Do adopted children have the right to meet their bio-relatives during their childhood?

[wasthatthatguy]

I think the answer to this question is clearly yes.

Social workers got rid of the child's bio-parents, but they did not, and were not entitled to, get rid of all of the child's bio-relatives.

Is it not the duty of the child's adoptive parents to discover the circumstances of the child's removal from his or her bio-family and, unless there are very compelling reasons why the child should not be allowed direct contact with them, arrange contact meetings?

Due to the privacy of the family courts, any social workers will be unable to tell adoptive parents the details of how the bio-parents were alleged to have failed as parents.

Although there have to be reasons why a child was forcibly adopted, it isn't essential that the child was harmed before adoption. A fear that the child may be harmed in the future is sufficient.

I think adoptive parents will find that in at least 50% of cases the alleged and "proven" actual or predicted parenting failures will not appear very alarming and thereby not make contact meetings between the child and his or her bio-parents and or other bio-relatives inappropriate.

What I know is that this country's care system has an obsession with adoption. Some children get adopted more than once. I don't know of any children adopted more often than that, but I believe that it does happen.

The children are often, but not always, traumatised by the process of being taken into care and then given a temporary "forever family".

Given that some children adopted because of a risk of possible future emotional abuse I believe that the system is evil. It may do some children some good, but a lot of children, natural parents and adoptive parents are harmed by the process.

Remember that the majority of children that leave the care system aged under 5 are adopted.

Whereas the children left in abusive families do just dandy.

Anyway, where were we? Budgies? Perms?

Oh gawd we've got JH back now, spouting his usual nonsense. Children getting adopted twice - oh god what next is he going to come out with. He just doesn't get this issue about "likely to be suffering from significant harm" - IF JH you would like to read the 4th para and following paras of my post of 1st May where I set out an example of why it is necessary to remove children because of "likely harm" you might understand a little more. Oh god why am I even bothering.

Maryz - you are absolutely right to ask the pertinent question as to whether children are abused before coming into care, rather than because they are taken into care. Don't expect a logical answer though.

I think ignore, ignore, ignore is best, even though I have broken my pledge to ignore, but will from now on............so budgies, yes I think they can be v ery useful for older people living alone to keep them company and give them something for which they feel responsible. Some of the older women may also have perms!!

Do you really deny that a large proportion of adoptions from care fail (aka are disrupted). The figure is around 25%. Those that fail result in the children returning to care and a number are then re-adopted.

I think the Panorama Programme on children in care highlighted one case of a child whose adoption had failed.

johnhemming, is there any possibility that they are traumatised before they
are taken into care, not traumatised by being taken into care
Obviously some are, but newborn babies tend not to be. At times they spend no time with their mothers once born.

I am not arguing that there shouldn't be a care system.

Look at a current case where an unborn child is considered to be at a risk of harm.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8500531/The-police-hunt-is-on-for-Vicky-Haigh-though-she-is-not-a-missing-person.html

But newborn babies ARE traumatised by the time they are born. Have you read the recent research which states that stressful pregnancies can and do affect the unborn child? Stressful pregnancies are indicators that a child will eventually present with ADHD and/or behavioural problems. Drugs in pregnancy are abusive, alcohol taken during pregnancy is abusive, a pregnant woman living with an abusive partner is an extremely traumatic even for an unborn child. Assuming that the unborn child is able to hear voices and music whilst in the womb then presumably he or she is going to hear screaming, shouting and arguing?

Being taken into care is not what traumatises a child. Being neglected, abused and not being given even adequate parental care prior to be removed is what traumatises a child.

Can I suggest a little reading for you : Margot Sunderland What Every Parent Should Know would be a good start for you to educate yourself about how the neural pathways in a baby's brain start to develop and how stress, anxiety and high cortisol levels can affect that development.

Adoptions can and do fail - when they fail it's invariably because Social Services themselves haven't recognised exactly how traumatised a child has been made by his experiences whilst with birth parents and fail to provide the funding for ongoing therapeutic support to enable adopters to do their very best for their very much loved but equally very traumatised children.

Being taken into care is not what traumatises a child.
Different children are affected differently. There is evidence that each change of placement causes some psychological damage. On the basis of Michael Rutter's research I would presume that this applies moreso to children older than 6 months.

The step of taking a child into care does cause psychological harm. That harm may be the least worst option, but should not be ignored.

There is also then the question of how children are treated in care which is variable.

There are some very good foster carers. Then there are also dreadful ones.

Reactive Attachment Disorders are common causes of disrupted adoptions. Many of those children, however, have been taken from their mother at a very early age and before the point at which RAD can develop.

Johnhemming, I am a foster carer and look after newborns. I can give you examples of trauma in newborns if it helps you have a better understanding. Baby 1 went into a residential mother and baby unit for 2 weeks. By the age of 2 weeks when bought to me he was flinching when a bottle was put to his mouth, had learned not to cry and was unable to make eye contact. He was subjected to daily contact with a mother who screamed at him and had to be removed by security in a few occasions. He was in the car as she regularly kicked and pounded at it and became phobic about the carseat.

Baby 2 was subjected to heroin throughout pregnancy and was born with hepatitis 9 weeks early. She wasn't visited in special care after 2 weeks as her parents were imprisoned for a fight in the unit, which she witnessed. So for 7 weeks the only visitors were social workers. She came to me constantly screaming and only soothed by permanent carrying. At 2 months she resumed contact with her drug using mother where mum was often totally zoned out. Because mother had threatened to torch my house, she had to be taken to contact by social workers and had to deL with many different faces.

These babies are so traumatised, and it is not easily fixed. It is not care but their parents who cause this.

Incidentally John, I have cared for a toddler whose mother was supported by you, and who subsequently stayed together. This child has huge issues from his inconsistent parenting and I wept and sending him back to her Fter one of her many prison sentences. You really did a great job there. So child centred.

I feel it depends on your moral standpoint. For me the right of every child to be raised in a loving, safe family out-weighs the rights of adults to be a 'parent'.

To accept and agree with JH you would have to start from the view point that because you produce a child it is yours to do with as you wish, regardless of the view of society and the law.
Quite how an elected representative gets away with advocating, promoting and supporting illegal activities that involves the welfare of vulnerable children I do not know, it seems quite a rum to-do to me.

My DH and I give respite care to a now 17 year old girl. She was with her mother until she was 8 months old. Her mother was not in good mental health (long term mental health issues, can be somewhat controlled by medication but she often goes off her meds). When X went home from hospital with baby, was visited by Publin Health Nurse who was alarmed. X had a phobia about germs and wouldn't allow anyone to look at, hold, touch, talk to the baby. She was given opportunities to get it together but refused to go back on meds. Baby was left with her for 8 months while they gave her time and help, which she consistantly resisted, to get her shit together. For those 8 months, baby was left lying in her cot ALONE. She was only held to be fed or changed. Other than that she was left completely alone and unstimulated. That breaks my heart. At 8 months she was put in care. So much damage was done already though and she has had a very tough time growing up. She has RAD, ADHD, specific language disorder.....Despite the fact that there was no chance of her ever being returned to her mother, she wasn't allowed to be adopted because her mother wouldn't give up her parental rights. (I'm in Ireland). There's more to this story than I've said here, but believe me when I say there was no court in the land that would ever have allowed her to parent. She's 17 now and doing well, thanks to a whole team of people who have supported her.

Her mother got pregnant again 3 years later and mother's brother informed social services as soon as he found out. Her second child was removed from her care in the maternity hospital. She tried to smuggle him out of the hospital in a bag, the poor woman. While I felt desperately sorry for her because she loved those children, I absolutely believe that the right thing was done because she was not capable of parenting. Were the social workers wrong to remove baby from her at birth because of "likely danger"? Damn right. He's been with the same foster carers as his sister and has had such a different life. No labels, no learning difficulties.

The child has to be the one at the centre of the decision, not the parents. If you screw up as a parent once and do nothing to change, why o why would anyone think it's ok to give someone a chance to do the same thing again? Some mistakes just can't be fixed.

Meant to say, social workers were absolutely RIGHT to remove second child from her.

An ex friend had a baby. Ex friend enjoyed a life of partying and bringing different men back to her flat. Baby was uncared for and neglected. He was taken into care when he was 20 months old (Despite many phone calls to SS from myself and my other friends. We were all upset and appalled by how this little guy was being treated).

Mother was given opportunity to change time and again. When LO was eventually removed he was still as a newborn. He could not walk or crawl. He had no language development. In fact he never even cried. He simply lay there staring at the ceiling. His muslces were not developed enough for him to pull himself up. He was not thriving. In fact he looked emaciated.

He is with his foster carers and two years on he is doing well. His development is still very delayed but he is coming on.

Ex friend has had another baby placed in care since. She is now expecting another baby. She is still partying (and taking drugs). Should this baby be taken into care John Hemmings? After all it has not been abused (apart from drug and feotal alcohol syndrome of course!) Or should SS allow the child to be abused and neglected before they intervene?

"Reactive Attachment Disorders are common causes of disrupted adoptions"

Would be interested to read your research and statistics on this? There are relatively few cases of RAD diagnosed - my son has an attachment disorder due to his experiences whilst in the womb and due to his extremely poor parenting whilst still with bm. It's not RAD and his adoption won't be disrupted but when a child has extremely challenging behaviour (as does mine) then adopters need support, they need for these behaviours to be recognised, diagnosed (where possible) and WE NEED HELP in order to help our children.

It's not RAD which causes adoptions to disrupt - it's the lack of support available to adopters which causes adoptions to disrupt.

Get your facts straight.
"Many of those children, however, have been taken from their mother at a very early age and before the point at which RAD can develop."

Completely irrelevant. Developmental Trauma - as it's now more commonly known as - happens pre birth, as I've aready said. Your information is clearly out of date and frankly you need to do a whole lot more research and reading before you come here and preach to people who know an awful lot more than you will ever know.

We live it every day. You don't and you have no right to preach to me.

Go back to your day job.

Great post x

Well said Walesblackbird!

People who care for children with RAD are the people who understand RAD.

John Hemming you have shown clearly that you have no understanding of this "condition". What on earth makes you think you can preach to people who are suffering the consequences of RAD every day?

If you know of "dreadful" foster carers then it is your duty to report them and get them deregistered. As a foster carer myself I agree - There are foster carers out there who are in it for the money and show little regard to the children in their care. I have reported their bad practice.

I would also like your point of view on the scenario that Lettingo and Kidzrfreaky have posted.

I have recently returned a child to her birth mother. I will save that story for another time - when she comes back into care, which should not be long now!

Mr Hemmings

Not great at links so you may need to cut and paste but I suggest you take a look at the following article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1384486/Stress-pregnancy-makes-child-unruly-Mothers-anxiety-raise-babys-risk-ADHD.html

It also appears in the Times.

This piece of research makes it very clear that a stressful pregnancy can affect the unborn child and can, and does, result in many children suffering behavioural problems and ADHD.

ADHD is not down to parenting - it is genetic and, for many of us adoptive parents, our children come from a long line of birth parents with undiagnosed mental health problems.

My son's bm had an extremely stressful pregnancy - domestic violence, drugs and alcohol were all involved. My son to this day lives with the consequences of his birth mother's irresponsible behaviour.

And before you say she needed help .... SS had been involved with the family for year and years but still she refused to put anyone's needs before her own.

My son is adorable but he is a hugely troubled little boy and for that I lay the blame fair and square at the door of his birth mother.

Well done all of you MNs trying to point out the reality to JH and the reasons why his posts are totally inaccurate and misleading, BUT I fear you are wasting your time and energy. Believe me I (and other social workers and lawyers) have tried to point out to him how wrong and misinformed he is, but he is impervious to this, and contines banging on abut RAD - he completely and utterly misunderstood Michael Rutter's research. I have tried again and again to explain to him why so many adoptions of older children break down - i.e. because (as you all know) the damage that is done to them in the early weeks and months (and in utero as some of you have pointed out) of life, will cause the problems to a greater or lesser extent through the lifespan.

I once asked him if he'd ever seen an abused child - he came back with some crap about "seeing lots of people bla bla bla" I doubt whether he has ever seen a child to be honest!

He IS best ignored but I know how he makes your blood boil to say nothing of raised blood pressure - not good.
JH - yes - stick to the day job, go away or crawl under a stone or anything that keeps you away from insulting all these adoptors by your ridiculous and misinformed posts.

insulting all these adoptors
What is insulting the adopters?

What I have said is that a material number of the toddlers that are adopted from care are already so traumatised that it is very difficult to look after them. This may not be a problem so much with a 3 year old, but when a 10 year old tries to attack the adoptive parent with a knife then there is a problem.

This doesn't happen every time, but attachment disorders are often seen in adopted children. It is often misdiagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum.

None of this is the fault of the adoptive parents.

This is some good work
apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/305

The only massive error in Alan Rushton's report is that he believes that only 6% of children are adopted from care when it is a majority of the under 5s leaving care that leave care via adoption.

I am curious as to where you got 'majority' from? I have just had a look at the national statistics which seem to be telling me that just over 40% of under 5's leaving care were adopted (2009). That's not a majority. That means a majority are being reunited with their parents

These are the figures
(numbers of u5s leaving care percentage and number adopted)

2001 3,100 48% 1,500
2002 3,400 50% 1,700
2003 3,600 56% 2,000
2004 4,000 48% 1,900
2005 4,200 50% 2,100
2006 4,400 48% 2,100
2007 4,300 44% 1,900
2008 4,500 44% 2,000
2009 4,800 44% 2,100
2010 4,700 43% 2,000

There are now also children who get "permanence" through residency orders and Special Guardianships.

Alan Rushton was referring to 2005 which was indeed 50%.

What is also true is that the proportion that are recorded as returning to their parents is reducing.

2001 3,100 33%
2002 3,400 36%
2003 3,600 31%
2004 4,000 39%
2005 4,200 34%
2006 4,400 29%
2007 4,300 28%
2008 4,500 27%
2009 4,800 26%
2010 4,700 25%

Figures from SSDA903 return and only relating to children under 5 and subject to compulsion (not S20)

Under 5's who have been removed PERMANENTLY from birth parents have a much higher chance of being placed with loving, adoptive, forever families than children over 5. Is that not a good thing for the under 5's then? What would be a better alternative?

Oh thank you sooo much JH for telling us that "attachment disorder is often seen in adopted children" - we'd never have known otherwise. Now all these adoptors who love and care for these children who have been damaged by the birth parents have a new piece of information! Yes yes I know about sarcasm being the lowest form of wit but who cares when it's you I am responding to.

But maybe just maybe there is hope - I have never ever heard you say that these children adopted from care are so traumatised that they are difficult to look after. Ah but wait, your usual stance on this issue that it is being removed from the parents and placed in care prior to adoption is the cause of the trauma. Silly me why did I think the light was dawning.

As for your comment that attachment disorder is often mistaken for autism - can you evidence this ????

See MNs I couldn't ignore him try as I might!