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?!

You need to set up the lines of contact before you find this out, though.
Adult adoptees repeatedly say they weren't old enough to make decisions about contact as a child, either that they wanted no information of theirs shared/none back from birth family (if you lose a line of contact for 10 years you may never get it back) OR that they should have been supported in contact (by having more realistic contact earlier with adoptive parents supporting).

NC because very outing

Open adoption can be a legal requirement in the UK or at least there is a precedent for it. I grew up in the first legally binding open adoption in the UK

That is really interesting wish. There is such a culture of them vs us, don't give anything away, don't SPEAK to birth family in the UK.

@drspouse

That is really interesting wish. There is such a culture of them vs us, don't give anything away, don't SPEAK to birth family in the UK.

It was a very rigid agreement. I saw my first family X number of times a year and they didn't have my home address or know where I went to school (It was pre internet so easier to keep that kind of information wrapped up)

I don't see why pre birth matching is needed. If there are more approved potential adoptive parents than relinquished babies then why can't the mothers be left to be pregnant and give birth without the pressure of feeling like they owe a "better" set of parents a baby? If they still want to give up the baby a family would still be found quickly.

@SnuggyBuggy

I don't see why pre birth matching is needed. If there are more approved potential adoptive parents than relinquished babies then why can't the mothers be left to be pregnant and give birth without the pressure of feeling like they owe a "better" set of parents a baby? If they still want to give up the baby a family would still be found quickly.

I don't know much about US adoption but I suspect pre-birth matching happens so:

• adoptive parents pay the (high) medical costs and make sure the baby (& mum) get the best care (medical, nutrition), which otherwise the birth mum wouldn't be able to afford.
• adoptive parents get to be present at / near the birth
• peace of mind for the birth Mum - she has time to decide on who she wants to adopt the child rather than making a more rushed decision after the birth

I suspect the happy medium is somewhere between the US and UK systems. In the US in certain states abortion seems socially very difficult and the welfare state doesn't support single Mums very well. In the UK, abortion is much more socially accepted but relinquishing babies is generally viewed as pretty unusual/shocking.

It makes me uneasy in the way commercial surrogacy does. It seems too much like the prospective parents are buying a baby who is perceived to be better quality than a baby or older child through social services.

Not to mention that white babies cost premium prices, and black babies come a lot cheaper... (in the US).

My DDs had direct contact and I was happy to support that. They were 13 and 5 when placed (2/3 years after being taken into care for the last time), so first mother was important to DD1 in particular.

Overall, I think it was of benefit (first mum died a few years ago), BUT it was certainly not clear cut. It was very disruptive and contributed to DD1 feeling torn between the familiar, chaotic and fun but dead end life she was born into, and the more structured life of e.g. going to school, doing homework and chores with me. To the point she dropped out of school for a period and had a teen pregnancy and went back into care. If her first mum had lived she may have drifted into that life permanently. Instead, went back to school and is now at Uni.

On the other hand, first mum was happy that her girls were loved and looked after, and so gave them permission to see me as their mother as well. They were never in a position of either of us wanting them to choose between us. That was of benefit to them. Not all first families would do that, though.

DD1's father's family got in touch when she was about 17/18. It was wonderful, they were so welcoming, delighted to be part of her life again... at first. Promised all sorts, then let her down over and over again. I'm glad that she didn't have to deal with that when she was in her younger teens, she had enough painful experiences to deal with. 3/4 years on she is in loose contact with a paternal aunt. They chat now and again, but DD knows that there is no point expecting consistency or support from them.

There is no possibility of contact with DD2's paternal family - the only family member who wants contact was abusive, and DD2 (in her teens) does not want any contact, direct or indirect.

In cases where children are removed for child protection reasons (the majority of cases in UK adoption) contact is far from straightforward. It can add further damage to existing damage, to be balanced against a possible (but not definite) future benefit.

I was just thinking that. I can well imagine some prospective parents would be pretty pissed off of the baby of that nice white girl from the good family that they'd spent months grooming and telling her what a selfless thing she was doing came out mixed race.

peace of mind for the birth Mum - she has time to decide on who she wants to adopt the child rather than making a more rushed decision after the birth

That's the big one.

That and the unbroken care for the baby.

50 years ago in the UK young single girls were forced/coerced to have their babies adopted. There was no state financial support and grandparents did not want the stigma of an illigitemate baby in the family, no landlords would rent to single mothers etc. The church often organised adoptions. Luckily things are much better here now.
In the USA now things are much like they were here 50 years, the only difference being adoption is more of industry.

first mum was happy that her girls were loved and looked after, and so gave them permission to see me as their mother as well.

This is where we are due to direct contact. We have closest contact with one set of grandparents who we email and call fairly regularly (no specific timetable). They were up in arms about us adopting their grandchild but after meeting we now get on well and they are happy with how their grandchild is being raised (and occasionally give us helpful snippets of medical information about themselves and birth parent too).

@Wishmehome

NC because very outing

Open adoption can be a legal requirement in the UK or at least there is a precedent for it. I grew up in the first legally binding open adoption in the UK

Did it work for you, @Wishmehome? I mean, in the sense of whether you think it was a generally beneficial experience?

drspouse yes, but it came with significant disadvantages, and if first mum had lived then it might have tipped the balance against DD1 getting into a more positive place. I'm glad that it doesn't in your case.

As I said, overall I think it was best in our situation, but I am certainly not giving a glowing endorsement of making contact the default option.

Just as I don't think keeping siblings together should be a default option, just to set another contentious hare running .

@drspouse

my son is 16, at adoption we had direct contact with his dad, he does not wish to pursue it at the moment.
He has not seen his birthmother since he was 4, for the four years he was in FC before he came to me, he had no contact with her.
This year I gave him a later life letter written by her. We discussed whether he wanted to get in contact. We found her on facebook. He can contact her if he wishes, he knows I will help him.
We were talking about this only last night because I had news to give him about a sibling. No change - he does not want contact.

Some adopted children will want contact, others won’t.

woodlandwalker

That is utter bollocks.

@PigsInHeaven

I feel like I can't answer that question in a helpful way because my whole adoption experience was a mess because my adoptive parents were incredibly abusive. Like, who knows how it would have panned out if they had been good, supportive, loving people?

Some adopted children will want contact, others won’t.

But he's only a child and that might change when he's older. It's wrong to make that decision for a child, and it's also wrong to make a decision that would prevent a child doing that when they are an adult. It sounds like you're keeping the lines of communication or potential lines of communication alive.

Most of the adult adoptees I know who have sought contact have done so either a) immediately turning 18 (because they are now in the 40s or older and they didn't have the right/means to do so before that) OR in their 30s or when they had their own children.
So you can't be sure he won't want to when he's older.

One birth parent of one of my DCs has vanished and we had potential contact details for them, a SW tried to get in touch to ask if they were interested in annual photos/update but received no answer and a re-contact showed they had gone away (well, actually, closed their FB account and not opened a new one). My DC is mixed ethnicity and we are white, all of the rest of us, and this was the parent of the other ethnicity. So unless we can somehow find the parent again she will never have contact with her family of that ethnicity, which is doubly awful for her. She doesn't yet know the full implications of this as she's never had contact with this parent but adult transracial adoptees can be devastated by this loss of their heritage.

Sorry I missed @Allington 's reply.
It's also hard to say what would have panned out had your DCs' first mum survived but when your DCs were older; I guess it's not something we'll ever know.

@drspouse

You were asserting that it was a given that all teenagers will be seeking direct contact

What my son decides to do as an adult is a different matter, yes he may change his mind. At the moment there is nothing to stop him contacting either of his birth parents. He has the means to do so, and having had very extensive life story work, he actually has quite a mature understanding.
I can’t see that changing, even if he did decide he wanted to contact his birth mum I think it will be a one off to satisfy curiosity, not with the intention of pursuing any kind of meaningful relationship.

[quote Wishmehome]@PigsInHeaven

I feel like I can't answer that question in a helpful way because my whole adoption experience was a mess because my adoptive parents were incredibly abusive. Like, who knows how it would have panned out if they had been good, supportive, loving people?[/quote]
I'm sorry to hear that, @Wishmehome. Very best wishes to you.

@drspouse You were asserting that it was a given that all teenagers will be seeking direct contact

Yes, this is what I was challenging. It is not the case, and, where they do seek direct contact, it may not be the best for them.

Yes, we will never know how things would have panned out for DD1 if first mother was alive. My feeling - having supported contact and living through the consequences - is that it would have had a negative impact. But there is no way of knowing whether I am right. And that is the difficulty - each situation is an experiment, but with a child's life hanging in the balance.

DD2 has had an easier time because the choice was removed.

5863921l: Are you always rude and offensive?

Are you part of the adoption triangle from 50 years ago?

No, actually. What happened 50 years ago was horrific. What you're claiming is very offensive, melodramatic and grossly untrue. I find that offensive and it's bollocks.