What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sun Won't Come Out Tomorrow: The Dark History of American Orphanhood
The orphan story has been Step While a child is still too young to form distinct memories of them, their parents die in an untimely fashion. Step Orphan acquires caretakers who amplify the world’s cruelty. Step Orphan escapes and goes on an adventure, encountering the world’s vast possibilities.
The Sun Won't Come Out Tomorrow upends this story. Alongside powerful critiques of popular orphan narratives, from Annie to the Boxcar Children to Party of Five, journalist Kristen Martin explores the real history of orphanhood in the United States, from the 1800s to the present. Martin reveals the mission of religious indoctrination that was at the core of the first orphanages, the orphan trains that took poor children out West (often without a choice), and the inherent racism and classism that still underlie the United States' approach to child welfare.
Through a combination of in-depth archival research, memoir (Martin herself lost both her parents as a child), and cultural analysis, The Sun Won't Come out Tomorrow is a compellingly argued, compassionate book that forces us to reconsider autonomy, family, and community. Martin delivers a searing indictment of America's consistent inability to care for those who need it most.
The Sun Won't Come Out Tomorrow upends this story. Alongside powerful critiques of popular orphan narratives, from Annie to the Boxcar Children to Party of Five, journalist Kristen Martin explores the real history of orphanhood in the United States, from the 1800s to the present. Martin reveals the mission of religious indoctrination that was at the core of the first orphanages, the orphan trains that took poor children out West (often without a choice), and the inherent racism and classism that still underlie the United States' approach to child welfare.
Through a combination of in-depth archival research, memoir (Martin herself lost both her parents as a child), and cultural analysis, The Sun Won't Come out Tomorrow is a compellingly argued, compassionate book that forces us to reconsider autonomy, family, and community. Martin delivers a searing indictment of America's consistent inability to care for those who need it most.
271 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 21, 2025
36 people are currently reading
776 people want to read
About the author
Kristen Martin
1 book5 followersKristen Martin is a writer and critic based in Philadelphia. Her work has appeared in The New York Review of Books, The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New Republic, NPR, and elsewhere. She received an MFA in nonfiction writing from Columbia University. The Sun Won’t Come Out Tomorrow is her first book.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
October 26, 2024
When I began reading The Sun Won't Come Out Tomorrow by Kristen Martin, I certainly did not expect to read an uplifting book. Quite simply, being an orphan is sad to begin with and the system which orphans find themselves does not help. That said, Martin's passion, or more accurately rage, goes a bit too far in my opinion.
Martin was an orphan herself although she admits she did not end up in an orphanage or foster care. However, she has done some excellent research into the subject and walks the reader through the ways orphans have been cared for since the found of the U.S. Spoiler: it's been a disaster the whole time! I want to be clear that I completely agree with Martin that the system is broken. My problem was with the presentation of it in this book.
Martin covers way too much ground in a scant 300ish pages. For example, Christine Keneally's Ghosts of the Orphanage (which I highly recommend and is quoted directly in this book) is about the same length and talks about just one institution. Martin needs to cover a lot more which means she needs to generalize often and the individual stories are short. The other problem is Martin's relentless negativity. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to be mad about. However, you need to give the reader a breather once in a while from the sheer negativity. I thought Martin might give the Quakers a positive spin for instance but they were almost immediately called white saviors even while they avoided the horrible abuses of Protestant and Catholic orphanages.
In the end, there is some solid research and an author who cares deeply about the subject. I was not a fan of the presentation, but I wouldn't tell people to avoid the book.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and PublicAffairs Books.)
Martin was an orphan herself although she admits she did not end up in an orphanage or foster care. However, she has done some excellent research into the subject and walks the reader through the ways orphans have been cared for since the found of the U.S. Spoiler: it's been a disaster the whole time! I want to be clear that I completely agree with Martin that the system is broken. My problem was with the presentation of it in this book.
Martin covers way too much ground in a scant 300ish pages. For example, Christine Keneally's Ghosts of the Orphanage (which I highly recommend and is quoted directly in this book) is about the same length and talks about just one institution. Martin needs to cover a lot more which means she needs to generalize often and the individual stories are short. The other problem is Martin's relentless negativity. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to be mad about. However, you need to give the reader a breather once in a while from the sheer negativity. I thought Martin might give the Quakers a positive spin for instance but they were almost immediately called white saviors even while they avoided the horrible abuses of Protestant and Catholic orphanages.
In the end, there is some solid research and an author who cares deeply about the subject. I was not a fan of the presentation, but I wouldn't tell people to avoid the book.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and PublicAffairs Books.)
April 6, 2025
I’ve read a fair amount about the history of adoption, orphanages, and the creation of the foster care system. I am also a mental health professional who has worked both with kids who have been removed from their parents’ care due to abuse or neglect and with parents whose kids have been removed from their care and are trying to get them back. And I was very quickly put off by the radicalism and lack of nuance in this book. This is the second book I have read on adoption, one published in 2024 and another in 2025, that demonstrated similar radicalism, maintaining that all of the causes of adoption are systemic. This book argues that children are removed from their parents’ care to punish their parents for being poor. I really hope people catch on to how extremist these ideas are, how they aren’t helpful, and that some sanity returns to this conversation. So let’s get this out of the way with. In the vast majority of the cases it is best that we do everything possible to ensure that children remain with their parents. And the sad reality is that there are exceptions to every rule and sometimes it is in the child’s best interest to be removed from their parent. This is tragic when it happens and unfortunately there are no easy answers.
In short, it is not accurate that kids are removed from their parents’ care to punish them for being poor and it is not accurate that everything is systemic. I’ve worked with kids who have survived nightmarish ordeals of physical and sexual abuse and parents who lost their kids because they had severe substance use disorders. Those parents spanned the spectrum from those who did just need some extra support and help and were given it to those who I wouldn’t trust with a houseplant and no amount of help and support would turn them into a good, responsible parent. Yes, poverty plays a role. Basically it’s easier to get away with abusing and neglecting your child if you have money, which is not right. Rich people shouldn’t be allowed to get away with child abuse. But it’s also not accurate to characterize our current system as something designed to punish poor people or categorize them as undeserving. I found CASA worker Lisa Bennett’s review of this book relevant and spot on here. Yes, poverty is a factor and I do believe that there are systemic factors that need to be addressed. At the same time, and I say this as a life long liberal who is getting tired of extremism in liberal circles, all of the systemic corrections in the world won’t matter if an individual does not take responsibility for his or her own life. This is something I see all of the time as a mental health professional. If someone refuses to take that responsibility then there is not a lot society can do for that person.
Here are two examples that challenge the systemic poverty narrative. Diane Downs shot three of her children. One died. The surviving two were disabled and have to live with the knowledge that their mother shot them with the intent to kill them. She has been diagnosed with Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder. This is severe pathology, and no matter how rich or poor she is, she is a risk to her children and should not be anywhere near them. Another would be the Turpin parents who chained their 13 children to their beds and starved them and abused them. The father worked for Lockheed Martin as an engineer and made good money (though he did not manage it well). While in cases such as these you have intergenerational family trauma, at some point an individual has to take responsibility and say “this stops with me.” Diane Downs and the Turpins perpetuated it on the next generation. They were not punished for being poor, they were not harshly judged, they caused great harm to their kids and do not deserve their kids and they deserve to be in prison for life. Judgement is a Goldilocks and the 3 bears thing. You don’t want too much but you also don’t want too little either.
That said, the history in this book was mostly accurate, but I got tired of the extremism and the lack of nuance. The events described were obviously bad and wrong, yet the author continued to club us over the head with how bad and wrong they were. It would be like watching a horror movie where the director interjects every two minutes, “This is scary, you should be scared now.” Yes, we get it.
And while there are plenty of people who history should judge harshly, there are other people who I feel were trying to do their best to solve a problem without the benefits of modern psychology, sociology and social work and during a time that was a lot harsher and less secure than now. They were inventing the wheel and they made a lot of mistakes along the way that we have learned from. Still, we have not solved everything, such as how to cure someone with severe psychopathology. 100 years from now what will they look back and judge us harshly for? Further, life is a lot more secure now than it was one hundred years ago. I’ve been reading the “Little House” books to my kids and Laura Ingalls Wilder and her sisters worked their butts off, they still went through times where they starved, and they weren’t adopted. They had different priorities then because their lives revolved more around survival than our lives do. Life was a lot harder for most people then, adopted or not, and the concerns the author had are very much a product of someone who has undergone painful hardships and still had a comfortable first world lifestyle and has not had to worry about starving. I don’t want to diminish the author’s painful experience of losing both of her parents to cancer as a child, I just want to highlight that her life was a lot more secure than it would have been one hundred years ago and she came off as highly critical of people who did not have a secure food supply, electricity and labor saving devices.
There were a few double standards that aggravated me, and I say this as someone who is not religious and has been critical of organized religion. The author railed against Protestant and Catholic organizations wanting to ensure that kids who were adopted retained either the Protestant or Catholic faith of their families. She called this indoctrination. Yet she was rightfully critical of American Indians being separated from their families and forced into Christianity. I agree 100% that an American Indian being taught their tribal beliefs is an important part of their cultural legacy. Yet the author could not see how for a family that is Protestant or Catholic that would also be an important part of that child’s cultural legacy. Children who are adopted into a different culture do need parents who try to keep that connection with their child’s culture alive (around the age of 8 most adopted children start to realize the loss and grieve it). Whether that connection is a tribal belief system, Buddhism, Islam, Jewish or Christian doesn’t matter, just that it is part of that child’s cultural legacy. Where Christian orphanages went wrong was not preserving Christian heritage for children who came from a Christian background but to force Christianity on to children who came from a different background.
The history is interspersed with summaries of books and tv shows depicting orphans and the author skewering them for not being realistic or authentic. And this is where the author insults her audience. The author writes about several different fictionalized accounts of the orphan trains and slams them for their inaccuracies and not centering on the children’s grief over being separated from their parents but for weaving a story of adventure out of heading west. At one point the author claims that people who read these stories never once questioned their veracity. Um, well, I had read one of the series she profiled as a kid and I loved those books. And even though I was a kid I did stop to think about the actual history and found books on the actual history of the orphan trains and read about it. And I know I am not the only one who has read historical novels or watched a historical movie and did some fact checking afterwords. Given that with each season of “The Crown” that came out they had news articles talking about the real history of the events and that if you take any bit of historical media that becomes popular you can find those fact checks it is obvious that people are aware that what they read in novels isn’t real. It’s called fiction for a reason.
And while I can emphasize with the author wanting to see her experience represented a bit more accurately, I also think she’s blinded by her first world experience. She made a lot of statements that made me raise my eyebrows and take a note with exclamation marks because of how extreme or disconnected from reality they were. One of them was about a fictionalized orphan train rider never processing her trauma. The thing is that isn’t what people did then. One thing I have started to study is people’s approach to mental health in the first world and how it is different from how people approach it when their lives are less secure. People in the first world have more time to be introspective and do healing work. People whose lives are less secure are too busy surviving. One is not better than the other, but different strategies that work in different cultural contexts.
The author also really seems to come from a perspective that I see in liberal spaces that fiction should better reflect reality, or rather a highly idealized version of reality. I think that is limiting though. The author is baffled at the popularity of orphans in stories, likely because she lived the harsh reality and survived it and found a way to thrive. That is to her credit. What she fails to understand is that children are drawn to stories that are dark, not because they are trying to depress themselves, but because these stories provide lessons in how to endure when life gets hard. This is why orphans stories are adventure stories about perseverance, resourcefulness, and strength. When you shift the focus of a piece of media from “how well does this reflect reality” to “what does this story tell me about being a human in the world” it starts to make a lot more sense.
The sad thing is that the author’s writing style is very engaging. Historical books on the orphan train can be rather dry and tedious but this was by far the most enjoyable historical account of the orphan train that I’ve read. But there also wasn’t anything new and I got tired of the bias, the extremism, the criticism and the baffling arguments. And as someone who has been in the trenches and witnessed families who have CPS involvement in their lives first hand, she came off as being in an impenetrable ivory tower, lobbing arrows at people trying to solve the problem without wanting to get her hands dirty. To which I say, please roll up your sleeves and give us a hand before you shoot us.
In short, it is not accurate that kids are removed from their parents’ care to punish them for being poor and it is not accurate that everything is systemic. I’ve worked with kids who have survived nightmarish ordeals of physical and sexual abuse and parents who lost their kids because they had severe substance use disorders. Those parents spanned the spectrum from those who did just need some extra support and help and were given it to those who I wouldn’t trust with a houseplant and no amount of help and support would turn them into a good, responsible parent. Yes, poverty plays a role. Basically it’s easier to get away with abusing and neglecting your child if you have money, which is not right. Rich people shouldn’t be allowed to get away with child abuse. But it’s also not accurate to characterize our current system as something designed to punish poor people or categorize them as undeserving. I found CASA worker Lisa Bennett’s review of this book relevant and spot on here. Yes, poverty is a factor and I do believe that there are systemic factors that need to be addressed. At the same time, and I say this as a life long liberal who is getting tired of extremism in liberal circles, all of the systemic corrections in the world won’t matter if an individual does not take responsibility for his or her own life. This is something I see all of the time as a mental health professional. If someone refuses to take that responsibility then there is not a lot society can do for that person.
Here are two examples that challenge the systemic poverty narrative. Diane Downs shot three of her children. One died. The surviving two were disabled and have to live with the knowledge that their mother shot them with the intent to kill them. She has been diagnosed with Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder. This is severe pathology, and no matter how rich or poor she is, she is a risk to her children and should not be anywhere near them. Another would be the Turpin parents who chained their 13 children to their beds and starved them and abused them. The father worked for Lockheed Martin as an engineer and made good money (though he did not manage it well). While in cases such as these you have intergenerational family trauma, at some point an individual has to take responsibility and say “this stops with me.” Diane Downs and the Turpins perpetuated it on the next generation. They were not punished for being poor, they were not harshly judged, they caused great harm to their kids and do not deserve their kids and they deserve to be in prison for life. Judgement is a Goldilocks and the 3 bears thing. You don’t want too much but you also don’t want too little either.
That said, the history in this book was mostly accurate, but I got tired of the extremism and the lack of nuance. The events described were obviously bad and wrong, yet the author continued to club us over the head with how bad and wrong they were. It would be like watching a horror movie where the director interjects every two minutes, “This is scary, you should be scared now.” Yes, we get it.
And while there are plenty of people who history should judge harshly, there are other people who I feel were trying to do their best to solve a problem without the benefits of modern psychology, sociology and social work and during a time that was a lot harsher and less secure than now. They were inventing the wheel and they made a lot of mistakes along the way that we have learned from. Still, we have not solved everything, such as how to cure someone with severe psychopathology. 100 years from now what will they look back and judge us harshly for? Further, life is a lot more secure now than it was one hundred years ago. I’ve been reading the “Little House” books to my kids and Laura Ingalls Wilder and her sisters worked their butts off, they still went through times where they starved, and they weren’t adopted. They had different priorities then because their lives revolved more around survival than our lives do. Life was a lot harder for most people then, adopted or not, and the concerns the author had are very much a product of someone who has undergone painful hardships and still had a comfortable first world lifestyle and has not had to worry about starving. I don’t want to diminish the author’s painful experience of losing both of her parents to cancer as a child, I just want to highlight that her life was a lot more secure than it would have been one hundred years ago and she came off as highly critical of people who did not have a secure food supply, electricity and labor saving devices.
There were a few double standards that aggravated me, and I say this as someone who is not religious and has been critical of organized religion. The author railed against Protestant and Catholic organizations wanting to ensure that kids who were adopted retained either the Protestant or Catholic faith of their families. She called this indoctrination. Yet she was rightfully critical of American Indians being separated from their families and forced into Christianity. I agree 100% that an American Indian being taught their tribal beliefs is an important part of their cultural legacy. Yet the author could not see how for a family that is Protestant or Catholic that would also be an important part of that child’s cultural legacy. Children who are adopted into a different culture do need parents who try to keep that connection with their child’s culture alive (around the age of 8 most adopted children start to realize the loss and grieve it). Whether that connection is a tribal belief system, Buddhism, Islam, Jewish or Christian doesn’t matter, just that it is part of that child’s cultural legacy. Where Christian orphanages went wrong was not preserving Christian heritage for children who came from a Christian background but to force Christianity on to children who came from a different background.
The history is interspersed with summaries of books and tv shows depicting orphans and the author skewering them for not being realistic or authentic. And this is where the author insults her audience. The author writes about several different fictionalized accounts of the orphan trains and slams them for their inaccuracies and not centering on the children’s grief over being separated from their parents but for weaving a story of adventure out of heading west. At one point the author claims that people who read these stories never once questioned their veracity. Um, well, I had read one of the series she profiled as a kid and I loved those books. And even though I was a kid I did stop to think about the actual history and found books on the actual history of the orphan trains and read about it. And I know I am not the only one who has read historical novels or watched a historical movie and did some fact checking afterwords. Given that with each season of “The Crown” that came out they had news articles talking about the real history of the events and that if you take any bit of historical media that becomes popular you can find those fact checks it is obvious that people are aware that what they read in novels isn’t real. It’s called fiction for a reason.
And while I can emphasize with the author wanting to see her experience represented a bit more accurately, I also think she’s blinded by her first world experience. She made a lot of statements that made me raise my eyebrows and take a note with exclamation marks because of how extreme or disconnected from reality they were. One of them was about a fictionalized orphan train rider never processing her trauma. The thing is that isn’t what people did then. One thing I have started to study is people’s approach to mental health in the first world and how it is different from how people approach it when their lives are less secure. People in the first world have more time to be introspective and do healing work. People whose lives are less secure are too busy surviving. One is not better than the other, but different strategies that work in different cultural contexts.
The author also really seems to come from a perspective that I see in liberal spaces that fiction should better reflect reality, or rather a highly idealized version of reality. I think that is limiting though. The author is baffled at the popularity of orphans in stories, likely because she lived the harsh reality and survived it and found a way to thrive. That is to her credit. What she fails to understand is that children are drawn to stories that are dark, not because they are trying to depress themselves, but because these stories provide lessons in how to endure when life gets hard. This is why orphans stories are adventure stories about perseverance, resourcefulness, and strength. When you shift the focus of a piece of media from “how well does this reflect reality” to “what does this story tell me about being a human in the world” it starts to make a lot more sense.
The sad thing is that the author’s writing style is very engaging. Historical books on the orphan train can be rather dry and tedious but this was by far the most enjoyable historical account of the orphan train that I’ve read. But there also wasn’t anything new and I got tired of the bias, the extremism, the criticism and the baffling arguments. And as someone who has been in the trenches and witnessed families who have CPS involvement in their lives first hand, she came off as being in an impenetrable ivory tower, lobbing arrows at people trying to solve the problem without wanting to get her hands dirty. To which I say, please roll up your sleeves and give us a hand before you shoot us.
February 10, 2025
As should be obvious from my rating of this book, I can not recommend it. While some of the historical information in the book is interesting and educational, the author's simplistic, lack of nuance about the child welfare system was very disappointing and frustrating to read.
I've been a CASA (court appointed special advocate), a trained volunteer who spends time with children who have been removed from their home because of allegations of abuse or neglect, for over 20 years. A CASA's role is to advocate for the best interest of the child/ren independent of anyone else involved in the case related to their removal. In addition to the children, we spend time with parent/s, kinship or foster family placements, case worker/s, Guardian ad litem (GAL - attorney representing the child/ren) and in court.
My issues with this book include the following based on my 20 years working with the child welfare system as a CASA:
While I can't dispute that there are likely cases where children were removed because of "problems like hunger and unsafe housing", I have never ever seen that. Not once. Children were removed because their homes were deemed unsafe because of alleged dangerous parental drug use, sexual or physical abuse or serious emotional abuse. They were not removed because the parent/s were poor (and they aren't always poor.) In only one case was it determined that the allegations were false. In almost every case, the children were returned home (or moved permanently to the home of a family member or second parent) AFTER everyone on the case worked with the parent/s to ensure the home was safe. But I continue to worry about many of these children. Again, these children were not removed because their parents were poor. This claim is insulting to the many people (case workers, gal’s, magistrates/judges, CASA) who do the difficult and often unappreciated work of keeping kids safe.
The overall negative characterization of foster families is as insulting and wrong as overall negative characterization of biological families would be. I’ve been humbled and amazed many times by the incredible foster parents I’ve worked with. These people choose to take on caring for children who often have PTSD from the abuse and trauma they’ve experienced. On my best day, I couldn’t do what these people do for children who start out as strangers to them.
And maybe my county is the exception (although I strongly doubt it) but kinship placement is always the preferred option over foster care placement. Every case worker I’ve worked with has searched for family members willing to have the children placed with them, including looking out of state. In many cases these family members did NOT exist and return home was deemed, rightly so in my experience, unsafe and foster care was the next best option to kinship placement.
To imply that children who are removed from their homes for allegation of abuse or neglect don't have anyone who advocates for them is just wrong. GALs and CASAs do both. Not every child has a CASA but at least in my county, every child has a GAL and I've witnessed their fierce advocacy for the safety of the children AND for what the child wants (if the child is old enough to advocate for that) related to their placement.
Describing the child welfare system with language like "children and family in the crosshairs of child protective services" and "the family-policing system" implies it is all bad. Again - this is simplistic and wrong. I would encourage the author, who seems to be well meaning, to sign up to volunteer as a CASA, then spend a minimum of 2 years volunteering with children (who have been removed from their homes) AND their families, caseworkers, GALs, magistrates/judges. I think she could benefit from spending time this way and seeing that the child welfare system has many shades of grey, as does everything in the real world. And it's likely she will come away humbled by the good work of many, I would say most, of the people in the "child welfare system" and their focus on keeping kids safe.
I can and do recommend one of the books the author discusses in this book:, Acceptance: A Memoir by Emi Nietfeld.
I've been a CASA (court appointed special advocate), a trained volunteer who spends time with children who have been removed from their home because of allegations of abuse or neglect, for over 20 years. A CASA's role is to advocate for the best interest of the child/ren independent of anyone else involved in the case related to their removal. In addition to the children, we spend time with parent/s, kinship or foster family placements, case worker/s, Guardian ad litem (GAL - attorney representing the child/ren) and in court.
My issues with this book include the following based on my 20 years working with the child welfare system as a CASA:
While I can't dispute that there are likely cases where children were removed because of "problems like hunger and unsafe housing", I have never ever seen that. Not once. Children were removed because their homes were deemed unsafe because of alleged dangerous parental drug use, sexual or physical abuse or serious emotional abuse. They were not removed because the parent/s were poor (and they aren't always poor.) In only one case was it determined that the allegations were false. In almost every case, the children were returned home (or moved permanently to the home of a family member or second parent) AFTER everyone on the case worked with the parent/s to ensure the home was safe. But I continue to worry about many of these children. Again, these children were not removed because their parents were poor. This claim is insulting to the many people (case workers, gal’s, magistrates/judges, CASA) who do the difficult and often unappreciated work of keeping kids safe.
The overall negative characterization of foster families is as insulting and wrong as overall negative characterization of biological families would be. I’ve been humbled and amazed many times by the incredible foster parents I’ve worked with. These people choose to take on caring for children who often have PTSD from the abuse and trauma they’ve experienced. On my best day, I couldn’t do what these people do for children who start out as strangers to them.
And maybe my county is the exception (although I strongly doubt it) but kinship placement is always the preferred option over foster care placement. Every case worker I’ve worked with has searched for family members willing to have the children placed with them, including looking out of state. In many cases these family members did NOT exist and return home was deemed, rightly so in my experience, unsafe and foster care was the next best option to kinship placement.
To imply that children who are removed from their homes for allegation of abuse or neglect don't have anyone who advocates for them is just wrong. GALs and CASAs do both. Not every child has a CASA but at least in my county, every child has a GAL and I've witnessed their fierce advocacy for the safety of the children AND for what the child wants (if the child is old enough to advocate for that) related to their placement.
Describing the child welfare system with language like "children and family in the crosshairs of child protective services" and "the family-policing system" implies it is all bad. Again - this is simplistic and wrong. I would encourage the author, who seems to be well meaning, to sign up to volunteer as a CASA, then spend a minimum of 2 years volunteering with children (who have been removed from their homes) AND their families, caseworkers, GALs, magistrates/judges. I think she could benefit from spending time this way and seeing that the child welfare system has many shades of grey, as does everything in the real world. And it's likely she will come away humbled by the good work of many, I would say most, of the people in the "child welfare system" and their focus on keeping kids safe.
I can and do recommend one of the books the author discusses in this book:, Acceptance: A Memoir by Emi Nietfeld.
April 6, 2025
This is a bleak topic, but the rage page after page was hard to take. I was aware that this would not be highlighting the history of child welfare in our country, but I cannot help coming away from this book with the feeling the the author thinks Social Workers are bad, nothing more than white saviors, and no attempts in child welfare in the past had good intentions.
The last chapter, Imaging a Better World for Children and Families, offered little in hope.
This book was clearly researched, but it would have been balanced to look at situations that had worked and why that was or what was the different approach.
The last chapter, Imaging a Better World for Children and Families, offered little in hope.
This book was clearly researched, but it would have been balanced to look at situations that had worked and why that was or what was the different approach.
November 25, 2025
shoutout Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for real
January 26, 2025
Martin explores the way orphans are portrayed in popular media and the many ways that portrayal differs from what children actually experienced in orphanages of the past all the way to modern foster care. I found it very interesting to learn about the ways the care of children in need evolved from orphanages to foster care and how some of the issues that existed in the past continued to survive into the present and how pop culture can blind us to these facts.
It was an interesting read about a topic I knew very little about.
Thanks to Netgalley and Bold Type Books for an early copy.
It was an interesting read about a topic I knew very little about.
Thanks to Netgalley and Bold Type Books for an early copy.
June 15, 2025
“The idea of a world without the police and prisons and child welfare is difficult for people to wrap their heads around. Most people, I think, also misunderstand abolition and only focus on the ENDING parts and not the BUILDING UP parts, which abolition is really paying much more attention to.”
Confronting ugly truths is difficult. It requires accountability, self reflection, and action, non of which is easy work. Martin’s book is an introduction into the reality of how our society views and “cares” for our children.
Confronting ugly truths is difficult. It requires accountability, self reflection, and action, non of which is easy work. Martin’s book is an introduction into the reality of how our society views and “cares” for our children.
dnf
February 16, 2025I can't do it. The bitterness is overwhelming me.
April 28, 2025
A staggering, stunning examination of our beloved myths of orphanhood (Annie, the Boxcar Children, etc) and the reality lived by children past and present. We prefer to imagine adorable, spunky children with no parents, free to have adventures and available to be eventually adopted by kind (rich) parents - vs. the reality of children with one or both parents who can't afford to care for them (because we can't bear to think of parents leaving their children, or having rights to claim them later). Martin delves into the history of African American parents and children separated by slavery; Catholic and Protestant charity orphanages that functioned to further their religious beliefs; orphan trains taking children (without explanation) from New York City to the Midwest; Indian boarding schools taking Native American children from parents and tribes and forcing them to assimilate; and the foster care system that functions more as punishment and surveillance for poor parents than assistance. Throughout the book, Martin makes fascinating connections throughout history and literature. She questions which Americans are the "deserving poor" and which are assumed to be neglectful or abusive because of poverty, and how resources could be better shared to eliminate the need for foster care. I was excited and moved by every chapter, and I can't recommend this book highly enough.
July 20, 2025
This is what I call the Cackling Around A Boardroom school of pop history, which ascribes knowingly nefarious intentions to the people of the past for the terrible things they did. In this case, I think the far more truthful, and far more frightening thing to look at is how many of these people genuinely thought they were doing good. Ascribing knowing evil in this case just lets modern readers off the hook, because what are we doing now that’s going to irreparably harm people and be accepted as awful 50-100 years from now? (It also had me screaming because actually, trying to make sure kids went into institutions that matched their religions of birth was a legitimately necessary thing in the face of 19th century Protestant missionary activity, particularly with regards to Jewish children).
Also, this probably should be a two star rating, but it’s a pop history that’s also a memoir, so it automatically gets docked a star. I’m so fucking done with this trend.
Also, this probably should be a two star rating, but it’s a pop history that’s also a memoir, so it automatically gets docked a star. I’m so fucking done with this trend.
March 1, 2025
This book covered a great deal of orphan history in our country. Shedding a light on how broken the system of fostering and adoption has been in our country from the very start to current times. I wish there had been more coverage about "the girls who went away" and the "homes" they were sent to and the damage done to both mother and child from adoptions through these homes. Also wish some light had been shed on the Georgia Tann time period, but I also understand there is only so much you can fit into one book.
I believe this is a book that should be on the shelves of all pro-life supporters, those who run clinics to protect mother and child, and those who want to foster or help in anyway possible.
I believe this is a book that should be on the shelves of all pro-life supporters, those who run clinics to protect mother and child, and those who want to foster or help in anyway possible.
March 31, 2025
Yes, this is a worthy book, well researched and somewhat interesting, but I have read college textbooks that were more …well, readable. Yes, our history is terrible, yes, our current foster care could certainly use some conscientious work, but man, this author not only sees the glass as empty, but coated with some invisible poison as well. She can’t find one good thing to say about anyone, anywhere. She even paints the Quakers as undeserving of any praise for their efforts in setting up orphanages. It’s almost too much research, too many statistics, too much bashing of history with our current mores. This is a book to be read sitting straight up in a wooden chair wearing shoes that hurt, not for an evening’s entertainment.
May 17, 2025
3.5 stars. Pros: the author did a ton of research. There are examples of each unique situation. The timeline starts in the 1800's and extends to 2025. She presents both religious and government organizations. The author herself was an orphan and she's passionate about the subject.
Cons: there is an undercurrent of anger throughout the book. It also seems as if the author is not a fan of religion. There was a lot of emphasis on how religious organizations failed orphans (I'm pretty sure everyone has failed them)
The bottom line is that more needs to be done to help and protect children. Perhaps religious and government agencies can work together to help our children.
Cons: there is an undercurrent of anger throughout the book. It also seems as if the author is not a fan of religion. There was a lot of emphasis on how religious organizations failed orphans (I'm pretty sure everyone has failed them)
The bottom line is that more needs to be done to help and protect children. Perhaps religious and government agencies can work together to help our children.
April 14, 2025
Disappointing! No I wasn't expecting sunshine and roses, but this was over the top negative. I wanted to say it was well researched with all of the history and statistics, but the lack of information on what has worked; Boys Town (the actual place not the movie), CASA , GALS etc. shows a lack of perspective. There is no nuance and too much ink given on media representations of orphans and foster children. Although most of us know that the system needs at least reorganizing this rant on the shortcomings is not helpful.
August 10, 2025
This book was exceptionally great! The author, Kristen Martin, brillantly dismantles the rosy myths and romanticism around orphanhood. She paints a realistic picture of the myriad challenges that come with losing one's parents through personal experience (the author is an orphan herself). After I read the book, I gained a better understanding of the history of orphanages and their inextricable role in the U.S. child welfare system.
Overall, I would rate this book a 5/5 for its evocative details and lucid writing, and wide breadth of knowledge discussed.
Overall, I would rate this book a 5/5 for its evocative details and lucid writing, and wide breadth of knowledge discussed.
July 10, 2025
A solid case and history against US foster care. Often the rehashing of orphan stories in the media throughout the timeline feels a bit roundabout, especially for the chapters where one hasn't seen the source material and Martin gives a plot summary. The most impactful moments are in the latter half of the book when we hear from modern victims of the modern foster care system and their experience.
Want to read
January 26, 2025In an email from Bookbub.
WHY IT’S READWORTHY:
Explore the harsh reality of orphanhood in the US from the 1800s to the present — from religious indoctrination to orphan trains
A fascinating combination of archival research, memoir, and cultural critique
“Powerful… A damning assessment of America as a society built on the exploitation of children” (Publishers Weekly)
WHY IT’S READWORTHY:
Explore the harsh reality of orphanhood in the US from the 1800s to the present — from religious indoctrination to orphan trains
A fascinating combination of archival research, memoir, and cultural critique
“Powerful… A damning assessment of America as a society built on the exploitation of children” (Publishers Weekly)
February 28, 2025
A well-researched and documented analysis of the systems used to care for orphans and other children in various domestic situations. This book was of interest to me because I spent several years in a children's home before being adopted.
March 22, 2025
Ebook. Wow. I never thought I’d be in favor of completely abolishing the child welfare system but I’m basically there. It seems it would be much more efficient to give families the money they need to get by.
May 7, 2025
Actually DNF about ½ way through with some skimming. I am not sure what I expected, I haven’t read books on the subject before but although there seems to have been a lot of research it just wasn’t compelling.
May 26, 2025
4 out of 5 is appropriate. Overall, a good read and a good message, but the author tends to interject her strong opinions quite often. Not a "Couldn't put it down" book by any means, as I found myself skimming a few times. But it's a topic I knew little about and it was informative.
May 29, 2025
A powerful, well-researched, and thoughtful book about a complex and important topic. Particularly enjoyed the nuanced meditations on the depictions of orphanhood throughout history. Shawn Hunter 4 ever! This thorough and eye-opening book is one you won’t soon forget.
March 27, 2025
This was a great book!
August 13, 2025
Honestly, a lot of it is beginner knowledge on how the foster care system works and was founded. Interesting read, liked learning about religious impacts of orphanages.
Read
September 29, 202510/10 title. great read for when you're feeling too optimistic about the world
August 31, 2025
on p. 98.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews