This one was brought to my attention by @thestackspod, which is how most of my recent nonfiction choices have made it onto my TBR. So, not really a surprise, but definitely still deserving of a shoutout.   

 

In this research/journalistic nonfiction, Asgarian takes on the incredibly tragic story of the Hart family murders/suicides from a (previously unvoiced) new perspective. For those who weren't really aware of the story as it happened - as, to be honest, I was not - in 2018, Jennifer and Sarah Hart, a married couple who had adopted six Black children from two different families in Texas, drove themselves and all six kids off a cliff (literally) on the Pacific Coast Highway in CA. With time and investigative efforts, a story of years of abuse and neglect emerged, culminating in the deaths of all eight family members. While popular media seemed to focus most on Sarah and Jennifer, as many stories of adoption do, Asgarian chooses here to give voice to the adoptees themselves, as much as possible, and the birth families that they were taken from, asking the difficult questions about culpability in regards to the systems that put these six children in such an unsafe, unhealthy, and ultimately deadly situation.  

 

This was, all told, an incredibly emotionally difficult read. One of the primary emotions for me, for the majority, was anger. I mean, this story is absolutely infuriating. It’s clear on almost every page how systemic, institutional, and sometimes individual/personal racism created a situation where biological/extended family that wanted and fought for these kids is turned away in favor of an adoptive family that meets “societal standards” of white and middle class, even in the face of myriad signs and indications that the Hart''s were not the safest/best options for these kids. I mean, some reports of what was happening in the adoptive home were even worse than the situations the children were forcefully removed from in their birth families, and that didn't seem to matter at all. The number of red flags and warning signs and actual calls to police and CPS that were never or minimally followed up on, happened far enough apart that people could ignore the pattern, or happened across state lines and therefore patterns weren’t easy to follow - it’s mindblowingly upsetting. So much seems to come back to the fact that Jennifer and Sarah presented a “believable” and “respectable” front (but like, let’s talk about inherent racial/gender bias in that assumption, for real) and people being too constrained by “politeness” and not wanting to rock the boat. UGH. And, to be fair, the overload on the people working for the protective systems is real, regardless of how many other issues there are with said systems. Coming back to, though, the contrast in what led to these children’s birth parents’ losing custody, and what was allowed to continue in the home of their adoptive parents, is stark. And that difference continues in how the media and legal/Law enforcement representatives interpreted and acted and carefully chose their language after the fact.  The common assumption that these children were better off with the white women who had adopted them than under whatever conditions in their early childhood homes were like… If nothing else hits the reader (and many other things should/do), the unevenness and bias in views on this is an imperative takeaway. 

 

As Asgarian told the story of the two birth families of these youth, she provided an environmental study, for context, as well. Specifically, she intertwined a narration of these families experiences, through their own words and the documents/records tracking it, with a larger indictment of the systems involved (legal and social work and juvenile justice, particularly in the states - TX and MN - centered here), and a history of “orphans” and adoption in the US that got us and these systems to this level of functioning in the first place. And let me tell you, none of that context made me less infuriated. Like, the intertwining of the juvenile justice system and child welfare system “dual status youth” occur at such high percentages that it should not take a tragedy like this to indicate and merit a closer look and a massive overhaul. Yikes. (Side note, as comps read, if you are interested in more perspectives of these systems and the youth affected, Invisible Child and Pushout are both books I'd recommend.) I mean so many children, our most vulnerable population, coming from already difficult situations, being so routinely abused and not provided care/attention/love, with no recourse for complaints and no way to support/backup those claims of abuse, are just left left in a place with no hope and no vision of a different future and no reason to feel like living, and then provided no services/care/support when they "age out." Because it’s so easy to shove aside this whole population, out of sight out of mind, we then are somehow surprised how, after years of trauma and abuse, there are so many unmet needs and inability to adjust to "regular" life... Horrifying.  

 

The cycle of intergenerational involvement in foster and juvenile detention systems is devastating to watch unfold (especially seeing the roles these systems played in the outcome of this story). Blame is thrown all around, but where is the outcry at the many whose decisions on behalf of the children, at every step of their lives, put them in this situation? The systems that are, supposedly, there for the best interests/protection of the children, are in no way held accountable, for their role in this (absolutely avoidable) tragedy. And really, there is just so much punitive action, that is in no way actually centering to helping the needs of the child, the way these systems deal with the birth families/parents. I know this review might be getting repetitive, but I just had so much anger, and I needed to get it all out, and writing my feelings seemed to be the best immediate option. Anyways, let's also point out how “neglect” is often just a euphemism for “poverty” - and that’s not a fault of the parent for not caring/providing, but not being able to under a reality of systemic inequality in this country. And then, like, if foster placements get a monthly stipend to help with childcare costs, could the birth family not just get that and reach the same end faster, without the trauma of being in the system and moving homes and all the extra bureaucracy involved? 

 

One other beautiful and resounding message in these pages: you cannot separate someone from their past and where they’ve come from. It’s not possible. So, does removing a child from a home, even if it's a traumatic one (but all the other stable aspects and relationships of life that they’ve built in a place they are comfortable with), do the good it’s meant to? Are we balancing that against when that removal and upheaval and lack of all known connections and threat of future moves/reprisals/change hanging over them always adds even more trauma? Maybe it does, sometimes. But it is still worth due consideration, and it's for sure not getting that now.  

 

After reading it, this title is devastatingly on point. My heart breaks. And overall, this is a wonderfully inclusive account...making sure to center a bit extra those voices who’d previously been sidelined (in myriad other platforms) to even a playing field, but giving voice to all the parties in the end (exactly what anti-racism and inclusivity activism asks for). A truly, deeply, affecting read. 

 

“Once adopted, the law says that...all of the rights and care transfers to the adopted parents, and the mothers - the birth mothers - are expected to just disappear, just go away [...] And that's very difficult to do, emotionally, spiritually, physically. We still do exist.” (Oooof, I mean I know in some cases for the child, that contact cutting is necessary/beneficial, but even in those cases, that birth parent deserves to find out information in a more humane and dignified way) 

 

“By hyper-individualizing the story - making it about one woman with dark psychological problems - the media largely let the state systems that failed the birth mothers off the hook. It let listeners and readers off the hook, too - free to enjoy the wacky and bizarre tale without thinking of how it came to occur.” 

 

"It's possible that a major reason the Harts escaped accountability for so long, and the children were not saved, is that many people, both inside and outside the child welfare system, held a common assumption: that these six Black children must be better off with the white women who adopted the, that whatever issues they were having as a family must have been an improvement for the children over the poor conditions of their early childhood homes." 

 

“The children’s birth families were not beating their children, or starving them; they were clearly struggling with substance use and mental illness, but instead of receiving help, the parents were punished. On the other hand, authorities consistently projected a halo of goodness onto the adoptive mothers, throughout a decade of abuse allegations and even after the murder of their children, with cops and other officials bending over backward to interpret their actions in the kindest possible light.” 

 

“The state’s response to parental harm, though, is not meted out equally.” 

 

“In a society that resorts to individual punishment as a response to many of its systemic ills, this concept is deeply embedded into our psyches, and it is hard to let go.” (a comment on all abolition advocacy work) 

 

“But children both young and older exist in the context of their own families, their own histories.”