Advice for white single woman late 30s - where to register to adopt

[orangepig]

Hi,

A friend is starting to explore adoption. She is single, straight and white and the London Borough she lives in (in South London) says they are not accepting any white adopters as most the kids they need homes for are not white.

Can she register elsewhere? Are there any particular areas you can recommend she look into registering with?

Many thanks.

Ignore that question I really don't need to know - you're entitled to your opinion whatever your experience even if I profoundly disagree with it.

Out of interest according to BAAF reviewing the 2007/8 register:

1714 children referred
1213 children were white
501 children black/dual parentage

Also the BAAF funded research into transracial adoption said (in March this year):

• The main group of BME children needing placements are of mixed parentage
• When the plan is adoption BME children are more likely to wait longer with all the disadvantages that delay and placement moves incur
• Decline in enquiries for BME children aged 3 years or more
• Shortage of BME adopters

They are questioning whether they should continue their stance against transracial adoption but don't appear to be able to make their minds up despite the fact that many BME children often languish in care past the age when it is likely they will be successfully matched. BAAF also commented that social workers were so pessimistic about getting matches that they were failing to put BME children forward for adoption - so they don't even appear on teh register .

None of this is my opinion it was presented to the BAAF in March this year at a conference.

Kewcumber, if you read my previous posts you will see that I am in favour of mixed placements provided parents can demonstrate they can meet a child's needs. I do not think that ethnicity should ever soley be a determining factor when it comes to matching. I think a family has to be very liberal and accepting and sadly most people are very culturally parochial and actually do not really understand what it would mean to take a child who is 'different' to themselves. That said some couples are and so they should be matched with children rather than have those children languish in the care system which is much more damaging than the identity issues that are thrown up with transracial placements.

In relation to the question of ICA as I understand the system of assessment is the same. The idea of finding culturally appropriate matches is, as we know from research, by far the best thing for the child and so social workers will strive for this (these kids have enough issues with being different due to being adopted without additional issues of being brought up in a family of a different ethnicity). With ICA its already a given that the applicants are going to be adopting from abroad so this has to be covered in the assessment but no social worker is going to say no on the basis that the ethnicity is different, because then no one would adopt IC? In domestic the issue of ethnicity is one that is 'up for discussion' if you like and no it is not the best thing for children, but it is preferable to them being stuck in the care system, but like I said sadly most adopters do not wish to consider a child from a different heritage and often they say they would because they do not want to appear discriminatory but actually when it comes down to it they would not be interested.

My personal opinions on ICA are of no importance. I did work in adoption for many years but I retrained as a psychotherapist after 12 years of social work.

Some sweeping generalisations there, Lennon?.

elucidate please?

Not just your last post, but haven?t got time to go back over them right now. But in your last post you said:

?most adopters do not wish to consider a child from a different heritage and often they say they would because they do not want to appear discriminatory but actually when it comes down to it they would not be interested?

How on earth can you possibly know what ?most adopters? want? You may know facts, figures, circumstances - but you can?t claim to know what people want. I am an adopter, and have many friends who are also adopters - all of us were open to mixed-race adoptions. A person?s ?wants? (as opposed to the final outcome) are not necessarily public domain. Much of your argument seems to stem from your deductions based on what you think people want. You don?t know what people want

?Why people initially go into ICA and then have the facts pointed out to them during training does not alter their motivation. They think domestic adoption means an older more damaged child, hence the few who can afford it look abroad.?

Again - how can you possibly know what people are thinking?

Oh right well if you and your friends were open to it then that must mean the vast majority are ..goodness knows why we have so many who get sent to the central resource exchange who only wish to consider children of the same ethnicity background to themselves. I must be living in a totally different world, would love a slice of your utopian society were ethnicity is not a consideration for couples who apply.

I have known what people are thinking as during their assessments they have told me!

I wasn?t suggesting that I know what most adopters think - I was saying that your theories are based on knowing what people think - you don?t. I have no idea what most adopters think, but neither do you and IMO it?s not really accurate to base an argument based on that, which is what your posts in this thread suggest. Apologies if I have misread that, but you have said on several occasions that ?most adopters think this? (paraphrased)

There?s no need to be quite so aggressive - I don?t live in a Utopian society - I am saying that whilst for many people, the result of Home Study may be that ethnicity is a deciding factor, that may be more to do with LA policy and guidance of social workers and prep group training, rather than what people themselves are open to.

We certainly were open to mixed-race adoptions, but it was felt in ours and our potential DC?s best interests BY OUR LA that it would be preferable to try and ethnically match us.

What I?m saying is, that whilst you are right in that most adoptions are NOT inter-racial, it is not necessarily because people themselves aren?t open to it, and you can?t possibly know what people are thinking, other than the ones who you have assessed yourself - and even then, you may not know for sure. My SW didn?t know every thought that went through my mind.

I don?t want to get bogged down in this, but I do think it?s a generalisation to keep saying ?most people think? this or ?most people choose that? - IMO and IME it?s more the LA and policy that guide adopters towards a certain result, than about what the adopters themselves may be open to.

I may, of course, be wrong - but then, I?m not making the generalisations that you are, and am open to options

Ok well then we will have to agree to disagree. In the LA's I have worked for during preparation training it is something we ask adopters to consider. When undertaking an assessment a SW should ascertain a couple's view on mixed placement as a matter of course, hence should know what the couple's views are on that issue. The majority of people want children who look like them and adopters are just average people, they are not some special breed of open minded liberals (some are in the same way some of the general population are). Most couples come to adoption because IVF has failed and they want to extend their family. Altruism is rarely the sole motivation hence they want a child that 'fits'. There is nothing at all wrong with this so it is not a criticism of adopters so I dont know why you feel the need to defend the alternative position. Surely common sense tells you most adopters want children who ethnically match their family whatever that mix may be?

Lennon80 - I think you?re misunderstanding me, so I?m going to make this my last post, as I really don?t? want to get into an argument.

I am not defending any alternative position, I was merely stating that I think basing your whole argument on generalisations (see my previous post for specifics) and stating that argument as fact rather than an opinion, rather negates the points that you are making.

I am sure that many adopters do want their adopted children to ethnically match their family. I am equally sure that many adopters don?t have that as a high priority. But I don?t know for sure, and neither do you.
So I won?t use that sweeping generalisation as the basis of any argument

All I was saying was, you can?t know the vast majority of people?s reasons for adopting, or their preferences for specifics. I think it is documented that most people (certainly not all) will come to adoption through infertility, and (I think you mentioned elsewhere that you are pregnant at the moment, forgive me if that isn?t correct) - but this would mean that you are not infertile. Therefore, even if you have empathy and understanding, you cannot know what motivates a person with infertility. Certainly in my experience, and in my friends, after suffering years of infertility and fertility treatment, the ethnic matching of our potential DC was by no means as high a priority as, say, the health of the child, or (in our case) the age.

I am not ?defending? any alternative viewpoint - I am saying you can?t know what people think, and that I know as an absolute certainty that common sense goes out of the window after 10 years of TTC and the light at the end of the tunnel that can mean you finally have the chance to parent.

This is going to go around in circles. Your whole approach is far too subjective for me to have a reasonable discussion with you about it because you are basing it all on your own experience and how you felt about being matched with a child who might be a different ethnicity. I am coming from this from a much more objective angle and going on hundreds of applications I have dealt with, but you wont be swayed and so I am not going to try to convince you any further. As for my own personal circumstances I have not anywhere on this thread stated I am pregnant and even if that was to be the case, how would you know what my situation was for me not to have empathy? Many people get pregnant with IVF after many years, donor eggs etc so I think if anyone is making generalisations now it appears to be you.

Ok
I said my previous post was going to be my last, but it?s not, as I have a couple more things to say

It is both patronising and insulting for you to say you can?t have a reasonable discussion with me about this, simply because I have personal experience. I am not trying to argue a viewpoint other than that you can?t know what people think, which I stand by. I have only used my personal experience to demonstrate that there may be other adopters who think like me, which you would have no knowledge of. Equally, there may not be. It was a demonstration that you can?t know everything.

It?s not about me being swayed. You are probably right. Who knows? Ethnicity is a big deal for a lot of people. It?s not for others. I don?t have the numbers - neither do you. I wasn?t basing a factual discussion on this, you were. This has now become lost.

I did say ?forgive me if I?m wrong? about me raising the issue of you currently being pregnant. I thought I read that elsewhere on Mumsnet. Again I apologise if that?s not the case. And, although worded clumsily, what I meant was - anyone who at any point becomes pregnant is not infertile, even if they have had to have fertility treatment. As soon as anyone becomes pregnant, then they are/have been/will always have been pregnant. There?s a chasm between people who can/have/will become pregnant, and those who never will. I probably shouldn?t have brought what I thought was your personal situation into it, but (and I stand by this) you spoke about common sense telling me that the majority of adopters will think a certain way. I was just pointing out that after many years of infertility, common sense usually stops applying.

I can have a reasonable discussion about this - I am not basing it entirely upon my own experiences. I have had many years of working with adoptive families and foster carers on a professional basis. The fact that I am also an adopter enhances rather than detracts from that.

Basically what I am deducing from this is that you are saying that when you get to a point of desperation you will take a child irrespective of ethnicity as having a child becomes the primary objective? Is that what you are saying as I am not entirely sure re the common sense comment? To assume that someone who has also struggled with infertility cannot empathise with you is wrong. For many years in their lives they too were in the same position so surely they can?

This is getting quite involved and personal now - bit isn't what's being said that many LAs won't even consider adopters who are of a different ethnic group to the adoptee(s)? It doesn't even get as far as being assessed to see whether they really truly mean it, can make it work etc. Now I know identity is a complex issue, but that does make me sad for all the kids in care who have even less chance of a parent/s of their own as a result.

EightiesChick it is all getting too personal you are right. What your saying is seemingly true in some LA's which is very sad. But in other LA's you would be considered and it would be something discussed in assessment. It seems different LA's have different ideas which is a real shame, some consistency would be nice.

There is a world of difference between having infertility problems with a potential solution (options/IVF/possible light at the end of the tunnel) and finding out categorically that you will never ever be pregnant or conceive a child.
I didn?t say that it becomes a point of desperation where you will take what you can get - I said that when taking everything else into consideration, ethnicity is often at the top of the list.

The common sense comment was in response to your earlier statement, where you said ?common sense tells you most adopters want children who ethnically match their family whatever that mix may be?? - I was pointing out that common sense in general terms changes dramatically when people have gone through the adoption process. What may seem like common sense when thinking about your own biological child, gets replaced by completely different issues when thinking about a child who has come from another family

Ethnicity isn?t always top of the list

Okay scaryaryoh I dont think we have any more to discuss I understand your point of view and I think you understand mine.

I know that once the door is closed on having a birth child this is different to still having options open, but dont think that other people dont appreciate the loss that infertility brings. It is not always recognised as others as the huge loss it is as its not tangible like a bereavement but in many respects it is much worse. The heartache of infertility can not be fixed with adoption but the child in a way has the same loss, they never get to grow up with biological parents and adopters never have their children biologically related to them. That said adoption is a hugely positive experience for many people, but I do appreciate how a 'potential solution' situation feels very different. I dont know your struggles or your losses but I do think a person can have some empathy without having to have been in the exact same position.

I work with many people who have had hugely traumatic and troubled lives and I would not be able to do my job if at some level I was not able to have some understanding of their pain.

Well, I think the problem with this discussion is that we are ALL drawing from personal experience. lennon, you may have worked in adoption for many years, but I have to say I simply don't recognise your description of how the system works from my more recent experience of it. There may be many reasons for that: perhaps you worked in a very different area of the country from mine. I'm not saying that I am right and you are wrong, just noting that there is a gap and that you have NOT given us any objective evidence, just cited your personal experience.

I am convinced that, in London at any rate, it is impossible to know how many potential adopters would happily adopt transracially, because the system never gives them the chance to have that discussion. They are simply not taken on. I am also convinced that adoption is a marketplace, and many - if not most - agencies recruit to order. They do not recruit the needs of the national register, but to their own local demands.

I also know - for sure, as the white mother of an adopted black child - that I do not want or need my child to share my ethnicity. Her heritage does not make her 'second best' to me, and I am sure that there are many, many potential adopters out there who would feel the same (how many, I don't know; none of us seem to have any research evidence). Currently, the adoption system does not seek, welcome, support or encourage those people, and it is bizarre that you seek to blame them for this (through your 'insight' into their needs, desires and motivations) rather than the adoption process itself.

Okay last word on the subject now as (and this ALWAYS happens on mumsnet threads) people misinterpret and then move away from the point.

'bizarre that you seek to blame them for this'..As I have said repeatedly actually, there is nothing wrong with wanting a child who matches your own ethnicity. If I have said this numerous times on this thread..which I have..how on earth have you come to the blame conclusion. It is the opposite in fact ..people on this thread are arguing that adopters are all in favour of taking children from different ethnicities as if it is so awful that they perhaps dont want this.

Ps.. Sinead80 is Lennon 80 but I was replying to a previous post before with a different name. It is clear from this thread that you have to in order to protect your privacy from thread to thread.

You misunderstand what I wrote. I did not say that you are blaming white people for not wanting to adopt transracially. I said you are blaming potential adopters for the current situation in which many of those who would want to adopt transracially are not given the opportunity to even discuss that as part of their assessment.

I am not assuming that people 'should' want to adopt transracially. But I would like to see an adoption system that is more flexible and responsive to individual children's needs, that provides real and continuing support to adoptive families, and relies on the skill and sensitivity of top quality social workers rather than the dogma and back-covering risk aversion that is typical of an under-resourced and highly pressurised public service. I don't think the current system serves the needs of children well (or the needs of adoptive parents, though that is lower priority) and I am convinced that the scarcity of transracial adoption is a symptom of that.

Again, I am not blaming them for that, simply stating in the LA's I have worked for that has not been the case and applicants are considered for transracial if they express and interest and given the equiproportionate numbers of white UK adopters I (and my colleagues)have tried to encourage adopters to think about the possibility of transracial prior to assessment.

Just wanted to say Lennon80, that I once again apologise for mentioning something about you that I had read on another thread (I know you know what I mean) - I wasn?t cyber-stalking you, honest guv! Just that I?d read it - on two other threads actually, and only remembered it because I was thinking what a great username you have.
It wasn?t relevant to this discussion (which I have enjoyed) and I hope you haven?t taken offence at it - none was intended.