While the dissolution is itself good news, the article is confused and confusing, and begs at least two questions:
1) The article asserts that only a three-year partnership with FBA was ever envisaged:
"CCCYO officials told Catholic San Francisco that, as planned, the agency’s placing of two full-time employees at California Kids Connection will end in June 2009. 'The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection. That period concludes in June of 2009,' [CCCYO Executive Director Brian] Cahill stated."
Where, when, and to whom was this said? The only CCCYO announcement mentioned in the entire article is the CCCYO Press Release of August 2, 2006 (to this day the only document on the CCCYO website addressing the issue) which gives no indication whatsoever that the partnership was temporary.
And if that was the plan, why, in a Bay Area Reporter article published eight days later, on August 10, 2006, did Mr. Cahill himself say:
"Partnering with Family Builders actually will allow Catholic Charities to help even more children than before, he [Mr. Cahill] emphasized.
'It's impossible not to use the word 'irony' in this situation. Out of what could have been a crisis came a great opportunity,' said Cahill.
'We actually are going to increase our role in adoptions...'
And why, a little more than two weeks after that, in a San Francisco Chronicle article published on August 27, 2006, did Mr. Cahill himself say:
"This place started with adoptions -- how could we ever consider not doing them?''
And why did the body of that article open with:
"In an adroit end-run against a Vatican ban on granting adoptions to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will launch a new project in coming weeks that experts say will lead to the placement of hundreds of foster children around the state every year."
(All emphases above are added.) None of that sound to me like the arrangement was seen as temporary.
So, on October 17, 2008 Mr. Cahill says that in 2006 it was announced that only a three-year partnership was envisaged.
But contradicting this:
1) the August 2, 2006 CCCYO press release addressing the issue does not say or give even the slightest indication that the partnership was temporary;
2) on August 10, 2006 Mr. Cahill said CCCYO was going to "increase its role in adoptions";
3) on August 27, 2006 Mr. Cahill said: "This place started with adoptions -- how could we ever consider not doing them?''
If, as he said last week, Mr. Cahill knew back in August of 2006 that only a three-year partnership with FBA was planned, why did he make the above statements to the press? For if what Mr. Cahill said last week was true, in August of 2006 CCCYO had not only considered not doing them, they had already decided not to do them--after a three-year period.
Conversely, if what he said in the August, 2006 statements to the press were true, why did he say last week:
"The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection."
The second strange contention in the article come from Jill Jacobs, Executive Director of Family Builders by Adoption:
"According to Jacobs of Family Builders and CCCYO officials, the strategic goal of the expanded CKC outreach was to establish data that supported its effectiveness in placing foster care children in adoptive families, and, thereby, provide an economic incentive to the state to step in when CCCYO vacated."
This is ridiculous. According to the Catholic San Francisco article, from 2006-2009 CCCYO was giving $110,000 annually to FBA. Over that same period, state & federal government was already giving over $1,100,000 annually to FBA--more than 10 times the contribution of CCCYO.
They did not need to "step in" when CCCYO "vacated"--they were already in to the hilt. The contract specifying government funding to FBA is below. Click on the image for a larger version.
Why all the contradictions? I think the simplest explanation of what happened is this: Catholic Charities partnered with Family Builders by Adoption, "the gayest (adoption) agency in the country." From the moment the partnership was created, Catholics loyal to the teaching of the Church were outraged. It was a disaster. Catholic Charities is now pulling out, but trying to find a way to do so without admitting their mistake.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney