and seek to learn key information from them when planning both for the child’s transition and towards the maintenance of their relationship thereafter. Foster carers were deemed key to helping adopters understand any specific desires/wishes of birth parents regarding their children. Some birth parents develop open and positive relationships with foster carers in which key aspects of the child’s identity, heritage and cultural issues, routines and rituals are shared. Whilst the value of foster carers was recognised in terms of supporting children to gain or maintain their sense of belonging and cultural identity, some social workers reported instances where important gains made by foster carers and shared with adopters were ultimately undermined: We placed an older child, little bit older, but she’s been settled in their placement… The foster carers had done an absolutely fantastic job with this baby of saving everything. Mum’s given her even labels off tins that came from, you know, [Eastern European country]. She’s got such a memory box. And when we go back to the adopters what they said they were gonna do to preserve this little girl’s [country] heritage, they’ve done nothing, you know. (Social worker)
The contrast between the foster carers’ efforts and the adoptive parents’ inaction underlines the ongoing struggle to maintain cultural connections in regard to transracial adoptions. The adoptive parents’ post-racial phantasmagoria demonstrates: (1) little to no effort made to maintain the racial socialisation and culture-keeping gains made by the foster carers; (2) false assumptions that their child will not have challenges around their identity either currently or in their future; (3) a failure to commit to preserving the child’s heritage; and (4) a false commitment to preserving the child’s heritage, reflecting post-racial thinking where the importance of cultural identity is minimised following formal adoption. The loss of connection to birth culture is a common challenge faced by transracial adoptees. Our findings suggest that social workers must assess and investigate race and cultural intentionality from the earliest stages of the prospective adoptive parents’ assessments, including continuing efforts of cultural continuity by the foster carers. Without structured accountability measures, cultural- and identity-building or maintenance efforts made in foster care may be lost, limiting adopted children’s ability to maintain meaningful connections to their heritage and potentially leaving them without essential cultural and identity support.
Discussion
The conceptual framework of ‘post-racial phantasmagoria’ has demonstrated how the illusion of a post-racial society can lead to oversimplification of racial issues potentially harming adoptees’ identity development. The naming of the concept helps us to understand how and where it occurs, particularly within pre-adoption processes where the minimisation of race and culture issues can create a chain reaction of minimisations – or lack of intentionality – into the ultimate adoption and the rest of the child’s life. Issues of race, identity and culture must be kept central in the minds of all involved in transracial adoption. Early and continuous information gathering and understanding of nuance around identity, ethnicity and culture are crucial, along with awareness of the fact that identity strands are not monolithic. Effective transracial adoption practices require recognition of how identity strands intersect and evolve over time.
Consistent with the findings of Selwyn and colleagues (2010) and Neil and colleagues (2015), this study has shown the importance of engaging birth parents in discussions about adoption early. Unique to this study is the focus on transracial adoption and the need to view it through an anti-racist practice lens, which recognises that adoption discussions need to take place early with birth parents – potentially as early as the stage where a child is taken into protection and where there is a clear likelihood that a case will need to move into early permanency. Early discussions around adoption allow birth parents the time to provide key information and contribute more positively and effectively to supporting a child’s transition, to make sense of the change and to help maintain cultural connections. Birth parents are uniquely placed to provide important background information about their own as well as their children’s history, cultural background, ethnicity and race (where known), as well as information about siblings’ identities and heritage (where relevant) and how this might be supported during transition and post-adoption. Birth parents may also be able to provide insights into their child’s birth name and any relational significance connecting it to the child’s cultural heritage and identity. In this way, post-racial phantasmagoria can be challenged, promoting a more authentic and inclusive approach to transracial adoption.
Early discussions around the possibility of transracial adoption are also important in regard to life story work and ensuring all the relevant resources needed are in place to help a child to visualise and bridge the gap between their birth heritage and their adoptive family’s culture. The links gained early are inevitably richer while the child still has access to, and contact with, broader family, enabling the collection of accurate and detailed information about their birth family (Cane, 2025). Moreover, engaging birth parents early in the process allows for a more honest and transparent conversation about the realities of transracial adoption, for example, the fact that same-ethnic or same-race matches are unlikely and the consequent particular importance of supporting the child’s cultural connections. The reality of early adoption discussions may be that birth parents have more time to challenge the process more, but it is the duty of social workers to win their confidence by actively rejecting race illusions and explicitly identifying support needs around the child’s identity and cultural connections long-term. Embedding these recommendations also requires buy-in from child protection services. The experience of researchers and participants of this study is that there is generally greater engagement from adoption-based social workers compared with those in child protection and court teams. To ensure successful implementation, efforts must be made to bridge this gap and foster greater collaboration between these two groups of professionals, as well as with fostering supervisors (Selwyn et al., 2010).
Pinderhughes and colleagues (2021) explain the complexities of racial-ethnic socialisation in transracial adoptive families, suggesting the process takes different layers and systems of socialisation and thus needs robust understanding, commitment, care and support. Preparing prospective adoptive parents with an early understanding of the challenges inherent in transracial adoption, and gaining an early commitment from them towards the child’s developmental needs, should involve a thorough assessment of their capacity, commitment and competence to incorporate the child’s racial, cultural and ethnic identities into their existing family system and wider community. Rolock and colleagues (2021) identify that caregiver commitment is an indicator of the general stability of families or, conversely, those who may struggle to provide appropriate support long-term. Clear anxieties and concerns were raised by the participants of this study around the doing and maintaining of intentional cultural work by adopters following the recommendations of social workers who cannot always be sure whether adopters employ all strategies and guidance provided, thus this work involves levels of uncertainty (Poore and Simmonds, 2024). By being aware of – and intentionally avoiding – post-racial phantasmagoria and thereby intentionally recognising both their own and adopters’ perspectives, social workers can better identify and address any biases or assumptions around colour, race, ethnicity and heritage held by prospective adopters and ensure that they are adequately prepared to meet the unique needs of the child.
Other studies, such as those by Vonk (2001), Baden and colleagues (2012) and Samuels (2022), also emphasise the importance of assessing and preparing adoptive parents for the challenges of transracial adoption. This study additionally reminds practitioners against assuming that adoptive parents will follow through with race intentionality strategies and practices to prepare their children for the bias and racism they may have to deal with, and the need to encourage them to truly seek understanding about the nature and effectiveness of tools and techniques for racial and ethnic socialisation. Our findings additionally suggest a need for better documentation of adoptive parents’ commitments to supporting a child’s racial and cultural identity, and the importance of holding them accountable for such commitments. Continuous support and education for adoptive families may be needed for them to sufficiently recognise that cultural competence is an ongoing journey and not a destination in itself. Racial intentionality must also extend beyond the immediate adoptive family to include education and the preparation of extended family members.
To support early planning for transracial adoption, there is value in involving individuals with lived experience of transracial adoption in the preparation and training of prospective adoptive parents as their insights can help prospective adopters better understand the challenges and opportunities associated with parenting a child from a different racial or cultural background (Samuels, 2009; Thoburn et al., 2000). In the pre-adoption transition stages, the need to explore potential adoptive families that mirror the child’s ethnicity and cultural background should be a priority.
This study makes a new and unique contribution to the success of transracial adoption through the introduction of the conceptual framework of post-racial phantasmagoria and its application to the analysis of social work practice. All participants of this study were unanimous in the view that current practice needs to be improved upon and, through their contributions, we have examined the challenges and opportunities associated with transracial adoption through a critical lens to highlight the importance of intentionally addressing issues of race, ethnicity and cultural identity within and throughout the adoption process. By challenging the illusion of post-racialism and acknowledging the ongoing struggles faced by transracially adopted children, social workers can work towards creating a more equitable and responsive adoption system that truly prioritises the wellbeing and positive identity outcomes of all children (Harris, 2014a; Kirton, 2020). To understand the specific needs of transracially adopted children and effectively identify the right adopters, social workers must understand their own race, ethnicity and cultural contexts in order to acknowledge and reflect on the potential biases and gaps that can arise when seeking to address the needs of children adopted transracially. While there is a clear need for ongoing support and training for adopters, there is a parallel need for consistent and comprehensive training for social workers on cultural humility, anti-racist practice and effective communication skills towards the development of confidence in engaging in courageous conversations with birth families and adoptive parents. Such training is essential to equip social workers with the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to effectively address issues of race, ethnicity and cultural identity in the transracial adoption process (Barn, 2013; Wainwright and Ridley, 2012).
There is also a clear need for ongoing and thorough assessments of prospective adopters’ capacity, commitment and competence to honour and incorporate the child’s racial, cultural and ethnic identities within their family and community. Whilst we have demonstrated the importance of early discussions around transracial adoption, and preparing the birth family and the child as well as the adoptive parents, it may be appropriate to monitor, review and continue to educate adopters on these issues throughout the adoption process to assess and ensure their effectiveness.
It is also significant and worth pointing out that the fact that the sessions offered by the study were almost all oversubscribed suggests a wide recognition of, and need for, issues of race, culture and ethnicity in transracial adoptions to be better addressed and embedded into adoption practice. Also of note is the particular openness, keenness and commitment for professionals and others involved in adoption to support and bring about those changes. The diverse range of perspectives shared provided valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with transracial adoption. Group dynamics may have influenced the extent to which certain voices were heard more than others, and some participants may have dominated some conversations at the expense of other voices being heard. The researchers also recognise the potential benefit to the study of securing buy-in for its outcomes from foster care teams and foster carers due to the significance of the foster care aspect of many adopted children’s journeys and its importance in supporting children during initial transitional periods. As such, foster care professionals and foster carers can offer unique insights into the challenges and needs of children in transracial adoption, and inclusion of their perspectives would have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the issues faced by children and the support required to ensure positive outcomes. Going forward, these researchers recommend further, more focused research on the impact of early discussions around transracial adoption within pre-adoption transition work, i.e., child protection, public law and early care proceedings.
Implications for social work
This research highlights the critical importance of early, intentional planning in transracial adoption to promote positive identity outcomes for transracially adopted children. There was clear recognition that better outcomes were needed for children in transracial placements. However, systemic barriers – particularly around information gathering before children reach adoption teams – need disrupting. There also remains a clear need for an increase in adoptive parents from Black and Asian backgrounds to ease the pressures and uncertainties around matching for transracial adoption and the viability of these placements in the long term.
In summary, to make practice improvements in the immediate term, the use of practice guides – such as the AFDiT framework (see: transracialadoptionframework.uk) – may be helpful when planning and placing children transracially, both in fostering and adoption (Cane et al., 2024; Cane, 2025). Early planning for transracial adoption should involve the gathering of comprehensive and nuanced information about the child’s identity and background from birth families. This should extend beyond merely recording race, ethnicity and religious data and include: cultural practices; languages spoken at home; family traditions; important festivals or rituals; the potential significance of names and their meanings; and connections to specific communities or places of worship. Ideally, it should also include the capturing of any significant experiences of discrimination or racism experienced by the child and/or the birth family; of cultural loss; and the birth parents’ wishes regarding racial, cultural, linguistic and religious upbringing to ensure appropriate sensitivity and support around these issues and recognition of possible (intergenerational) racial trauma. Where siblings are involved, practitioners should explore the distinct and shared aspects of their identities and plan for maintaining sibling relationships and cultural connections.
These researchers also recommend documentation of the child’s lived experiences of early placements and how they met – or did not meet – the child’s identity needs. Any gaps can then be actively and intentionally addressed. Pertinent information provided by foster carers who may have unique and additional insights into a child’s routines and identity should also be incorporated into planning to better ensure smooth transitions. Social workers should also initiate discussions about transracial adoption early on in the child protection process to enable comprehensive information gathering about the child’s cultural background.
Adoption agencies need to continue undertaking robust assessments of prospective adopters’ cultural humility and commitment to supporting a child’s racial and cultural identity. This includes ensuring that early assessments are undertaken and that prospective adopters’ capacity and willingness to engage with and sustain the child’s heritage are actively assessed and support needs acted on, such as openness to learning the child’s language, participation in community events and engaging in culture-keeping activities. Ongoing training and support for both social workers and adoptive parents are essential for developing cultural humility and effective communication skills around race and identity.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the stakeholders, adoptees, adoptive parents, birth parents, practitioners and adoption agencies for their commitment and support.
Thanks to the funders for supporting this work.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was funded by the British Academy.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The lead author is a member of the CoramBAAF research and adoption advisory boards.