"The U.S. Children's Bureau implemented the foster care system to promote the healthy upbringing of a child. In pursuing these goals, judges and other court officials will routinely give priority to blood relations over adoptive families. These policies rely on philosophical assumptions about parents and children, namely that children are always better off if they are with their birth parents, or with a relative. While there seems something intuitively appealing about “reunifying” children with biological relatives, it can sometimes be at the expense of the child’s best interests.

In this paper, I examine possible philosophical justifications for this so-called “biogenetic bias” in the law, and find them, for the most part, wanting. What makes someone a “parent” or a “child”? Do parents own their children? Is there a biological claim that parents have over their children that exists over and above the care they give to their children? And why should biological relations be given any weight when deciding where to place a child after a removal based on maltreatment? The foundation of the foster care system is called into question when its philosophical basis lies on an outdated understanding of attachment and biology. My paper proposes answers to these questions and imagines a foster care system that relies less on giving priority to biological relationships when placing children in healthy environments."

Jade would like to give a shout out to her sponsor, Dr. Chad Flanders, for his never ending patience, contagious passion, and thoughtful guidance throughout this philosophical journey. "