Does this happen in the Uk?

[2wwmadness]

Granted I've seen it in the movies. But in America, I think that you can advertise yourself to adopt. Bm who want their children adopted can pick you, interveiw you and choose who they want their baby to go with. Im not explaining this well but the film JUNO shows what I mean. Do we do that in the Uk?

[2wwmadness]

Do you think it would move things along quicker if it were legal? I was just thinking it seems a good idea, although I don't know much about it. With a lot of problems in society, this could be another option
Sorry bout the grammar. Typing 1 handed

[OddBoots]

I wish it were possible here, I also wish there was less stigma attached to women (and couples) who decide that adoption is the right answer to their pregnancy.

[2wwmadness]

I agree boots. Dh and I would do it. It is an honourable and great thing to give a child. Better life for whatever reason with a loving, desperate family. In my opinion the greatest gift you could give. I wonder why this is not done in the Uk? Especially with Cameron banging on about the importance of family and the big society, surely this could be an option.

[hester]

It's very different here in many ways, though. Unlike in the US, it is fantastically rare for women to relinquish newborn babies in this country. Abortion is more available and more acceptable, so unwanted pregnancy does not commonly feature in adoption. The vast majority of adoptions in this country, I believe I am right in saying, result after children are taken into care because of neglect or abuse - or risk of neglect or abuse.

Birth parents do get some say in who adopts their children in this country, but social workers (rightly) can overrule. (They don't always. My attempts to adopt were blocked three times by birth parents' objections: twice because I'm gay, once because I already have a child.)

I think there are pros and cons of both systems. Instinctively I shudder at the concept of private adoption. But I think the US system has one big advantage in that it often means children are adopted from birth, which almost never happens here.

[hester]

I think adoption can be a really good solution to unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, but the birth mothers can pay a huge price. The research on long-term outcomes for birth mothers is very sad reading.

[OddBoots]

I think maybe I am looking at this from a sugar-coated angle as I have had three surrogate babies and I am still very much part of their lives despite the eldest being nearly 10.

I am sure the pain in giving up your own child as a result of a challenging situation is many, many times more immense than giving back someone else's as planned all along.

It just feels like it would be easier to do if you knew where the child was going, maybe not though.

[maypole1]

The reason why its so popular in the us is because they have almost zero welfare system


Unlike here someone with a child would never end up sleeping on the street but the us is very different no income support or council housing their also they don't have a nhs


The majority of people who do tis is poor Americans and to Frank I don't feel it should be encouraged I think we all know deep down paying some who is clearly venerable


Either
Very young
Poor
Or some one caving into a partner or family


Is wrong is ind a they pay the poor for livers and all sorts


Also they allow any Tom dick and Harry adopt in the us with hardly any checks and I have read some right shockers




What is needed in this country is for ss to wake up and see some families cannot be fixed and to deny the children adoption because of some deluded notion that a mum who say a heavy drug user with serval children removed could look after the baby she is currently pregnant with


As a foster carer I see many children sat in care from minutes old for years while the courts wait for the parents to get a bloody grip and serval children removed later the penny finally drops the parents cannot cut the mustard

The child is like 10 has been in lots of foster homes, had unseen sw and has siblings all over the shop who they may or may not see by then its too late and the children and so disturbed they cannot be adopted

One child i had they waited 6 years before they finally gave up on the parents and put child up for adoption


Said mother had tried to sell the youngest in the pub hence removal of the children


It's not about making adoption more easy its about giving the children who are removed a chance before its too late

[lisad123]

but im pretty sure that experience professionals are better at assessing parents than a standard parent, and certainly have more at their finger tips to keep adopted children safe.
The process is way too long in UK though :(

[tattychicken]

V well put maypole.

[maypole1]

OddBoots also another reason why it could never work here ss are much more straight taking in the us about parents ability to cope

Here sw are like fringnted lambs when it comes to laying input on the line for people who clearly cannot cope

Here the owness is one the state to enable incaple parents to raise their child

In the us the owness is on you

My cousin is a sw in the us and cannot believe that children sit in care for son long and that children born to useing mothers don't go stright up for adoption they have a 24 hour turn around in my counis state of a mother is found to be useing at brith ie the babie tests positive for drugs they have grounds to go to court that day for apply for adoption

Can you imagine a uk social worker saying now Mandy your pregnant with your 6th child you are not working have no means to support this child your a drug user and have Had 3 children removed already we need you to think very carefully about adoption and have a family lined up if you give the word


Sw here dare not even ask parents why they didn't show for contact

[maypole1]

lisad123 not really

The law in this area is quite clearly on the side of the parent it's not about the welfare of the child its about the rights of the parents

In the us its the other way around
In the us they have nither the time or the money to have children sitting in care for years


Are system is basically a holding cage for bad parents children while we keep their children while hopping at some point the parents will sort it out often the foster carers end up adopting the children because they have been living their so long or hey drift from home to home.


The thing that makes me really made about adoption is that they hold you all to a much higher standard than they would if they were placing the children with in their own families and if the birth families had to do the assessment none of them would be able to have any kids thats for sure



In my view children need to be removed and placed for adoption much earlier

Sw need to be much more plain about what will happen in parents don't comply


That time to turn things around should be tightly time limited children don't have 4 or 5 years for you to sort it out and in my experience you can tell pretty quickly wether a parent is serious about getting their sit together


And lastly sw need to be much more consist either you can parent or you can't this wired universe were a mother has say 4 children and only one is removed is bazar

[lisad123]

Yes because quicker turn abouts won't stop people yelling baby stealers!
The thing is, it's all well and good saying quicker BUT it's clear that children love their parents no matter what they do to them and to pull children from them, would be of huge impact on their mental health.
You ate right though children do sit in care system too long, sadly it's rarely to do with sw but more to do with our naff legal system which supports crap parents

[maypole1]

lisad123 but these children are often in care from day one any way

My fc has suffered a lot from sitting in care it became apparent from birth the mother could not cope, she could of have been adopted from small almost 6 years on they now talk of adoption what a waist and because fc is too old for adoption the only thing is left is a unsuitable long term placement


As a carer I thing you have to choose the less of two evils mine is adopting the children from young into loving families

When my fc was born fc had no issues now though years of missed contact and living in different foster homes is very messed up I very much doubt being placed with in a loving family from 6 months old would of done their mental health much more damage that what's going on now.

[Lilka]

No, I don't think private adoption should be legal. They do have numerous problems with it in the US. Firstly, the prospective parents having met the expectant mother and in many cases paid for her rent, her clothes and her other expenses, places a big burden on the mother to go through with the adoption even when she has huge doubts and is changing her mind, because the parents have given her money and shown her the new painted nursery etc. Sometimes the PAP's come to the hospital, and are in the room when she gives birth, and name the baby, and cut the cord etc. Hows that for pressure if she changes her mind??? Too many times on the American adoption board im on, there are pregnant women with doubts, feeling like they owe the PAP's their baby because she met them and they paid for her living expenses already. Of course she doesn't but the pressure is there. That pressure doesnt exist under our system where she has ample time to make a decision and the adoptive couple only enter very late in the process

Like maypole said, in this country we leave some children in care far too long. But I think our ban on private adoptions is a positive to out system. I also believe that in some cases where a woman places her baby over here, her SW will show her profiles of interested waiting couples and she can pick her favourite - thats what happened with one woman, whos story I read about. I certainly don't see any reason against that as long as it's AFTER she has given birth and decided again that adoption is right for her

Also, legalising private adoption means creating a business. People making a lot of money out of it. In the US some adoption agency directors are driving around in Lamborghini's they earned so much money organising adoptions. Some couples pay as much as 45K to get their baby, thousands of that will be the mothers pregancy expenses. Hasn't that blurred the line into buying a baby? Adoption is an industry worth billions, not a service for those in need like it is here. I don't think children should be the product in an industry, so i don't want private adoption here. We don't allow people to advertise that they want a kidney from a willing donor, so why allow them to advertise that they want a baby from someone?

[CMOTdibbler]

The sad thing in the US is also due to the healthcare system, having a child with a health problem from birth is very expensive - so a disproportionate number of babies available from birth have health issues. My colleague adopted a newborn with a heart defect whose birth parents put her up for adoption when scans showed it as they wouldn't be able to afford her care. Tragic.

[CheerfulYank]

I know a lot of people who were adopted or have adopted through this system, so to me it just seems normal. :)

I know that the long term stats on birth mothers aren't as happy as you'd think, but I think a lot of the studies took place before before open adoptions were as prevalent as they are now. I think in many cases the trauma to the birth mothers is lessened by the fact that they choose the families and can remain in contact with them.

[CheerfulYank]

Oops...two befores there, for some reason. :)

[2wwmadness]

Interesting points made here, thank you. The reason I asked is that dh and I are considering adoption. We are 25 and just want to. However, we would want a baby. As we feel we are not equipt to cope with any issues an older child that has been through trauma would have, as we do no hav. Enough life experience or experience in parenting. It just seems so long winded and buerocratic in the Uk. I understand why and how it doss need some regulation. It's just dissapointing that families (like us) are put off by the process when we could help.

[hester]

Ah I see. Well, you might want to consider concurrent planning, which would allow you to foster a child from birth, with a view to adopting them should they be freed for adoption after the usual processes have been gone through (this can take a year). The advantage is that the child is with you throughout; the disadvantage is that they may end up going back to their birth parents, which would obviously be heartbreaking for you. And most agencies still don't offer concurrent planning, so you would have to look around for one that does (and then get them to take you on).

BUT I would urge you to think very carefully about what you are taking on when you adopt. It's not enough to 'just want to'. You have to understand that even a child adopted at birth will need especially considerate parenting and may have issues to be dealt with. For example, a very high proportion of children taken into care at birth have been exposed to drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, and this may result in physical, learning and behavioural difficulties years down the line. Many of these babies have a family history of mental illness and learning disabilities. Even where children are totally healthy, they have to make sense of what adoption means for them and it is your job as a parent to support them through this.

In other words, if you want a baby that is just like any other, but bypassing the pregnancy bit, then adoption probably is not for you.

If, though, you are saying that you don't want an older child with very high care needs then that is reasonable. Most adoptions take place at ages 1-4 (only 70 babies under 1 were adopted last year in the uK) but you could reasonably ask to adopt a 1-2 year old without major health issues (though be aware that many issues are not apparent until 3+ or even older).

There is lots of information on the adoptionuk.org website, which would be worth reading.

[CheerfulYank]

I totally understand why there are issues with this type of adoption, but I do think it's a good thing for young women/parents who don't want to abort but don't feel equipped to raise their children. But again, I have lived my entire life in the US, where it's fairly common.

It can be hard. A teacher I worked with had a brother whose wife was infertile, and they went through two failed adoptions before getting their son. The failed ones were tough, but they said that they understood and could never pressure a young woman to give up her baby, of course. They've had their little boy for a year now and they send letters and pictures to the BM every month and they get together around holidays and his birthday, per the agreement.

Again, it isn't always a perfect system (by any means) but having had friends who have deeply regretted their terminations, I think it's a good option to have for women who want it. It's not right for everyone, but it is the best choice for some.

[CheerfulYank]

Oh, and good luck OP! :)

[Lilka]

But the thing is, they have that same option here CheerfulYank more or less. They can plan adoption, the baby will go into care at birth and she can sign papers from 6 weeks later. Open adoption is still available and as I said, many SS departmentsw will allow a stable mother a massive say in the parents chosen - presenting a small collection of profiles or flyers and asking if she likes any in particular, which i believe is exactly the same as what a US agency would do. I'm certainly not against the mother picking the adoptive parents in a relinquishment situation, I'm all for that, but we can accomodate for it under our current system, without creating a private business to do it. I think that protects everyone. We already have open adoptions here, I know its very rare to have very open ones, but that reflects how rare it is to relinquish a baby. I'm not really sure what other benefits their are to the US system other than the expectant mother getting complete control over picking the parents. I can't really see any others

[Lilka]

Okay, far too many 'others' in there

[CheerfulYank]

Oh, I see. I didn't know that; I thought it wasn't done at all. :)