Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on adoption.
Oona King interview in today's DM(13 Posts)
All the agencies we looked at specified 6 months minimum that a parent needs to be at home with new DC.
We were asked how much time we could have off. (I said between 9-12 months) and they asked what childcare would be like when I returned to work. Actually, I think that's what they were more interested in. They have asked a lot about how many days I'll be back at work.
This hasn't been mentioned to us at all. We've been asked how much leave we'd be likely to take and we told them it depends on the adoption/maternity pay we end up with, I wonder if our LA is one of the more flexible ones?
Yes, that's right. When you adopt, you need to take about 12 months off work. It's important for the childs sake which is why it's the rule (although some agencies are a little more flexible after the first 6 months), but it would be pretty difficult for the parent trying to go back to work shortly after adopting
‘The funny thing is that you have to stay with any adopted child for a year before you return to work. Those are the rules. But, with a biological child, anything goes.’
skimmed it yesterday. Everything I expected from the DM. I think your right * italian* about the journalist manipulating it. It's just a nasty spin on it isn't it? Having to try to get some scandal from somewhere.
I wonder whether she could maybe do with the cash from the story? 4 kids aren't cheap.
I think you are right Devora. However, I do think positive stories about adoption should be more current in papers etc to combat all the crapo negative stories in other places, if you see what I mean. I would worry about being so open in a paper about personal life.
I have to admit I'm always drawn to reading her interviews - because she's my age, and in an interracial relationship, with dual heritage adopted children, and a metropolitan lefty...
I don't doubt her love for all her children, but I really question her judgement in giving this interview. It's too important and delicate an issue to be trusted to the DM. Didn't she think about how her children will feel if/when they read it? Or that their friends' parents may read it, and say things which then get passed back?
Nothing gets me more furious than when people question the relationship between my children, or suggest one is an act an love while the other is an act of charity, or ask me (usually in front of them) which one is 'really' mine. There is no way on god's earth I would trust any newspaper, let alone the DM, with communicating our family dynamics.
All the annoying phrases the journo is using are really annoying me. Like Italian says, the journos agenda showing through
her first natural baby - ALL her children are natural children. The day we can manufacture robot-children with advanced technology will be the day we have 'unnatural' children. And even then I wouldn't use that word because it would be cruel to as it implies 'wrongness'
Oona dreamed of having her own baby - She already had 3 of her OWN children. She wanted a birth child, not her own child
Indeed, Oona is adamant that she is trying her best not to treat her only natural child differently from her adopted children - Bet the journo pushed her on THAT one. Bet journo would have loved to have picked up any hint that she doesn't treat them the same. This is the DM after all, what a great story for them to run.
A touch too quickly, Oona adds Oh please
Poor baby though, he was clearly very ill. Very hard for everyone.
Thanks for linking.
Personally, Devora when I first read it I thought the journalist might have their own agenda. The phrase 'A touch too quickly, Oona adds: ‘I didn’t love him more than the others.' is rather horrible. Who is the jouralist to assume the phrase is too quick! The implication might be that Oona loved him more but wanted to quickly say that she did not, where as I would read it that she did not want people to think she would love her biological baby more than her exisiting children!
But then it says 'Her haste perhaps reveals a deep-rooted concern that others will assume she will favour her biological child, with his genetic and physical resemblance to his parents, over her adopted children.'
Which is just what I thought.
I think the story is kind of set up to look at some of the posible negative affects of it all! I also felt that if you read about her desire for a biologicla child it does says the embryos were fertilised earlier and maybe it was only the knowledge that they would be destroyed that promoted the couple to find a surrogate and attempt to create a baby with the embryos.
I felt how weird the hospital had a fridge with champagne but not a working resuscitator!
I guess with so many children looked after now and in need of homes it would be wonderful to think that blended families of birth and adopted children could be seen as a positive family experience and not something potentially fraught with problems (even though there may be problems).
The kids are all beautiful, I think they look like her. But ultimately, whoever looks like who (my birth daughter doesn't look much like me!) it's love and care and commitment to the family that matters, not biology (IMHO).
I like her, I love it when she says.... "Most of the world seems to think blood is thicker than water but, for me, the opposite seems true: love is more important than genetics. I love all my children to distraction."
Anyone see this?
Dare I link or is that a MN crime?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.