UK adoption vs USA

[NoGoodPunsLeft]

This is all based on tv/films but the way adoption is portrayed is vastly different in the uk and USA & I was wondering if it is accurate.

For example, in the uk it is always older children being adopted (examples: Adam & Rachel in Cold Feet & the couple in Trying) whereas always seems to be a pregnant teen/young woman in USA who gives up their baby (examples: friends, A Million Little Things).

Is it at all realistic in America?!

@Pr1mr0se

Jellycatspyjamas - this is not completely true. Children are adopted for all sorts of reasons and sometimes they can be put up for adoption as soon as 24 hours after birth in the UK.

They can be removed from parents immediately from birth. They are rarely relinquished at birth. All babies removed or relinquished at birth will still have disrupted attachments unless they go straight to foster to adopt carers which is really unusual. Most babies removed at birth will have experienced some adverse conditions in utero.

@Pr1mr0se

Jellycatspyjamas - this is not completely true. Children are adopted for all sorts of reasons and sometimes they can be put up for adoption as soon as 24 hours after birth in the UK.

Also I know this isn't quite what you meant but for the sake of accuracy, babies can't legally be relinquished for adoption until at least 6 weeks post birth and babies removed at birth can't be made subject to placement orders (which allow adoption to take place) until care proceedings have concluded, usually 6 months later

The US private adoption system seems more like whoever does the best job manipulating the mother gets the baby rather than an adoptive family being chosen by someone impartial and with the best interests of the baby in mind.

That's not the same thing as giving birth parents details of two or more families and letting them choose
Giving them some non-identifying details and letting them choose isn't the same as giving them details and letting them choose? What?

Anyway the current "write letterbox once a year and send it to an old address and never mind if the birth parents can't read" system is well and truly broken and we need a new system where the birth and adoptive parents know each other before the child finds their birth parents, unsupported, on FB aged 12.
So some kind of choice for birth parents would seem preferable to the current system and more likely to promote contact.

Jellycatspyjamas - this is not completely true. Children are adopted for all sorts of reasons and sometimes they can be put up for adoption as soon as 24 hours after birth in the UK.

They can be removed from their birth mum, and placed in foster care yes, but the process to free them for adoption won’t begin immediately- the initial placement is always to foster care and while the long term plan may be adoption the local authority still need to go through the administrative and legal process to make that happen.

@drspouse

That's not the same thing as giving birth parents details of two or more families and letting them choose Giving them some non-identifying details and letting them choose isn't the same as giving them details and letting them choose? What?

Anyway the current "write letterbox once a year and send it to an old address and never mind if the birth parents can't read" system is well and truly broken and we need a new system where the birth and adoptive parents know each other before the child finds their birth parents, unsupported, on FB aged 12.
So some kind of choice for birth parents would seem preferable to the current system and more likely to promote contact.

You described giving some detail about the adopters to reassure birth parents. That's good practice. However what we don't do is say 'family X are two women, one is a doctor, family Y is a man and woman, they have horses and family X is a single woman with 2 older children, which one do you choose?'

The children I know that have gone via foster parents to adoptive parents often have physically violent fathers. Should these men really be told where their children are going to live?

@CodenameVillanelle why not?

@CountFosco We have phone and email contact with birth family members. Why would anyone be telling violent birth family members where we live?

The US private adoption system seems more like whoever does the best job manipulating the mother gets the baby rather than an adoptive family being chosen by someone impartial and with the best interests of the baby in mind

Sometimes, probably. But these are parents who have already been approved and vetted as suitable potential candidates and the outcomes for children and birth parents are better if there is this link. It makes sense. Similar to children finding it much easier to be staying in foster care with people who have some connection (however tenuous, it doesn't mean they're in contact) with their birth parents.

I was sucked down a YouTube vortex recently and ended up watching a video about a couple in the States who adopted what they thought was a six year old but turned out to be a 30 year old person with restricted growth who tried to kill them (!).

They explained that the adoption agency had called them offering this "child" and they'd accepted and that was it. It seemed so casual and there was no prior meetings or assessments.

@5863921l

The US private adoption system seems more like whoever does the best job manipulating the mother gets the baby rather than an adoptive family being chosen by someone impartial and with the best interests of the baby in mind

Sometimes, probably. But these are parents who have already been approved and vetted as suitable potential candidates and the outcomes for children and birth parents are better if there is this link. It makes sense. Similar to children finding it much easier to be staying in foster care with people who have some connection (however tenuous, it doesn't mean they're in contact) with their birth parents.

I can imagine that would be of some benefit in the states where open adoption agreements are legally enforceable. It still feels wrong for these people to be allowed to directly solicit these women whilst still pregnant. How can a woman make a free decision to surrender her baby when potential adopters are already calling themselves the parents before she has even given birth?

I was recently on an adoption webinar talking about contact. One of the big issues stopping productive contact was the "us vs them" idea, we had no choice, they took our baby.
Giving birth parents some say has to be one way to reduce that. If you're looking at removal at birth, it's likely to be to foster carers on a concurrent placement anyway, so they will be meeting even if briefly.
We KNOW the children will be seeking direct contact when they are teenagers. That's a given. Get it sorted when the children are young.

How can a woman make a free decision to surrender her baby when potential adopters are already calling themselves the parents before she has even given birth?

I agree. But many of these women actively want an arrangement in place and would suffer great anxiety without it, or feel pushed into termination because there wasn't an alternative. I do agree with what you're saying but I don't see a perfect solution. Ideally I suppose one would hope for a health care and social care system that doesn't leave women feeling so desperate to begin with. De stigmatising adoption, as an imperfect solution for a child who is clearly 'wanted' in the sense that the pregnancy hasn't been terminated, seems preferable in some ways to the British system where giving up your baby is seen as such an awful thing to do that women can't really consider it, even when they cannot see a way to being the parent they'd like to be. I'd rather they thought there was a viable plan b than take their baby home knowing they're just not in a position to raise a child. You can love a baby deeply, think like a parent and want the best for your child, yet know that the time isn't right. In those circumstances, adoption can be the best way forward and these adoptions can be better for the child than a four year old facing long term foster care. A woman who has willingly relinquished a child because she still wants to improve her situation may also be less likely to stay in the circumstances that led to the pregnancy in the first place. She has many more options, making subsequent unplanned pregnancies less likely.

The other thing I would say (and I'm glad that this happens, as hard as it is for adoptive parents) - adoptive parents do show up to hospitals as per the arrangement and find that the plan has changed. It does happen and I'm glad that it does. Many, many prospective adoptive parents have a story like that or similar to that. It's not final until it's final (which varies from state to state). At the same time, women can feel a misplaced sense of responsibility not to let adoptive parents down, without a doubt.

De stigmatising adoption, as an imperfect solution for a child who is clearly 'wanted' in the sense that the pregnancy hasn't been terminated,

I think it’s incredibly naive to think that not terminating a pregnancy means the baby is “wanted”. It more likely means the woman isn’t able to access abortion safely and in an affordable way. Abortion carries huge stigma, the woman can face picket lines at abortion clinics (or indeed attending family planning services for contraception). In those circumstances adoption is as forced as it is in the U.K., in that it’s the only option for women with no realistic choice.

No woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want, romanticising the adoption of relinquished babies doesn’t change that fact.

I'm not even talking about relinquished babies, but about situations where the only outcome is removal.

I think it’s incredibly naive to think that not terminating a pregnancy means the baby is “wanted”.

I'm not naive. I was trying to pre-empt a comment that none of this is necessary because women can just abort. Clearly, some can't.

Also very unclear about the comment (out of nowhere) that women shouldn't be forced to continue with a pregnancy they don't want. Was that mentioned or implied? I certainly didn't mean to suggest it.

There are a world of possibilities between terminating a pregnancy you don't want and finding you are pregnant and not in a position to have a termination, yet not in a position to raise your child.

Actually, I would never romanticise the notion of adoption. It is not at all romantic. Babies are not romantic. Loss is not romantic. The adoption process is distinctly unromantic. Perhaps you mean you feel dismissive of adoption in general, or the idea there might be a better way to do it.

And I would agree, to an extent, that there is a romanticising of adoption in parts of North American culture where women are sometimes encouraged to see it as a noble thing to do, while conservative republican couples fill their homes with rainbow coloured children who could perhaps, for the want of a paycheck, been with with their biological parents (preferable most of the time if all other things are equal).

Doesn't mean I buy into it. There are other ways to see the benefits in this without romanticising it. Some benefits still exist.

I certainly don't think we have a better way in Britain.

Also very unclear about the comment (out of nowhere) that women shouldn't be forced to continue with a pregnancy they don't want. Was that mentioned or implied? I certainly didn't mean to suggest it.

Your idea that in the US adoption offers an option for those who are carrying a “wanted” child (which you qualified by saying “in the sense that the pregnancy hasn’t been terminated” implies that all non-terminated pregnancies in the US are wanted.

My point is there is so much stigma and judgement surrounding abortion in the US and so much restricted access to services that would help a woman who wants to end her pregnancy that some of these women are effectively forced to continue a pregnancy they don’t want. They are then left with adoption as an alternative to raising the child with very limited support.

A woman who has willingly relinquished a child because she still wants to improve her situation may also be less likely to stay in the circumstances that led to the pregnancy in the first place. She has many more options, making subsequent unplanned pregnancies less likely.

This is an incredibly romantic view, I think there are very, very few women whose first choice would be to place their child for adoption. Saying they are doing it willingly means they have choice, eg the choice to raise their child with a reasonable standard of living, the choice to terminate and access to termination services and the option of having their child adopted. We know that isn’t the case in much of the US.

Perhaps you mean you feel dismissive of adoption in general, or the idea there might be a better way to do it.

I’m hardly dismissive of adoption, I’m adoptive parent of two. I’d love it if there were a better way, I just don’t think rose tinted glasses about the American way is going to get us there.

We have phone and email contact with birth family members. Why would anyone be telling violent birth family members where we live?

If a woman does not stop contact with a violent partner then if she knows the address of the foster or adoptive parents then don't you think that that violent man might use violence to find out where his child is? Not all fostered and adopted children come from such violent homes but for those that do there can be no contact with the birth family.

Looking at the families my family member has been involved with as a foster carer all of the parents have repeatedly made very bad decisions that mean they are not capable of caring for a child or indeed making decisions in the best interests of the child. They are not nice young people who got pregnant too early and couldn't afford to raise their kids in the way they wanted. They have (at best) severe mental health issues that means they struggle to care for themselves let alone for a child, or they have serious drink and drug problems or they or their family are very violent. The children have been severely neglected or subjected to repeated violence. The preference is to leave the child with the family if at all possible but that is not always possible and some children have been so damaged and have such complex needs that they are not suitable for adoption either. I am in awe of the long term foster carers who provide a stable home for these poor kids.

@CountFosco have you actually read what you copied from me?
There is, as it happens, DV in one of my DCs birth families. This isn't the only reason why they don't have our address, but it's perfectly possible to have meaningful direct contact without anyone revealing where we live.

They are then left with adoption as an alternative to raising the child with very limited support.

Yes, you're quibbling over semantics. I don't disagree that happens. Are you saying there are no other circumstances in which someone would choose adoption? Because otherwise, we're basically in agreement that healthcare should be better and it would be preferable if no one was in this position for any reason. Yet they are. From the rest of your post, it's clear that you can't imagine why someone would choose to have their child adopted, other than the non availability of a termination. That's a very British view and undermines many women who have made the choice. Not having enough money to raise a child is certainly an issue for every prospective parent to consider and will inevitably form part of the decision making process. There's nothing romantic about that. Like you, I'd prefer that this was not a make it break issue. I suspect you've adopted in the UK?

I don’t have any personal experience of the issues discussed on this thread but found it very interesting.

Although there are some disagreements on the thread I think there is overarching agreement that we would all like women to:

1. have effective access to contraception so unplanned pregnancies are minimised
2. have access to state support so they have a viable route to keeping the baby
3. have effective access to termination if required
4. be able realistically to choose adoption as a third option (with the others being keep the baby and terminate) - I think some posters have made good points about this not really being an option in the UK perhaps for cultural reasons. Not a very high brow example but Caitlyn and Tyler on 16 and Pregnant are an example of this being a more culturally acceptable option in the US than the UK
5. for adoption matching to be done in the best interests of the child, though there are differing views on what this means - some think social worker matching is best as it is done by professionals and disregards birth parents’ views which may not be in the best interests of the child; some think birth parents should have input to improve the relationship between child, birth parents and adoptive parents which in the age of social media will probably be a factor sooner rather than later
6. good relationships between child, birth parents and adoptive parents eg open adoption, controlled and appropriate revealing of adoption and birth parent identities and potential meeting

We KNOW the children will be seeking direct contact when they are teenagers. That's a given.

It isn't a given. I know a range of adoptive parents whose children are now teens, and none have sought direct contact. They may do in the future, they may not.

Several are adamant that they don't want even indirect contact, and where letterbox was taking place the child has wanted it to stop - they were angry that the people who had abused them and caused lifelong difficulties were being allowed to have any information about them.

Others are mildly interested, but have parked it as 'possibly in the future'. Others just shrug and say that their adoptive family is their family, and they are not interested in their birth family.

Your sweeping generalisation just isn't true.