Bad experience with adoption counsellor re reunion - thoughts, please

[oldnewmummy]

So ... our darling boy was adopted abroad when we lived in that country, at 1 day old.

No attachment issues that I can see, but he's now 8, very sensitive, a little bit anxious generally, and starting to process the whole adoption loss/grief thing (although he's "always" known about it, IYSWIM).

We saw a play therapist just before Xmas and she said his anxiety was developmentally normal and we were handling it well. But although he is basically OK, there are adoption/us dying fears that come up regularly.

So I contacted a specialist adoption counselling agency (we're in Australia). We (husband and I) had two initial appointments with Counsellor 1, who was great. Quite young (late 20s?) but very empathic and seemed to know her stuff. She recommended that we (DH and I) might want to see her colleague Counsellor 2 a few times as DS's therapy might raise issues for us.

So DH met counsellor 2 yesterday. They discussed his emotionally neglectful childhood, which she said was causing him post-traumatic stress. But they then moved onto reunion. She asked if we had made contact with BM yet (we have a few details from 8 years ago). He said no, as we think DS is too young right now and would get confused but also be unable to handle the potential rejection if she didn't want to know him. She said this was "pathetic". She then suggested that on his next business trip to that country he should drop by and see BM, so he could see that she was OK and reassure DS.

I am gobsmacked. If he wants to trace her when he's older and has had proper counselling first, we'll be behind him all the way. But he's 8. Also, in the country where we adopted him from, adoption records are sealed and adoptees have no right to trace their birth parents (although, as I said, we have name/address from court documents). Unmarried pregnancy is also a social disgrace. So DH turning up on her doorstep could cause her life to implode, as she may consider the whole matter closed. And that would make it harder for DS to contact her in future. The other circumstances (which I'm not going into) may I think mean that she wouldn't want to reunite with him anyway, so huge risk of secondary rejection.

So as I say, I am gobsmacked. Everything I've read (which is quite a lot) supports the wait until a bit older/prior counselling/gentle intermediary approach. Am I missing something?

I'm also slightly concerned that this means the agency has some agenda they're pushing. DS had his first appointment scheduled with Counsellor 1 next week and it was meant to be alone. I've left a message for her to call me, as I want to discuss this first, and I now don't want him seeing anybody alone as I want to know what they're saying.

Sorry for the length. I should actually be working, but this is churning away inside me ...

[LastingLight]

Counsellor 2 sounds like an idiot, and you're right to check what they are going to say to DS before he sees them.

[GirlsWhoWearGlasses]

Bizarre. That is truly dreadful advice from Counsellor 2. In any case, I didn't think it was the role of any counsellor to be so directive.

You probably have, but just in case, have you googled the agency to see if there's anything odd there?

[iwishkidslikedtomatoes]

Well that seems very very odd, the exact opposite of everything ive been taught. I don't know what the right thing to do is but it were me, I would speak to counsellor 1 and explain nicely that you're a little confused with what counsellor 2 said as it goes against everything you'd been told previously, or had read and see what his or her response is. I say nicely because I'd want to give him/her the opportunity to feel comfortable to back up the colleague, if they then did agree with same ideology (strongly agree, they'll be an element of professional courtesy to not directly oppose I would imagine) I'd be pulling my child from the counselling and going elsewhere. If there's one thing I've learned in life it is just because someone has a certain qualification or title doesn't mean you should trust everything they say and do, go with your gut.

[fasparent]

There are so many, many, diverse and unknown problems that could result
in dangerous and safeguarding situations for all concerned from what you say. Would leave well alone. Child will have lots of opportunity as an adult when and if its the wish.

[oldnewmummy]

Thank you so much everyone - I was starting to doubt myself.

Ironically I'm training as a psychotherapist, so this has given me a good example of how not to behave!

[MinceSpy]

Counsellor 2 was unprofessional and down right dangerous. Find another counsellor and feel free to report the one you saw.

[Italiangreyhound]

I agree with iwishkidslikedtomatoes.

I am also confused though because you said adopted at 1 day old and then said They discussed his emotionally neglectful childhood, which she said was causing him post-traumatic stress. did you mean your dh's emotionally neglectful childhood? If so, it sounds more like she was trying to counsel your dh, which was not, presumably, the idea!

[oldnewmummy]

Yeah, DH's emotionally neglectful childhood. The idea was to counsel DH and I for the stuff which DS's counselling would stir up in us.

[Italiangreyhound]

Ah sorry, I see. Well, all I can say is I agree with others that this all sounds not good. Unprofessional and I would be very nervous about my son having counselling without me there with someone if I did not trust them.

[StaceyAndTracey]

You know this isn't child or client centred advice. The initiative to search should be with the adoptee , when he or she she is old enough to make an informed decision

She is far FAR too directive . What's her training and qualifications ? I'd not be seeing her again .