Is it rare to adopt a newborn ?

[Mozzarellapie]

I have always heard it’s rare to adopt a newborn in the U.K for various reasons . Haven’t thought much more about it till I saw a post today on IG where someone has adopted a newborn baby and it just made me think maybe it’s more common now ?

As a social worker I wouldn’t be comfortable recommending someone as an adoptive parent if they were going to use that child for social media content. There are issues around safety for the child and I’d have concerns the child was effectively a life style accessory. In any case a newborn wouldn’t have had the adoption order agreed, so the local authority would have a role as corporate parent and again I can’t see them agreeing to parading a newborn on an unboxing video.

Those early days of adoption placement are hard, the focus should be on forming a bond with the baby not using them for content.

That's irrelevant! You do NOT put a child in care proceeding on social media, whatever age. For SO MANY reasons.

Absolutely. This woman wouldn't have passed panel.

Some 20 years or so ago I was aware at work of a newborn who was being given up for adoption, the mother had made the decision before birth. I was horrified to hear the likely timescale though - the baby would go into foster care while all possible family members were approached for interest first. Only after that could a foster-to-adopt arrangement even start - she was likely to be 9 months old by then.

I really hope that foster-to-adopt is started earlier now, in the perhaps uncommon cases of newborns/near newborns being likely to end up adopted, the sooner they can develop a secure attachment with someone who might be able to look after them longterm (as opposed to someone who definitely won't), the better!

You say that, but I know someone personally who has recently adopted a little girl, and I absolutely cannot believe she passed panel. There were so many red flags for me. And now, she is finding it incredibly incredibly hard and the little girl is, in my opinion, suffering for it. She is in a job where she would have known the right things to say and I think she got passed without too much digging tbh.

If the mother plans to relinquish then yes all options should be explored well before birth. Early permanence is a huge focus for children's services these days which means front loading assessments.

My friend adopted a newborn that was removed from its birth mother at birth (older siblings all removed so the family were never allowed to keep the baby). The baby was placed in foster care and my friend finally took the baby home when they were 10-11 months old.

Friend was given the option of fostering with the intention of adopting but they felt that it was a risk they couldn’t take.

Have the rules changed about adoption and social media?

When I met my DD age 10 months I put photos on social media so that our wider family and friends could see her as they weren't allowed to see her in person until the introduction/handover period was over.

I know foster carers don't post on social media but as adopters we were told it was fine and to treat DD as our own as soon as we met her. Her adoption went through officially 6 months later.

We knew that there was absolutely no risk of her birth family tracing her through our social media because we knew her full history.

Even now we have no restrictions on her being photographed at school or put on their website or social media.

I was much more careful with DS as he was much traceable due to having an unusual first name.

My friends adopted a newborn who is now two.

Birth family had had many previous children adopted. He came home at 24-48hrs old.

They hadn’t expected a newborn, and it was a mad scrabble in the couple of weeks notice they had to get them kitted out.

He’s a very happy and loved little boy.

Is that a question that would specifically be asked these days by an assessing social worker, though? Or does part of the assessment process involve disclosing all SM identities etc, so doing paid SM promotions would automatically be disclosed?

It would be very rare and probably a foster to adopt placement. Our third was removed at birth and we had the option of foster to adopt which we opted not to do as the older two were too young to understand if anything happened and new baby didn’t move in permanently. They ended up coming home at 11 months so these things do take time.

@Pythonesque I don't believe foster to adopt was a thing 20 years ago or if it was it would have been at a pilot stage maybe.

The usual process was exactly as you describe. With both of mine they were born and sent straight to a foster family while social workers got court orders and investigated if any family members could take them.

DS was 7 months before it was decided that adoption was the plan for him
And that's when we were contacted. We had three months of what they call matching and then we finally had him home with us when he was 10 months.

DD could have been a prime candidate for a foster to adopt placement. Abandoned at the hospital by birth mother who was known to SS as she had done the same with two previous babies.

It was hoped that DD would join her siblings who had been adopted but sadly it wasn't possible so she came to us at 10 months. The process of deciding if she could go and be with her siblings took a few months which is why she couldn't be placed as a new born into a foster to adopt situation.

I was asked if I would consider a foster to adopt placement in order to get a newborn and I refused as I didn't want to go through the heartache of having to give the child back.

Is that a question that would specifically be asked these days by an assessing social worker, though? Or does part of the assessment process involve disclosing all SM identities etc, so doing paid SM promotions would automatically be disclosed?

Given this person has a high profile presence on social media specifically trading on her profession as a nanny, I would expect that to feature significantly in any assessment process.

In any event I’d expect use of social media to be explored in the process - looking at the difference between sharing limited photos on a secure platform for distant family and friends -v- featuring on publicly available, monetised content.

No it doesn't work like this in the UK. In the UK the babies go into fostering until a final decision for them to be adopted is made. Rarely before 6 months.
In the UK the only way to get a baby from birth is foster to adopt. I know 3 people who have had to return babies though to birth family when the courts decided they shouldn't be adopted.

We fostered and then adopted our youngest so she came to us as a newborn but the process to adopt her took a long time. If she had been placed elsewhere she would have been at least 18 months before she was placed. We don't let her full details go on social media or school websites etc

They do, but extensive efforts are made to keep the child with relatives. So the parents siblings parents cousins would be asked and assessed.

Never heard of this person but just watched it and came on to say “announcement felt more like an advert for baby stuff”. I’ve got a couple of friends who are now iNfLuEnCeRs and I find it all nauseating. Does anyone enjoy these sorts of infomercial accounts?!

Occasionally babies removed at birth go straight to families who may adopt them in longer term. However majority go into care later or are placed in short term foster care in hope of working with birth parent/s or adoption later.

Yes, we did FtA (foster to adopt) with a newborn. Older son wasn't foster to adopt but got him as a baby (he was relinquished which IS very rare)

Theres the fostering to adopt program but the whole process is about getting the child back with their parents which is counter to mindset to the person who hopes to adopt a newborn.

It's slightly different with relinquished babies. More weight is given to birth parents' wishes rather than the requirement in a contested adoption that all family members have been assessed (re: BS, 'nothing else will do')
As the LA have not removed the child, their obligation to explore all avenues in the birth family are different, and BP's wishes are respected as far as possible. However if for example the grandparents wanted to take the baby but birth parents didn't want this, the decision whether to assess or not would be made by the judge not by the parents or social worker.

There must be more to it then reading some of these responses as I’d assume if it was a foster placement then the baby wouldn’t be on SM at all, perhaps it is surrogacy ?

@WilkinsonM those babies go for adoption sorry I didn't make that clear

Right. But they don't get adopted as newborns, that's the discussion of this thread. Babies are removed at birth but not usually adopted until 6-9 months later.

This delayed placement with the potential adoptive parents is so sad. What about the child’s right to consistent care and bonding? In a case where the birth parents don’t want to raise the baby or can’t raise the baby, isn’t it better for the newborn to start bonding with the adoptive parents immediately? Yes, it will take time to finalize the adoption and there is always the chance the adults get their hearts broken if it is not finalized, but the baby at least had a chance of bonding from the beginning.