When individuals in positions of power express racist beliefs, they undermine public trust and confidence in their ability to serve the community. A prime example would be the statements made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. before becoming the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. On a 19Keys podcast, which aired in June 2024, Kennedy suggested that Black children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) should be separated from their families, on the presumption that their homes with their biological parents are unfit. “Every Black kid is now just standard put on Adderall, on SSRIs, benzos,” he said, claiming these medications are “known to induce violence.” Then, he laid out a plan for them to be “re-parented” in a wellness community without access to cell phones or screens. Such statements, made by someone responsible for ensuring the health and wellness of Americans, raised concerns.

Rather than planning to launch a public health campaign to raise awareness about the potential harm of excessive screentime or providing educational resources to parents and guardians, he floated the idea of removing Black children diagnosed with ADHD from their homes, a policy with chilling implications. When Terry Sewell, a representative for Alabama’s 7th district, questioned Kennedy at a Congressional hearing, he denied sharing these ideas. “I have no memory of saying anything like that,” he insisted, despite the transcript of the record presented. While Kennedy denied having any reparenting plan, his statements drew substantial backlash. Some of the ideas he presented seem to be rooted in racist beliefs about Black people, such as the stereotype that they are more likely to engage in violent behavior or that Black parents are less qualified to raise their children. Together, they offered a justification for family separation.

Taking children away from their homes and placing them in settings where they have no access to screentime isn’t an equal trade-off for the tangible benefits of keeping Black children in the home with their biological parents and chosen family. As it stands, Black children are separated from their families twice as often, and in some states, three times as often, as White children (Dettlaff, 2025). While Kennedy expressed an opinion about separating some Black children with ADHD from their families, there was already a social problem of Black families being separated at a disproportionate rate in this country. Other marginalized groups, such as Latinos and other immigrants of color, have experienced higher rates of child separation within the immigration system. In a qualitative analysis of the psychological effects of forced family separation on asylum-seeking children and parents, Hampton et al. (2021) found that this policy, when carried out “without any intent to reunify…violated well-established principles of human rights,” resulting in severe psychological harms.

Kennedy’s statement seems to assume that Black children are more likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication, which is inconsistent with research showing they have less access to mental health care services (Fortuna et al., 2008). This disparity is not new. For instance, a 1998 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found that “African American youths with Medicaid insurance aged 5 through 14 were less than half as likely to have been prescribed psychotropic medications as Caucasian youths with Medicaid insurance” (Zito et al.). A more recent Psychiatric Services study found that “Black and Hispanic patients were significantly less likely to receive any filled psychotropic prescription compared to White and non-Hispanic patients” (French et al., 2022). Given that Black children have less access to mental health care services and psychotropic drugs, it seems that racism, rather than logic, influenced this idea. And while RFK suggested that drugs used to treat ADHD increase the likelihood of Black children engaging in violent behavior, this point also seems to stem from several racist and otherwise misguided beliefs.

The comments Kennedy made seem to suggest that Black people are more violent. While this stereotype is often used to justify the increased surveillance and punishment they endure, it’s unanchored from reality. He also suggested that expanding access to mental health resources is the only solution to gun violence, a talking point often raised in lieu of supporting stricter regulations for gun owners, and that overlooks how easy access to guns facilitates violence. Another misconception is that people with mental illnesses are more violent, which isn’t true (Stuart, 2003). According to Varshney et al. (2015), the public perception that mental illness is the key driver of violence fuels “arguments for coerced treatment of patients,” though this perception is unfounded, based on research findings. Evidence does not support the claim made by the NRA and others that Ritalin, a drug commonly prescribed to those diagnosed with ADHD, causes violence. After RFK suggested in another instance that antidepressants were to blame for school shootings, Sarah DeGue, a psychologist and violent prevention expert, noted that “this theory has been examined for decades. There is no credible evidence that antidepressants cause or contribute to mass violence.”

Now that these initial misconceptions are uncovered, it’s clear that Black children are no more likely to access mental health care services or be prescribed psychotropic drugs, and that those who take these drugs to mitigate unwanted symptoms are no more likely to engage in violent behavior. We can return to the part of Kennedy’s statement that drew the most public backlash, his suggestion that some Black children should be reparented. This is a disturbing idea, even when uttered on a casual podcast, particularly given America’s history of forcibly separating Black families. Consider, for instance, that throughout the chattel slavery era, White people facilitated the forced separation of Black mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children, sisters, brothers, cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. At times, to settle debts, and at other times to punish or tighten the grip of control over enslaved Black people, they were routinely sold and prohibited from maintaining contact with their next of kin.

In an effort to justify removing Black children from their homes, enslavers attempted to pathologize the Black family as dysfunctional and unfit. The California Reparations Taskforce report found that “state law legally entitled enslavers to separate enslaved parents and children at any time, and to relocate them to different plantations at the time of the child’s birth. In some southern states, approximately one-third of enslaved children were separated from one or both parents.” The authors cited R.R. Cobb, a legal scholar at the time who is credited with drafting parts of the Georgia legal code of 1861 and who coldly suggested that a Black mother “suffers little” after having her children stolen from her, claiming without merit that she “lacked maternal feelings.” Children as young as eight were “forced to work in the fields” and engaged in the work that adults did, “tending animals, cleaning and serving in their enslaver’s houses, and taking care of younger children.” Their forced labor was perpetuated through family separation.

Even after the gradual abolition movement took hold in Northern states such as New Jersey, racist ideas about Black families continued to shape public policy. Black children were “bound” in labor contracts and separated from their parents. In Ogden v. Price (1827), the New Jersey Supreme Court “limited labor protections for children born to slaves,” according to a Princeton and Slavery report. Ryan Dukeman suggested this case “consigned them to a legal status more akin to permanently enslaved people than to indentured servants or apprentices, who were afforded greater legal rights.” Sadly, this practice continued throughout the Jim Crow era, as Black families were frequently accused of being unfit and forcibly separated. For instance, in Talbot County, Maryland, a Black girl, “Elizabeth Turner,” was apprenticed as a ‘house servant’ at the age of eight, two days after her emancipation, until she turned 18. In a case that challenged her mistreatment, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase argued in re Turner (1867) that these apprenticeships were unconstitutional and violated the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery except for those convicted of a crime. She was released. Using this legal decision, the Freedmen’s Bureau successfully argued for the freedom of 110 Black children in Maryland. While revolutionary at the time for its implications, family separation persisted throughout the Jim Crow era.

In Malcolm X’s autobiography, he described how state welfare officials separated his family. While his mother, Louise Little, and father, Earl Little, were married and had eight children, his untimely death set into motion a chain of events that divided them. Based on his injuries and activism, many in the black community believed he was killed by a White man, but some White people claimed he died by suicide. Even though he paid for two life insurance policies, one company refused to pay, leaving them financially destitute. Malcolm describes stealing apples because of his hunger. While he expressed guilt about the trouble his behavior brought upon his family, Malcolm was only a hungry child, neglected not by his mother but by the society that deprived a Black widow of what was rightfully hers. “They were as vicious as vultures. They had no feelings, understanding, compassion, or respect for my mother,” Malcolm wrote, describing how authorities judged her for rejecting pork, as charity from a neighbor, because their religious beliefs prohibited them from eating it. “The state people saw her weakening. That was when they began the definite steps to take me away from home,” relocating him to the Gohannases’ home. While they were eventually considered “state children,” he noted, “a white man in charge of a black man’s children,” amounted to “nothing but legal, modern slavery — however kindly intentioned.”

Black children thrive best in homes with their Black parents. That’s where they’re most likely to receive support from their parents, siblings, extended family members, and community. Yet, as Harp and Bunting (2019) argued in Social Politics, Black families are often unjustly separated. “Systemic forces and policies largely contribute to racial disproportionality in the child welfare system and assert that this state intervention serves as a mechanism to control black reproduction.” While our society should protect children and ensure they are in safe, loving environments, Black families are often judged by a different yardstick and unfairly separated. Black people are more likely to have extended family, relationships with church members, fictive kin, people such as Godmothers, Godfathers, and others who help care for children and adolescents (Chatters et al., 2025). The nuances of Black families are often missing from political discourse. For instance, some emphasize that Black parents are less likely to be married, but research suggests Black fathers are more likely to spend quality time with their children. Furthermore, while “family by choice” is an important concept within the black community, the strength and resilience of Black families are often overlooked.

Blaming Black parents for their children being diagnosed with psychological disorders like ADHD plays into very old, racist ideas about the Black family. The presumption that they’re dysfunctional, and thus less equipped to support their children, is more than offensive; it’s an inaccurate portrayal of Black familial relationships. Despite Black parents and caregivers having less money on average than White parents and caregivers, they possess a practical treasure trove of wisdom about what it takes to raise children and ensure they have what they need to succeed. Remember, there’s an African proverb that states, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Inherent in Black culture is the acknowledgment that parents can’t do it alone and that we all benefit from the support others offer. If White government officials understood this, they would realize that what’s actually needed is a holistic approach that addresses the disadvantages Black families are saddled with. Many are receptive to support, but the threat of family separation and other punitive measures creates a barrier.

Since there’s already a stigma within our country about people seeking mental health care services, any policy that increases the rate at which Black children are separated from their parents will ignite fears and, in turn, limit parents’ willingness to seek help from mental health care professionals. Such a policy only serves to further marginalize Black families, rather than ensuring they have the help and support they need. While Kennedy will likely steer clear of discussing reparenting Black children diagnosed with ADHD after facing public backlash, it doesn’t change the fact that these racist beliefs about Black families were expressed, and, despite denials, may impact the development of new policies. In Project 2025, the mandate for conservative leadership, often cited as driving much of the Trump administration’s policies, called for HHS programs to “respect parents’ basic right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.” But the authors also suggested that parents considered unfit should have their children adopted in a “speedy” process. Rather than emphasizing support for family reunification, their perspective seems to favor permanent family separation. As it stands, “more than half of Black children are investigated by the family policing system.”

In light of America’s history of Black family separation and the ongoing crises caused by migrant family separation, emphasizing ADHD diagnosis among Black children as a sign of a poor home environment is concerning. Research suggests this disorder is linked to lower activity in some parts of the brain associated with attention, and there is an increased rate among those whose parents had the disorder. Indeed, “a child with ADHD has a 1 in 4 chance of having a parent with ADHD.” In some cases, severe brain injury can lead to the disorder, and it’s also believed that “prenatal exposures,” such as alcohol, nicotine, or other drugs, are associated with ADHD diagnoses. On rare occasions, “toxins in the environment may lead to ADHD.” Given the variety of causes established by researchers, it’s wrong to assume Black families or others are intentionally causing their children to be diagnosed with this disorder, or that it develops as a result of neglect, when most explanations stem from factors outside a parent’s control.

Lastly, according to a Cleveland Clinic interview with Dr. Michael Manos, who specializes in pediatric behavioral health, increased use of technology, such as children overusing iPads, phones, or computers, “may cause symptoms that are similar to ADHD, even though they can’t cause ADHD itself.” In light of available research, Kennedy’s statements are unsubstantiated. They seem more inspired by racist beliefs or misconceptions than by reality. Black children are not being overprescribed medication and, in fact, have less access to mental health care resources. People diagnosed with mental illnesses are not more likely to engage in violent behavior, and drugs used to treat attention-related disorders are not associated with an uptick in violent behavior. When considered alongside Kennedy’s statement last year, which suggested Black people should be on a different vaccine schedule than White people, presuming they had a stronger immune system, his statement cannot be easily dismissed. The irony wasn’t lost on the black community that Kennedy didn’t say that White children diagnosed with ADHD should be reparented, just Black ones.