Age of child when you're just not sure - matching

[Choccyjules]

DH and I can't seem to narrow down our thoughts on children, which we need to do to help the SW share profiles with us.
In general, the following statement is true: we are looking for a child aged 0-3, gender unknown.
In detail, DH points out he sees a male toddler and I see a female baby.
We have a female BC aged around 5/6.
I also go onto the Adoption UK forum and there is a thread running there about some recent stats saying that parents who adopted babies are the ones most seeking post-adoption support. That the babies' needs are, obviously, mostly unknown at the time of matching.
I really do get this and yet I would love to parent a young baby again. My SW says if this is a need then there's nothing wrong with it (short story is I had cancer when DD was a baby so feel I missed a lot of it).
DH fully understands my feelings but thinks we'd know more about a toddler, may get a bit more sleep etc (he thinks we're too old for a baby!). There's also the age-gap to DD, which everyone says should be as big as possible (except our LA, funnily enough, who are fairly ambivalent). But practically, IF it turns out that AC is able to interact with DD (by which I mean that I know I'm not creating a handy playmate), won't a 2/3 yr gap be more compatible than a 4/5 yr gap?
I know this is very long, sorry. As I said, LA (on prep course) and SW really don't have a strong opinion so we feel a bit adrift. Our only advice on age is from boards like this. I worry that we should 'just know' who we are looking for - but to me, being so specific feels like I'm writing a shopping list...maybe that's why we've only got as far as 0-3 yrs.
Anyway. Baby or toddler? Any useful experiences and thoughts very greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hi there
Those wanting babies , have you considered concurrency . It's not for the faint hearted mind u....

Italian, I think you're right in the main... People rarely come to adoption if they can have birth children (i think I've understood you correctly) but I'm someone who has adopted as my first choice and specifically wanted an older child because babies just do nothing for me... I felt I had far more to offer an older child and that there would be lots of people desperate for babies.

I suppose age doesn't really matter as much as stage and what you can best offer a child. I knew I could do a better job with an older child and I would enjoy the experience more. I don't think there's any shame in anyone saying they have a need to parent a child of any age.. they all need permanency.

Don't mean this to sound argumentative.. I'm in agreement with you.. just finding it hard to string a sentence together when I'm really under the weather.

I know concurrency worked for you Middlesex, and I know Meita's looking at it. It frightens me too much I have to be honest... So glad it worked for you but my nerves are not that strong!

Have considered concurrency but not going to do that as the extra uncertainty wouldn't be fair on BC.

May well do 'fostering to adopt' if offered the chance and can afford it. LA talk about this as an option for the newborn babies they know are going on to have an adoption order. Of which they have a fair amount, sadly, for a variety of general and more local reasons.

I also mean 12 months and under when I say baby. Vaguely.

crazeekitty no argument at all. I am delighted for you that adopting an older child has been your experience and I didn't doubt that people like you (who adopted as a first choice) existed, I just really do not think I have met any in real life. For us adoption was very much something I did want to do, but I had a bit of a dream to have three or four kids and for the first two to be birth children. So when we failed to carry a second baby, it took me a long time to be ready to adopt. NOW adoption is absolutely my first choice. If I could be pregnant now or have this little child we have been linked with, I would say a resounding yes to our little one! No desire for pregnancy at all. So adoption is now my first choice. But it does not alter the fact I came to adoption from a place of fertility treatment etc, and many adopters I meet seem to tell a similar story or either fertility treatment or fertility challenges.

I think concurrent planning is a brilliant idea. For anyone who is going down that route I really admire you. If we were younger and had no birth DD, I am pretty sure that would be good down that route. If I had been less open with DD I would have considered it even now but we talked a lot to DD about a child coming to live with us and being our child so to switch that to a child who we would look after and who may not stay just seemed to hard. The reality is I think was concurrent planning situations do continue.

choccyjules Fostering to adopt sounds like a good option too. Whatever takes away one of the stages where children will going to another family situation, however good, must in the long run be better for the child. Yes, concurrent planning and fostering to adopt must be hard for the adoptive parents but I think it is good that the pressure is on the adoptive parents to fit into changing circumstances rather than on the child/children.

For me a baby is anyone up to 1 year but to be honest now I would certainly view a child up to 18 months as a baby! And I still wrap my 9 year old up in a towel and call her a baby!

One thing that I am so happy about is that a lovely friend has just adopted a baby, her first child, and I was nervous whether I would feel jealous when I met said baby. I was not. I mean the baby is lovely, just great. And I had a hug. But I was just as happy to hand back the baby and get my hands on my cup of tea!

For me part of this has been accepting things and coming to terms with each stage.

Sorry - The reality is I think that concurrent planning situations do continue.

Not sure what the difference between fostering to adopt and concurrency is? Surely concurrency is fostering to adopt but with a younger child?

Concurrent planning is when the social services are considering both options for a child, simultaneously, that the child will return to birth mum if possible but that they think this is unlikely so they are also considering the child stay with the parents who are caring for them.

"Concurrent planning – placing a child with carers who will foster the child while rehabilitation is pursued with birth parents, and who are prepared to adopt the child should rehabilitation prove unsuccessful – has been explored and used in the UK for some years, but mostly in a limited form. The approach has benefits for children, allowing for a small number of moves and carers, and a faster adoption placement, should this be the outcome."

www.baaf.org.uk/bookshop/concurrent-planning

More information here .... www.first4adoption.org.uk/being-an-adoptive-parent/fostering-options/concurrent-planning/

So a reunion with the birth parents is being attempted both things are being considered at the same time.

Fostering for Adoption....according to the First4adoption website is .... "Fostering for Adoption places a child during the period of temporary local authority care with foster carers who are also approved as adopters. If the court agrees that the child should be adopted and the adoption agency approves the ‘match’ between the carers as adopters and the child, the placement becomes an adoption placement."

www.first4adoption.org.uk/being-an-adoptive-parent/fostering-options/fostering-for-adoption/

This Devon website makes it look like fostering to adopt is the same thing as concurrent planning but I am not sure if it always is!

www.devonadoption.org.uk/all-you-need-to-know/types-of-adoption/foster-to-adopt-concurrency-care-scheme/

I think that in theory, foster to/for adoption happens when a child is already in foster care, rehabilitation has been pursued but deemed not possible, LA thinks adoption would be in best interest of the child and is pursuing placement order, no longer pursuing rehabilitation, but court hasn't agreed yet. So now the child can remain with their current fosterers until placement order, and then be placed for adoption immediately (or as soon as a matching family can be found). This could take several months, which is a long time for a child. Or, the child can be moved from current fosterers to foster-to-adopt carers, so basically making the same move, but sooner - not waiting for the court order.

Whereas concurrent planning is in theory limited to 0-2 years old, and means a child is moved from birth family directly to concurrency carers. Accordingly, rehabilitation has not yet been pursued, but is now pursued at the same time as the adoption plan is pursued.

So the difference would be, in theory, that

• with concurrency, the LA is still pursuing rehabilitation, whereas with FtA rehabilitation has already been pursued, and discarded, and is no longer being pursued. I.e. much reduced contact, and chances for rehabilitation clearly much smaller in FtA. (But still possible, if court decides differently than LA).
• Whereas both CP and FtA mean that the child moves to their forever family sooner, with FtA you would be 'saving' a few months at best, whereas with CP it may be much longer, e.g. a whole year - basically the whole time of the care proceedings, how ever long they may take.
• Normally, FtA would not reduce the number of moves for the child, just bring them forward. Whereas CP may well reduce the number of moves.

However, in practice, well we talked to about 10 agencies, LAs as well as VAs, and ONLY the people at CORAM really distinguish between the two. Equally, only CORAM seem to properly prepare their concurrency carers, in that they are made to realise that rehabilitation is still being pursued for the baby, and how to deal with that. Whereas IMO most LAs just use concurrency when they're so sure that rehabilitation will be impossible, that they don't really try, but just go through the motions.

On a different note, regarding choosing CP in order to increase chances of getting a baby: We were told on several occasions, that in our assessment we would discuss CP and if we expressed interest in it, they would try to ascertain that we were interested for the right reasons, i.e. NOT in order to be able to get a baby. Wanting a baby as young as possible appears NOT to be a good reason to go for CP. I don't know if I agree. Personally the baby thing is something that we see as kind of a downside of concurrency, because of the increased uncertainty; but also as an advantage in some ways. But we're definitely not hung up on wanting a baby. However, I think that 'wanting a baby' (or not) and being prepared and able to do concurrency, are actually two separate things. You can have one, or the other, or both, or none.
Given that concurrency in theory is limited to 0-2years old, it however seems a bit silly to exclude those potential adopters who DO actively want a baby. (Of course they still need to assess if the prospective adopters have really considered and understood all that it entails, and should prepare and support them appropriately.)

Middlesexmummy, we have considered concurrency, but we have heard of numerous examples recently where the baby has been returned to the birth family (often months and months after being placed) and whilst that's great for the birth family (and the child), I am not sure we are strong enough to put ourselves in that position. However, after a little digging by our SW it has become apparent that even if we wanted to pursue the concurrency option, due to our location it would be impossible.

With regards to Foster to Adopt, we are more interested in this option, although it still has risks. We have said that we will consider it, should the right 'placement' come up, and so we've not ruled it either in or out at the moment.

I agree with Meita in that doing either CP or FtA in order to 'get' a baby isn't the right mindset to take, but it doesn't mean that if you have a desire for a baby you're not suited to either option.

I think for us, we just want to be a family and end the road to becoming one, both FtA and CP extend that road and neither can guarantee that you will be a family at the end of it. FtA I think is more interesting to us, because the LA have stopped the contact with the BF and is just processing the paperwork, and I think this level of risk is something that we could cope with as the end result is more likely.

Myfeetarecold, you've hit the nail on the head. We're not saintly, but adoption is our route to a family. We're well aware that baby definitely doesn't = no issues, and often far from it, but I think we'll cope with issues better when they 'develop' rather than just taking them on right from the start. Does that make any sense?! I think I need our relationship to develop with the child, before any issues become apparent basically. That's not saying our relationship wouldn't develop if there were issues from the start, it's just more of an overwhelming thing to deal with. I suspect that's because we are first time parents, and the idea of being handed a child who is to all intents and purposes a stranger (I know they're not really, but I can't think of a better term) is scary enough (for us), without throwing into the mix dealing with issues right from the start.

Crazeekitty, I am so pleased you stuck to your guns with your preferences, I need examples of other people knowing what they wanted to give me the backbone to stay with our gut feeling!

At the moment everything is all ifs and buts, and we are well aware that when confronted with the our child, all our thoughts will change, so it's hard to be definite about anything really because we know that it might all change! I have really enjoyed the process to date, but the matching process we have really found hard.

This has turned into another mammoth ramble. Sorry.

Disclaimer - sorry if I have used the wrong terms, been overly blunt etc. No offence intended whatsoever.

I think it's been explained well now but our LA describe FTA as when they know that adoption will be the plan for a baby, eg a parent may have recently had a child removed for adoption and is now pregnant again, having had no change in circumstances/lifestyle. A baby can't be formally placed for adoption until 6 weeks old so theoretically there is time to check on birth parents' potential/ability to care but the baby is placed with FC straight from hospital.

Choccy, that's my understanding too. Our agency recently had a couple placed with a v young baby (weeks old) under the FtA thing.

Yes you must stick to your guns so you can go into the process having made a commitment to your lo from the very outset.

With regards fta... If it had been available when my lo was a baby then she would have been saved 8 years plus of being passed from pillar to post in the care system and would have had permanency. Please do consider it.

I too agree with others, if you really want/need the baby stage, say so, hang on for it. When we adopted our first two, I really wanted the baby stage and had no worries in telling the SW that. We were approved for three children aged 0-4 years.
It turned out our perfect match was two girls who were aged 2 years (dd1) and six months dd2)
Dd3 then came home six years later aged six months.
I am so glad we experienced the baby stage (twice) although as others have said there is a lot of uncertainty in adopting a baby.

Hi all, we did it in 2011 and to b honest , they called it concurrency but in fact we had to be fast tracked approved to become foster parents for our dd once her BM s assessment had broken down so not sure which label to attach. All I do know having gone through the experience is that neither cc or fta both have equal uncertainties as both needs to placement order to be obtained before the baby is put up for adoption .... We had 3 nerve wracking months of waiting whilst the court decided to award more assessments on the BM even though the first 2 had broken down .... I think that both are very similar though called different names but both ultimatly need the po to be granted before you can even dream of a future ..... On a positive note , my dd will be 2 tmrw , can't believe she came to us at 6 months and stayed .....

Sorry meant 2012, she wasn't even born in 2011!!!!

Yes, I guess we must bear in mind that a PO may not be granted in FTA and baby doesn't stay. Good point.

Just want to wish you all a lot of luck. It's an amazing journey.

I can't help feeling a lot of people miss out a lot of this, the good and the bad because they very easily get their family. I feel I have really had to work for my family!

I wish you all the very best.

italian..... I don't think anybody who has adopted has had their family.handed to them on a plate, I think we have all worked hard to get to be parents, I understand what you are saying,.but we have all been in the same position.

I think Italian was referring to people who don't adopt Moomoomie (I might have totally the wrong end of the stick...)

Yes I think Italian was referring to people who are seemingly the goddesses and gods of fertility.

This has been a very long thread... Good to get so many opinions... Just wondering where you and dh are at now, op..now that you've had so much food for thought

Moomoomie I meant all who have adopted have not had their family handed to them on plate! I was not putting myself in a separate category to all you lovely people!

Actually, my comment was very disingenuous to people who have birth children, having children is not easy, however you receive them having kids is not easy.

I guess I was trying to say that those who have not adopted and not been on this crazy adoption journey have missed out on some of the sorrow that there is in it, but have also missed out on the joy. I guess I was trying to make an 'advert' for the fact that adoption is amazing and I feel sad that it is often (in my limited experience - in real life) only those who have had fertility issues who get to go on this journey.

Apologies, Moomoomie, I absolutely did not mean I was any different from anyone else!