What do adopted children say about their adoption?

(61 Posts)
wasthatthatguy Wed 06-Apr-11 11:32:45

I think children removed from their bio-parents at birth or shortly after probably don't have any significant memory of them. But what about children who are eg more than about three years old when adopted. What do they say about their direct contact with their bio-parents having been terminated by adoption?

fishtankneedscleaning Wed 06-Apr-11 13:05:42

I have adopted two children. DS (now 7) was adopted when he was 3 years old and DD (now 10) when she was 6. DD has regular contact with her birth family - my decision. DD regularly says, "I am so glad you are my mother. I don't mind seeing my tummy mummy sometimes but I dont ever want to live with her".

DS has had contact with his birth mother on one occasion (planned). The birth mother was steaming drunk and told DS, "Why are you cuddling to those monsters who snatched you from me? You should be living here with me. WTF are those trainers you are wearing? If you come and live with me I will buy you Nike Air trainers. Tell that ugly *ucker you want to live with your mummy".

This contact lasted about 10 mins. DS was very upset - as were we all! Needless to say contact with ds birth mother is no more.

RipVanLilka Wed 06-Apr-11 16:49:16

One is so terrified of them she flinches if they are mentionned. She would do anything to stay at least one continent away, and has horrid nightmares.

One sees her mum whenever she wants to (about one every year and a half) if her mum agrees. It goes well. She knows why she couldn't live with her, she loves her, we are all happy with the arrangements
The other has letters, but will be visits as and when he wants them. Same mum as older sister. He likes the lovely pictures she sends, he likes to look at the letters. I think he will ask to see her soon, as he's interested when sister and I go out for the day to meet up with her

I'm sorry for your DS fishtank sad

RipVanLilka Wed 06-Apr-11 16:51:51

Why didn't I look at who wrote the OP before replying!

What is the object of these questions wwtg? Honestly, I'm not attacking you now, I just want to know the reason you ask?

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Wed 06-Apr-11 17:45:26

grin at lilka. I sense you are a tad frustrated here hmm.

I saw the op and I'm trying hard to avoid.

hester Wed 06-Apr-11 22:29:12

Yes, what IS it all about, wttg? Perhaps if you could be honest with us, we could have a honest discussion?

NanaNina Wed 06-Apr-11 23:23:28

Wasthatguy - I think the very nature of your query serves to demonstrate that you have a complete inability to understand children and their developmental process. Do you honestly think that a child of 3 plus is going to "say" something about why their contact with their nat parents was terminated because of adoption. Also would you believe, all children are different and so what they "say" is different.

If a child (of any age) makes a comment, asks a question or whatever about their nat parents, the important thing is that it is responsded to in a way that the child can understand. A 5 year old might say "my dad used to hit my mom" and the response would be "yes, that wasn't very nice was it" and leave it at that unless the child wants to talk some more, which in my experience is quite unusual. I recall being asked by adoptors to talk to their adopted son aged 12 who I had placed with them for adoption at 18 mths. He wanted to know more about how his step father had abused him. I answered him honestly, and asked if there was anything else he wanted to know. He wanted to see where he used to live as a baby and I took him to the town where he lived as a baby, and showed him the block of flats where he lived. He seemed quite satisfied with that. There can be a temptation to tell children more than they actually need. Queries can arise at different ages and stages of a child's life and are dealt with sensitively by adoptors and social workers.

People are asking your reasons for these queries. I think your one of the "social workers snatch babies from decent parents to get them adopted" brigade and are trying to get information to validate your position.

So yes - come on and tell us your reasons or go away.

fishtankneedscleaning Thu 07-Apr-11 00:22:57

Oh didnt realise the OP was that person.

OP did you think you were going to get a thread full of adoptive parents saying their children were kicking and screaming to go back to their birth parents? Really?

wasthatthatguy Thu 07-Apr-11 09:47:53

There isn't a specific reason for my question. It just occurred to me. I think it would be best for adopted children to remain in direct contact with their bio-family, if the children want to do that, and there are no obvious reasons why it shouldn't happen. I think it will significantly reduce any risk of the children developing any resentment towards anyone due to contact with the bio-family having been terminated by the Local Authority. If an initial attempt at such contact breaks down I think it would be best for the adoptive parent to tell the bio-family it can be tried again, but will not continue if they eg slag off the adoptive parents in front of the child at the contact meetings.

Moomoomie Thu 07-Apr-11 09:57:54

Op. I really think you have not got a clue about adoption or you would not be spouting your nonsense.

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Thu 07-Apr-11 10:08:35

Yes, that's a great idea.

So when they are going through teenage angst they can say "well I'm off to live with my real mum". When that doesn't work they can say "well I'm off to my other family".

What a great way to make sure that teenagers going through rough patches feel really uncertain as to who they are and whose rules they should be adhering to.

It would end up like children of divorced parents who not only don't live together or near each other or share any past history or are singing from the same hymnsheet at all angry.

The back and forth is why so many teenage foster-placements don't work. You want that to apply to teenage adoptees as well.

Why don't you actually ever think. These things aren't as simple as you seem to want to make them. Next you will be suggesting that adoptive and birth parents "share" the children, maybe some sort of shared residence, just to confuse everybody shock.

Go away.

fishtankneedscleaning Thu 07-Apr-11 10:22:43

Has it ever occurred to you that contact with bio families is severed by LA for very good reason? Otherwise open adoption is recommended.

If my son were to have regular contact with the alcoholic, screaming banshee that abused him and is intent on slagging off him and his adoptive family, what do you think that would do to my sons already fragile emotional development??

I guess in your warped little mind bio parents have "rights" and bugger the children's right to have a calm, loving, normal upbringing eh?

Kewcumber Thu 07-Apr-11 11:59:59

I would love DS to have contact with his birth family. It isnt possible.

"and there are no obvious reasons why it shouldn't happen" I would guess (and its only a guess) that in teh majority of cases there are good reasons why the birth carers (whomever they were) do not get contact hence the adoption.

I don't know personally any cases where non-abusive birth family have asked for contact.

If children are adopted at the age of three, the likelihood is that they have been in care for a lot longer than that. If it is possible to have open adoption, then that happens. If it doesn't happen, it's because the child is at risk from their bio family. You know, like the reason they were adopted in the first place.

hmm

wttg - think maybe you should walk a mile in our shoes before you question and then spout nonsense about your ill informed opinion on what is best for adopted children. Each child is different, each situation they come from is different - how can you say
"I think it would be best for adopted children to remain in direct contact with their bio-family, if the children want to do that, and there are no obvious reasons why it shouldn't happen. I think it will significantly reduce any risk of the children developing any resentment towards anyone due to contact with the bio-family having been terminated by the Local Authority. If an initial attempt at such contact breaks down I think it would be best for the adoptive parent to tell the bio-family it can be tried again, but will not continue if they eg slag off the adoptive parents in front of the child at the contact meetings."
when you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Or if I have misunderstood and you are in the position of pre-adoption and have completed all the necessary paperwork then you obviously listened to nothing the SW discussed with you as we would all have received information on this subject at the time of applying and at the latest once matched. I do feel you are being intentionally inflammatory on a sensitive subject - start off all nicey nicey and then go in for the kill. Makes me feel extremely uncomfortable.

Kewcumber Thu 07-Apr-11 15:05:33

"contact with the bio-family having been terminated by the Local Authority" isn't it the court who decide whether contact with birth family is feasible/ best for the child?

Daydreamng Daisy - don't get uncomfortable, the OP has an obvious agenda which he won't admit to. He patently believes that children are routinely placed for adoption without consent of birth parents and where there is no evidence of actual harm (from another thread). I don't personally know of any such cases but he completely misses the point that by trying to treat the majority of adoptions as if they are like this he loses any ability to be taken seriously and I suspect all our eyes glaze over as we realise who the OP is by.

On another thread before he had form, many of the adoptive parents on here have openly discussed the abuse their children were subjected to - some of which is upsetting but still he seems to think that we are somehow party to keeping childrn apart from their "natural" parents.

I guess he beleives that if he just keeps on from differnet angles that eventually we will crack and agree with him.

Ihave said on another thread and I will repeat - I am quite prepared to accept that miscarriages of justice happen even though I do not personally have any experience of them. Beleiving that and beleiving the adoption system needs reform and beleiving that the majority of adoptions happen for very sad reasons which are in teh best interests of th echild are not mutually exclusive.

I suspect that OP starts these threads hoping that people will be openly hostile and then links the thread to other public forums as evidence that adopters are agressively unreasonable and part of the conspiracy to unfairly separate childrne from the bosom of their loving family. I know he has linked a previous thread with a similar comment (though I'm paraphrasing) to a national newspapers column.

walesblackbird Thu 07-Apr-11 16:43:20

They say thank God I'm safe now. What's it to you anyway?

hester Thu 07-Apr-11 21:45:03

I tried to adopt a little girl where social workers were asking for direct contact with the birth father. From everything we read about him, we agreed to this - even though it would be very challenging - because we could see that it would have many possible benefits for the child. It sounded as though he had the insight, compassion and self-discipline to make it worth a try. (Though it fell through because he didn't like us being lesbians.)

This is fantastically unusual. In the vast majority of cases it would not work because, well, because of the reasons the child was adopted in the first place.

wasthatthatguy Fri 08-Apr-11 09:49:00

Strange as it may seem, in child care cases, it isn't a judge in a court who decides whether or not contact between a child and his or her bio-relatives should be terminated, it is faceless bureaucrats in a Council Office who decide that. The faceless ones also decide whether or not what starts out as a child care case should become an adoption case. A judge has no direct input into those decisions and can only issue or refuse to issue the orders the faceless ones apply for. It is not inconceivable that any past "conflicts" between the bio-relatives and "the professionals" could significantly influence the decisions of they who shall remain unknown.

There are definitely some, and maybe quite a lot of, cases where the child hasn't been significantly harmed in the past, but the faceless ones think may be harmed in the future. Possibly due to one or both of the parents drinking too much or taking drugs, or having some sort of mental illness or disorder, or being in conflict with each other. I am not aware of any statistics which specify the percentage of cases where there was no significant harm in the past, only predicted significant harm in the future. My guess would be about 50% of all cases, maybe more, due to the children generally being removed before any significant harm occurs. I think children adopted from that sort of situation should be allowed to remain in contact with their bio-relatives if at all possible. But it can only happen if the adoptive parents are agreeable to it happening, due to them having full parental responsibility for the child post adoption. I think the adoptive parents should explore the possibility of contact being re-established between the child and his or her bio-relatives and that it should take place if it appears it will be beneficial to the child.

Wrong on so many levels, I can't be bothered

edam Fri 08-Apr-11 10:17:28

I am sure the adopters posting here are right about their children and in the majority of cases. But there are exceptions.

There was an MN poster whose children had been taken thanks to the infamous Roy Meadows. The man who was disgraced after his incompetent claims in the Sally Clarke case (God rest her troubled soul) that the chances of more than two cot deaths in a family was something like millions to one. He was not a statistician so he had no right to make that claim. Yet his lies convinced the court in more than one horrible miscarriages of justice.

I met the poster. Who was in a wheelchair with a real diagnosed physical illness, despite Meadow's claims at the time she was prosecuted for child abuse that she was suffering from Munchausen's. Odd for a doctor not to realise there are some conditions that are rare and where the process of diagnosis can take years.

By the time this posters was on MN her children were in their late teens. She had some limited contact with them (although far more limited than the actual adoption order specified). Social Services were well aware of Meadow's involvement in her case and that he had been disgraced. Yet they gave her dd a 'letter for life' attacking the poster and making all the original untrue claims about why she'd been adopted. Sadly contact with her dd stopped at that point. (She was still in contact with her son who was older.)

The adoptive parents were incredibly hostile to the idea that the adoption had been based on a false premise and keen to justify the adoption by blackening the poster's name. Very sad indeed. Decent parents want what is best for their child. If it turns out years later that the adoption was a miscarriage of justice, a decent parent would accept that and say something like 'We love you, at the time everyone thought your Mummy couldn't look after you but we now realise that was a horrid mistake. But we love you and your Mother loves you.'

It was a tragic situation for all concerned but it was far from the only tragedy caused by Meadow's special blend of overweening arrogance and incompetence.

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Fri 08-Apr-11 10:27:09

We have all accepted that there are tragic exceptions, but many of us as adoptive parents are pretty sick of wasthatthatguy/melvin/johnhemming or whoever he is implying that in all cases the children are best with the birth parents, and that "forced adoption" is the order of the day to meet "adoption targets" set by faceless and nameless bureaucrats hmm.

We have all said that these exceptional cases are tragic, but that the fact that they occur doesn't necessarily mean that the whole adoption system, the legal people involved and the entire social services is corrupt and hell-bent on taking children from their parents for no reason at all.

If he spent a little more time on genuine cases, and a little less time coming on sites like this, making spurious claims and accusations, I'm sure he would get a lot more support.

He is guessing that 50% of children are removed "in case" they might be abused. He seems to be complaining that they are removed before any significant harm occurs hmm.

He posts random crap on adoption threads, never answers questions, links to spurious websites and flings out random accusations, and to be honest I, for one, am sick of it.

And then he links adoption threads on here (which are a source of support for us and our relationships with our children) to "anti-adoption" sites angry.

Many of us are pretty sick of him making out that we are the bad guys. Not one of us on here feels we are "heroes" for adopting our children, neither should we be made to feel like villains, which seems to be his one intention.

Not to mention the crap he has posted on the legal and mental health boards, where there are some truely vulnerable people shock.

Kewcumber Fri 08-Apr-11 10:39:05

Edam, I have repeatedly accepted that there must be miscarriages of justice and for the people involved they are heartbreaking and I understand people who have experience of them campaigning to improve the system to avoid them where-ever possible. But the OP has repeatedly started threads implying that this is common and has made some extraordinarily crass statements about how adoptive parents communicate the facts of their adoption to their children and has linked a painful and personal thread started by a family member to a national newspapers website as an example of how unreasonable we adoptive parents are and as a result I have lost any ability to empathise with his position.

Most adopters by nature know a great number of other adopters - certainly I do myself and I know of not one case from the UK system where an adoptive family is not dealing with either with effects of severe physical and/or sexual abuse or with a sibling who has suffered such. As far as I know my experience is not unusual and that indicates to me that the vast majority of cases are really very sad but straightforward - such people should not be allowed to parent any child and a child deserves to grow up being safe and secure within their family unit.

It is not that I can't accept that miscarriages don't happen or that adoptive parents can be as scared and defensive of losing their child as any other parent, I can. But what do you (or OP) want us to say "Yes my child should be allowed contact with their birth parent despite the immense damage done"? Or should we pretend that there was no atrocious parenting and that contact will be beneficial to a child regardless of what issues of attachment or separation anxiety they are going through.

I would love DS to be in contact with birth family. It would tear me apart but I would love it. I also think he would struggle immensely with it - he has separation anxiety and has to be managed very carefully, he gets very distressed if anyone calls me "mummy" but him even in jest and I can't imagine how he would deal with a real birth parent sitting in front of him. He understands he has a birth mother he just doesn't want to talk about it at all at the moment.

We cannot ignore the real issues we face day to day and pretend that the situation you and the OP describe are relevant to us because they aren't.

Please read some of the other threads the OP has started and his later comments (he also posted as Melvin something) because you may then understand why we have no real wish to engage anymore. In fact I wonder why I'm even bothering now.

Kewcumber Fri 08-Apr-11 10:49:50

Maryz - why can I not just hide the threads OP starts, why? Why do I feel the need to justify the validity of adoption. Why do I want to lock hm in a room with some of the paretns of some of the children I know for them to treat him in the same way they treated their children?

You know some people inspire you and make you want to be a better person? Well I have decided that the OP has the opposite affect on me, he makes me want to be mean and spiteful and name call and I'm really struggling to rise above that. sad

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Fri 08-Apr-11 10:55:27

I just can't do it either. I even found myself on a couple of legal threads with melvin, I mean me in legal - I know fuck all about legal matters shock. Then he turned up on mental health and advised people not to tell their gp's they were depressed because the gp would contact social services and their children would be "forcibly adopted" shock.

I try very hard to ignore, but I'm terrified even one person will take him seriously, and there are lots of troubled people around her at times sad.

I suppose reacting makes him worse really, but I just can't bring myself to allow some of the comments to stand. I know exactly what you mean with your last paragraph as well grin

Kewcumber Fri 08-Apr-11 11:02:15

I suppose thats the way to deal with it Maryz - accept that some people have a different perspective and you can only keep repeating yours if they insist on keeping repeating theirs. Whats the option? Lie and say "oh yes its a huge problme and I think at least 50% of children should be in contact with their birth paretns"

Kewcumber Fri 08-Apr-11 11:03:33

he also seems to ignore those posters who either would allow access to briht family if they asked or who do currently have access to birth family which is odd. You'd think he'd be focussing on those and asking about the pros and cons of it.

fishtankneedscleaning Fri 08-Apr-11 11:16:46

OP. For a Judge (Yes a judge in a real Courtroom with a real wig on as well!) to issue an Order that will permanently remove a child from his/her parents care he/she has to be satisfied that "Threshold" has been met. Threshold being that the child has suffered significant physical or emotional harm and is likely to suffer more in the future if the child remains in the "care" of birthparents.

So your "guess" that around 50% of children are removed even though they have not been significantly harmed in the past but merely IN CASE they suffer harm in the futre" is quite frankly bollocks!

I am truly shocked at the Op's past actions and shall ignore from now on.

Can he not work out how his views can be harmful for vulnerable folk and it may be better to keep his ill informed opinions to himself? That's a shame.

edam Fri 08-Apr-11 11:58:11

Kew - no, of course I'm not saying abusive parents should have access. That's a straw man. FWIW my Mother was adopted, very happily. Although in those days things were very different - she never knew she was adopted until 20 years after her parents died when she'd lost her short birth certificate and had to send off for a new one.

It's far better these days that children know the circumstances (and removal is no longer the punishment meted out for illegitimacy) although I'm sure that brings lots of other challenges to do with security and identity, let alone contact.

walesblackbird Fri 08-Apr-11 12:33:14

Who cares what he thinks. He clearly has no idea of the realities of adoption or what a child removed from its bps has endured. No sw I know of happily removes a child from its bps. The whole ethos is that a child's best interests are served when it remains within its birth family. That's a load of poo in my opinion and it's that ethos that has caused undue misery to one of my children. It's because of that ethos that we're now in the realms of therapy, psychiatry, PRUs .... not that OP cares. All he's interesting in is spouting a load of old tosh.

hester Fri 08-Apr-11 13:02:47

The other negative effect of wwtg/jh/melvin's presence is that it makes this a less comfortable space for us to discuss all kinds of issues. I'm as appalled as edam at miscarriages of justice - it's every parent's worst nightmare - and I would be very interested in discussing them more fully. I'd also be more interested in talking more widely about how the system works as a whole, how we get the balance right between trying to keep families together and protecting children, how much investment we as a society want to put in to trying to save families in crisis.

In practice, these issues are usually played out through the lives of the many children who are considered borderline: who are considered at risk but monitored, with some patchy and under-resourced interventions, over months or years. With adoption, I suspect that very few of us have come across adopted children where there was any real question whether they could stay with their parents. The children we considered were all taken into care at birth, which for the melvins is evidence that the harm is only 'potential' - but of course they had older siblings who were, without exception, shockingly damaged. The birth parents had themselves been so damaged for so long that it was hard to see that they could ever or would ever be able to be halfway decent parents. So far as I can see, the social workers may make terrible mistakes, but I've never come across a case of them just setting the threshold too low.

BUT we did consider a couple of children where I wondered about whether earlier intervention would have made a difference, whether loads of support would mean this woman would be able to keep her child. I would have quite liked to discuss that on here, but what's the point when I know we'd be besieged by melvins, making idiotic assertions and implying we're all like those military families in Argentina who took the children of the 'disappeared'.

I really value this space and the wonderful women who post on it. I don't want it to be negative and conflict-riven. I don't want to constantly justify my role in what has happened to my daughter, and I refuse to trot out the sad details of her family history to prove I'm not an adoptoraptor. I suspect at least one of our melvins may be gagging for us to do that, that he's fishing for gory detail to slake his misery lit thirst.

fishtankneedscleaning Fri 08-Apr-11 14:09:35

Bravo hester!

Point very well made.

just to throw another spanner in the works it seems that LA's these days have the unenviable task of allowing a new born baby to remain with their bio parents, even though their older siblings have been taken into care following neglect, abuse etc. It seems that Social Services cannot remove babies at birth anymore because there is no evidence that they will be abused as they have not been abused YET! There are exceptions to this rule (Usually by persuading the bio parent/s to voluntarily place their children into care whilst they are given enormous amounts of support to parent "Good enough") but in the main this is what is happening.

I know Social Workers who have had nervous breakdowns or simply quit their jobs as they went into Socal Work thinking they were going to make a difference to children's lives. Unfortunately the Law as it stands appears to be putting parents wishes before childrens needs.

I absolutely agree there are miscarriages of justice - it is not easy to understand Social Services policies and procedures. There have been cases where children are taken into care unneccesarily. The parents have managed to get their children returned home because they have fought for their children and worked with the "proffessionals" to prove their innocence. What they have not done is seek attention on an internet forum and be hell bent on spouting rubbish, based on guesses or hearsay, which strikes the fear of God into normal parents.

Kewcumber Fri 08-Apr-11 14:40:14

Edam I'm not having a go at you. there is nothing in your post I fundamentally disagree with. But have you read WTTG/Melvins other posts on other threads, do you understand that he is suggesting on this thread that around 50% of children should having contact with their birth parents, can you understand why we all seem to think this is a ludicrous position to take?

Yes adoption in the UK is significantly different to how it was in your mothers day and whilst some practices are infinitely better -preparation of paretns for example the other big change is that reliquishment of children (whether truly of for societal reasons) is extremely rare - almost all adoptions now follow as a result of abuse or neglect of one or more siblings. The days of a perfectly competent parent giving up their child because they are single/having an affair and actually would in all other situations be a perfectly competant parent are long gone. Child are removed in the vast majority of cases because they are abused or neglected often linked to drug and alcohol abuse, mental health problems or poor upbringing of the paretns themselves. Some/all of which may not be the paretns "fault" but can cause immense damage to the child. To suggest that contact in 50% of these cases is in the best interests of the child is ridiculous.

There are some professionals who refuse to accept that miscarriages of justice happen but its rare that adoptive parents take the same view. we are all just as horrified by the idea of someone taking our children, who we all love very much, away as any other parent and all hope and pray that it never happens to us. But we are all sick of being lectured about it by wttg as if its the most likely reason our childrne are with us - that they have been snatched from the bosom of a loving family when we all know that nothing could be further from the truth.

I too Hester am feeling that the adoption boards doesn't feel like a safe place anymore and its noticeable that the "chat" has distinctly subsided.

I suppose I would ask again wttg - what do you want us to say?

That's a lot nicer than what he's saying actually kew:
I am not aware of any statistics which specify the percentage of cases where there was no significant harm in the past, only predicted significant harm in the future. My guess would be about 50% of all cases, maybe more, due to the children generally being removed before any significant harm occurs.

So 50% of adopted children are removed before any abuse occurs. That's absolute bollocks.

And edam - you are absolutely right, miscarriages of justice do* occur but wttg is actually undermining those few cases by making his outrageous claims. If we were confident that most adoptions happened when there was due cause and bio-parents were well aware of the reasons why their children had been taken into care, then I would hope that a lot more attention would be paid to the miscarriages of justice (although I hope the recent legislative changes on the use of expert witnesses will go some way to addressing the issue). By throwing around random and completely meaningless stats, the OP is only serving to muddy the waters, doing *no one any favours.

Oops - apologies for the overdone bolding there!

wasthatthatguy Sat 09-Apr-11 09:48:40

Here is a non-lawyer's summary of the law relating to adoption :-

The "threshold" isn't actually the reason why a child is adopted, it is just some event or events which (allegedly) justify the State interfering in the private life of the family, to protect and promote the welfare of the child.

If a care order has been issued, a placement order, for the placement of the child with prospective adopters, can be more or less rubber-stamped on the basis of the care order, and an adoption order can be more or less rubber-stamped on the basis of the placement order.

So the key step is the issuing of the care order. The conditions for doing so are in section 31(2) of the Childrten Act 1989, as in the web link below. The most relevant words being :- A court may only make a care order .... if it is satisfied ... that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and ...that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to ... the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him

A key point to note about the above being that it doesn't say "is suffering and is likely to suffer", it says "is suffering or is likely to suffer".

It is sufficient that the child "is (allegedly) likely to suffer significant harm" in the future, if left in the care of the parent(s).

Essentially all that is required to get a child forcibly adopted here in England is a report from eg an "in private practice (in the pocket of the LA) psychologist" along the lines that the child is likely to suffer significant (whatever that means) harm in the future, if left in the care of the parent(s). The psychologist may typically interview the child and or the parent(s) for a couple of hours each.

Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 is here :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/31

---------

I think my guesstimate, of 50% of forced adoption cases being based on predicted future significant harm, as opposed to actual current or past significant harm, is quite reasonable.

Kewcumber Sat 09-Apr-11 10:04:47

"is suffering or is likely to suffer"

so situation of older sibling being thrown agains a wall (aged 2) videod by concerned neighbours and hosptialised and discovery of sexual abuse and neglect additionally. Sibling just born has to stay until similar harm is done before being removed?

"I think my guesstimate is quite reasonable" - I don't. Who wins?

Kewcumber Sat 09-Apr-11 10:16:27

actually you win because I'm hiding this thread now.

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Sat 09-Apr-11 10:21:30

Oh ffs.

The only reason I can think of for you posting on the adoption boards is to make us all feel shit, and to make us feel that we can't talk about adoption here.

If that is your intention, please just say so, and we will all give up. If you have another reason, please say that as well, so that we can understand where you are coming from.

What you are doing on these boards is totally unfair. You may not be a troll in the true sense of the word, and mumsnet towers may not be able or willing to get rid of you, but in my view what you are doing is disgusting angry. You are ruining this site for a lot of people, so I hope you are happy.

I wonder will you even do me the courtesy of responding to this post?

Has anyone reported the OP? I think it might be worth it if you feel that he is ruining your safe place. Plus linking threads to an anti-adoption site. Shouldn't that be a bannable offence?

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Sat 09-Apr-11 10:42:01

Yes I've reported him a few times. Apparently there is no evidence he is a troll hmm, he appears to be just thick and nasty. I've reported again, though, for all the good it will do.

He's been banned under a previous incarnation (melvinscomment), but there is no proof of a link, even though anyone with an ounce of sense can't miss that they are the same poster hmm.

He starts threads and doesn't actually engage with debate - just posts the same thing over and over again, making baseless statements, designed to cause upset. That's trolling isn't it?

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Sat 09-Apr-11 10:48:39

I would have thought so, but apparently not angry.

fishtankneedscleaning Sat 09-Apr-11 10:50:38

Yes that guy. Social Workers (who do not have the time to adequately support the cases they already have) barge into the homes of loving families where children are protected at all costs by their parents. Then the SW removes the children and places them in foster care for no good reason (At a great cost to already financially struggling LA's). Then Social Services secretly apply to the Court, again costing thousands of pounds, which they have not got,generating a great deal of paperwork for the already overworked SW.

Parents are not given chance to attend meetings about their children and have their say. They are given no support at all. They are not allowed contact with their children throughout the Court proceedings. They are not allowed to seek a solicitor to attend Court to represent them, so that they may oppose the LA Care PLan.

The Court requires evidence as to why it would be in the childs best interest to be removed from bio family and placed in loving forever homes. Then the Judge disregards the evidence that the child is loved and protected within his birth family and issues an Adoption Order anyway. This would be just to screw up the lives of the children and birth family right??

Before we know it the child has been adopted - primarily to meet LA's adoption targets -Not because the child was at risk of course!

Take your head from out of your backside! You would be better off concentrating on getting your children back rather than scaremongering on network support forums.

NanaNina Sat 09-Apr-11 21:28:10

I think we should all just totally ignore thisguyorthatguy or whoever he is. He clearly has no idesa whatsoever what he is talking about and I wonder if he has ever actually seen a child, let alone an abused/neglected one. If we ignore him completely, then maybe he will go away. I think by responding to his nonsense just gives him the opportunity to post more rubbish. Men like this don't usually post on the adoption boards - I find it rather creepy. I will report him too because I think he is making this an unsafe place to share their experiences about adoption.

sshnapps Sun 10-Apr-11 12:06:29

here,here nana.if we all ignore him he will hopefully go away.

cory Sat 23-Apr-11 16:14:01

"that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm"

errr...yesss? and what would the alternative be? to leave a child where they are likely to suffer significant harm? does anyone think that is a good idea? hmm

and what would you think afterwards of SWs who quite calmly explained that "oh yes, we had good reason to think <dead or seriously injured child> was likely to suffer significant harm, but you wouldn't expect us to act on a flimsy little reason like that, would you?"

wasthatthatguy Sun 01-May-11 13:18:07

cory I don't think there will be many forcibly adopted children who may have ended up dead or seriously injured if social workers hadn't intervened in their private family lives. There are a few, but not many, notable exceptions where the SWs clearly got it wrong. Those cases would have been best dealt with by the police, as would any serious child abuse case.

NanaNina Sun 01-May-11 20:55:31

Just go away thatguy - am now positive you are John Hemming MP. Exact same style, ill informed, talking nonsense and not responding to posts but making odd random comments and yes JH had a huge thing about the concept of "likely to suffer serious harm" and could not grasp what this really meant, although several explanations have been given (good one by Cory on 23.04.) Just do us all a favour and go away.

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Sun 01-May-11 22:52:15

Presumably you have done the reasearch wasthatthatguy? You know for sure that the vast majority of adopted children were in no danger from their birth parents? Can we have the figures to back that up please.

I presume from your last post that all children should stay with their birth parents until serious child abuse occurs, at which stage the police (not the social workers) should be called. Is that right?

Should the police then put the children in the cells until they let the parents out, and then reunite them? Or should they stay in foster care/children's homes until they are 18 and then be put out on the street? I assume you have done the research and have all the answers?

thefirstMrsDeVere Sun 01-May-11 22:55:21

Does everyone know about my new budgie yet?

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Sun 01-May-11 23:01:06

Is that the one you are bringing up using unconditional parenting MrsDV? How is he, can he talk?

<<Reminds self to ignore gobshites>>

thefirstMrsDeVere Sun 01-May-11 23:05:34

He is doing very well thank you Maryz. I havent decided on my chosen method yet. I am waiting to see how his personality develops. One cant rush these things.

He can talk he just choses not to atm. I feel its because he is simply so intelligent we are just not challenging enough for him.

I do fret so.

grin

The perms dropped a bit too. Yay.

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Sun 01-May-11 23:14:41

Yay to the perm grin.

He is obviously highly intelligent and should be given advanced challenges. And put on the g&t list.

It is quite a concern - I mean, what is the future for budgies who don't talk? They might just end up as [shock - horror] family pets instead of fulfilling their potential shock which would be terrible.

Bunglie Mon 02-May-11 00:03:47

Thank you EDAM.

I must be the exception, the miscarriage of justice etc etc etc......
I have had enough. I have no contact with my children now and what the judge said was NEVER implemented by the judge who granted the adoption order. Why does a judge bother when it is the SW who have the say?
Every minute I had with my children, at whatever age was precious. I never harmed either of my children. I spent 25 years of being scared of breaking a gagging order and I feel sick everytime I hear of yet another case like mine.
What about the children?
It does affect them and they do not play the birth parent off against the adopted parent as most birth parents care more about the child that they gave birth to and their feelings and will do nothing to harm them physically or mentally.
Both of my children have been damaged for life.
One has accused the other of sexual abuse for over 6 years in the adoptive parents home.
My dd said " I did not ask for my life".
I did not ask for mine but I have to live with the knowledge that there are FAR TOO MANY miscarriages of justice.
I am fed up of the nature verses nurture debate.
I am fed up of self righteous people telling me that nothing can be done because one mysogistic doctor (Meadows) stated something about me without even speaking or seeing me or my medical notes let alone any doctor who had ever treated me.
Is the current SECRETIVE system in the family courts right? What about the child and the birth parents as we do and should have rights as a lot really are not drunken abusers.
angry

Bunglie Mon 02-May-11 00:10:36

Maryz I do know the figures like many others. It does happen far too frequently, children are removed from loving careing parents to fulfill the needs of a selfish society and gov. figures. Because of this I and countless other parents have to suffer for life.
I have met Earl Howe, Countess Marr and many others. I have communicated with John Hemming and am grateful that somebody cares enough to try to help the many THOUSANDS like me.
I think it is about time you opened your minds to the truth about what is going on in the CLOSED FAMILY COURTS.

Maryz Cote D'Ivoire Mon 02-May-11 09:59:13

Bunglie, I followed your story when you were around a few years ago and I really feel for you. The whole Meadows thing seems to have been a complete fiasco, and I feel very sad for you and your children sad.

I have said above that I realise that there are mistakes made, and for those individual children and families it is a tragedy.

If you read my earlier post (Maryz Fri 08-Apr-11 10:27:09), however, you will see the problem I have with whatwasthatguy and his varias aliases in his approach to this.

This is the adoption board, which is populated mainly with adoptive parents. We have no say in whether or not children are "taken" from their parents or "put into care" in any way. Many of us have had to pick up the pieces when trying to raise children who are damaged either by the neglect of their parents, or in some cases the grief of being relinquished by their parents.

It is not appropriate or helpful for him to post on these boards.

None of us are stupid enough to realise that the system has no holes, that there are no inadequate social workers, that there are no mistakes made. But it is really unfair to blame us as adoptive parents for the whole system and try to undermine our position in the lives of the children who we are bringing up as our own.

I sympathise with your situation, but while I feel that individual cases can be mistakes I have to take issue with your last post. Firstly, no-one knows the figures. You can't do. You only know individual cases, you have no access to figures on all cases. So the "50%" that wwtg keeps stating is completely made up. Secondly, the sentence "children are removed from loving careing parents to fulfill the needs of a selfish society and gov. figures" makes me just want to stop listening.

I really, really, really don't believe that children are taken, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, from completely loving familes in order to bump up government figures.

While I am ready to believe there are mistakes made, WWTG (and you, it seems) believes there is a conspiracy to remove children for no reason at all. I will never believe that, so I am leaving this thread now, and I won't be back sad.

I wish you all the best. I wish WWTG would find a more appropriate place for his ranting - we as adoptive parents don't have a say in removing any children from any families, so he is wasting his time on us angry.

johnhemming Fri 06-May-11 22:16:46

Nananina is wrong as she normally is. I post under my own name.

Beamur Fri 06-May-11 22:44:16

Not an area I usually post on - but here goes.
I have several adult friends, including an uncle who were adopted as youngsters, none of whom have, or wish to have contact with their birth parents.
I also have several friends who have adopted children (of varying ages) again, who have no or very limited contact with birth parents - for varying reasons, but some of whom do have contact with other family members, such as siblings.
One friend has 2 boys who did have contact with one of their birth parents, but the experience of doing so was so distressing and hurtful for the children, that the contact has had to be changed to letter contact only to protect the children.
Sad to say, none of the birth parents of these children are able or willing to provide stable, loving homes for these children. I know that some of the now adopted children have spent in excess of 2 years in foster care whilst SS tried to help the birth parents.
In my limited experience, the adopted children do not wish to have contact with the bio-parents. One of my close friends has struggled with issues of personal identity because of the adoption, but loves her adopted parents dearly and does not wish to find her birth parents. The common expression from these individuals is that they regard the adopted parents as their parents, end of.
I know of one girl adopted to a friend where the adoption broke down and the girl did return (as an adolescent) to her birth mother with whom she had had contact, sadly she has had a pretty terrible time of it and still seeks contact and support from her adopted mother on a regular basis when her birth mother lets her down (alcohol related problems).
I don't wish to disrespect any parent who has been unwillingly or unreasonably separated from their child, but in the (limited) experience I have of this matter, the children have been taken from, or given up, by parents who were not able to look after these children. (My uncle was given up for adoption by his birth mother).

lisalovesyou Thu 17-Oct-13 22:35:52

very sadly my baby daughter was adopted im not going to tell of all the details but this started from her father was sposed to of sexually harmed her. I then went to get a second opinion and ss decided I had gone into denial which was not true but I need ed to no the truth for my daughter when she was older. any way to cut a very long and sad story short my daughter was put into care where I was able to see her all the time but then it was all very distressing for her being very confused any way things went from bad to worse. any way what im trying to say is that this case was a serious case of misjustice. so yes it does happen as im living proof. I would like to say even tho I don't like what has happened I don't feel any bad feeling to the adopters I hope to meet them and thank them as long as my daughter has been well cared for and loved. xx

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now