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?

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

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).

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

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

Maryz 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.

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.

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

Maryz 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.

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 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 22:55:21

Does everyone know about my new budgie yet?

Maryz 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?

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.

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.

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?"

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

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

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.

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.

Maryz Sat 09-Apr-11 10:48:39

I would have thought so, but apparently not angry.

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 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.

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 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?

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

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

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?

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.

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