15,000 Kids and Counting - Episode 2

[Lilka]

Tonight at 9.00 on Channel 4

The Search
This episode follows the search for adoptive parents for a two-year-old boy and a three and seven-year-old brother and sister

With the added challenges of having slightly older children, siblings and a child with possible health issues to place, the task for social workers Annette and Jackie is a massive one

With the future of these children in their hands and recently set government targets to meet, they struggle not to become emotionally involved as they strive to find adopters before time runs out

roadwalker I totally did not like the comment that these children are resilient! I felt that the foster carer said three things which I found rather offensive. I would not say anyone (social worker, birth parent, adopter or foster carrer) could sperak on behalf of all kids in the looked after system. Plus I expect that some children who come through the care syste, do end up with behavioral problems etc (based on what I read and see not on my personal experience). So coming through a system doesn't necessarily mean you are truely resilient it means you have coped maybe or maybe not. Dear Auntie Wickie says Psychological resilience is defined as an individual's ability to properly adapt to stress and adversity. I am just not sure that should be applied to vunerable children!

I hate the bit at the begining where the social worker says "He's the age of a baby that somebody wants that hasn't got their own children." I understand it but I find it annoying.

I found the ginger comment very offensve too!

Bloody hell am just sitting here getting offended! Sad old me!

Sorry - *foster carer said three things which I found rather offensive." But I know they will have seen a side of things I will not have.

Foster carers are amazng. I love what they do. Am not sure I would ever be able to do that. I kind of feel I would like to, not sure DH would agree! We are aprpoved to adopt and that will take quite a lot of energy for next few years.

Don't think I am being negative about foster carers at all. I am just being a bit super sensitive.

I did really agree with the foster carer who said people were telling him they were to sensitive to be foster carers and he said What does that make me! It is easy to assume you could not do a role in life but once you start to say I could not do it because of XYZ it might sound you think the person who is doing it XYZ!!

Thanks Italian, I will do. I would hate to think of us not at least having a sibling group shown to us because of just being outside the age range. We've already said no preference to sex although my mum would love a girl as they have 2 grandsons already but it's not important to us. I have 4 nephews and then friends who have all girls and don't mind either way.

Fasparent that's great to hear as well re fas as never anything but the negatives discussed in regards to it. Just about every thread you read of potential adopters it's an instant no to fas so definitely agree there needs to be more info. My mum has been saying about all the adoption programs on recently and said she wished she'd seen more about it as she would definitely have looked into adoption. So hopefully these programs will raise awareness and bring forward more foster carers and adopters.

foster care said three things, sorry I shoudl say foster carer said these things. I felt the foster cares got a good opportunity to say lots and sometimes it was totally in context and sometimes seemed not! I love the fact the older foster couple seemed to manage so well with such a little lad and they were older, it was truely inspirational! It was quite painful to see how sad it was for them but I do feel it was a good sign, imagine living with a little child for 2 years and not feeling sad. It was a sign they really cared for him.

fasparent it is so good to hear you have personal experience of children with FAS going on to great things. Maybe potential adopters need more preparation in this. We were given very little (read none) and it is only from reading on mumset that I know anything. Sadly, some stuff can make people think they cannot cope so it is essential for potential adopters to know the realities, to be prepared and to go into adoption with eyes open.

I am really not sure how I feel about them discussing foetal alchol syndrome in relation to a named child who we see and hear about and see the adoptive parents for. He will change and might not be recognisable but the women will not change physically that much. So it seemed quite identifying. I know they want to make the issues real but that feels a step too far, couldn't they say 'medical condition/problems' and then speak about FAS in relation to other unamed children who we do not see on camera?

JugglingFromHereToThere I am not a foste carer but I would be very surprised if any foster carers were told they could not have a young child sitting on their knee! I think it is more the feelings of the child that that is her fear or perception. It was very clear her foster cares really loved and cared for her, it was very inspirational. They were doing such a great job.

Also, there is a reason why foster carers are not meant to be called Mum and Dad, because children in care/looked after already have a mum or dad (birth parent) who they may return to, and if/when/once it is decided they will not return the plan for many is that they will be adopted so they will get a new mum/dad or wharever. When Tommy met his two new mummies it was a bit confusing that there was the 'mum' foster carer and the two new mummies! It must be very hard for a child especially in a home where there is anotehr child (birth or adopted) who is already calling the adults mum and dad to not be able to, but that is the reality for children who are not yet adopted and (in my IMHO) it would be better for them to be able to understand the situation otherwise it could be more heartache when they realise they are not staying with foster carers.

My TV packed up about three quarters of the way through tonight, but I think I gather from posts that a match was found for Lauren and Liam, though no guarantee that this would proceed to adoption. Sometimes matches "on paper" don't always progress through to adoption, for a variety of reasons, but so hope it did for these 2 children. I did wonder if Liam had some physical disability (?) as he seemed to have difficulty walking at one stage.

I notice that there is a discussion about LTFC and Adoption. I did post right at the beginning of the thread about this issue, but just to say that it is extremely difficult to find long-term foster carers, and I think Lilka and MITCH have explained most of the differences and the reasons why people might opt for one or the other. Funding is a major issue as has already been mentioned. Fostering allowances are mandatory whereas adoption allowances are discretionary and can be decreased or stopped altogether. Also some carers want the support of the LA especially if the child has medical needs, and that's another reason why they want to LT foster.

I would just mention one issue though that hasn't been mentioned. When a child is placed on the basis of LTFC there has to be 6 monthly reviews and at each review there is a question about whether it is possible for the child to be returned to the birthparents. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases this does not happen, but when I was working in Children's Services (before my retirement) the LA budgets were constrained (and I retired in 2004 so nowhere near as bad as they are now, given the slashing of the budgets by this coalition) and social workers were being told by senior managers that they must identify a child or children in LTFC who could return home. And in some cases, children did actually return home albeit still with a Care Order in place, so there would be oversight of the child's safety at home.

There is though another route to permanency not mentioned on the programme which is Special Guardianship Order (SGO) and this is just one step away from Adoption. The govt brought in this legislation, believing that many older children in short term foster care and children's homes would find families under this Order. I don't think this has been the case (though I can't evidence that) because people who want to permanently care for a child usually want as young a child as possible.

The SGO transfers Parental Responsibility (PR) from the LA to the carers. It is often used in kinship placements (usually grandparents/aunts/uncles etc) where the kinship carers live in the same area as the birthparents and there may be fairly frequent contact, given that the birthmother/father is the son or daughter of the kinship carers. Care has to be taken to ensure that the kinship carers don't allow any unsupervised contact to take place, given that the children have been removed from the birthparents by order of the Court.

There is a possible problem with SGOs regarding funding, because it is not mandatory, but I understand that most kinship carers will make it clear that they cannot apply for this Order unless there is funding equivalent to fostering allowances and this is being written into the court papers and agreed by the Judge.

Juggling - I don't think anyone would disagree with what you say, but budgets are not finite as I'm sure you are aware and during the many years I practiced there were always problems with budget constraints. Now that the budgets of Social Care (and all other public services) have been cut to the bone, it is of course so much worse. In an ideal world of course foster carers and adopters should receive the funding and support that they need, but in reality this cannot be the case. The govt introduced a duty for adopters to receive post adoption support - absolutely necessary in my view, but no new money to pay for it, therefore I guess it's very thin on the ground. Likewise I think foster-carers (short and long term) don't get the support they need for the same reason - lack of resources. Nationally LA children's services are struggling to recruit and retain staff and the govt is demanding improved services for less money - can't be done.

Gosh what a sad and thought provoking programme.

Having lurked on the adoption board alot I picked up on the comments made about adopters 'picking' children.

I wish they had spent some time exploring why potential adopters feel forced to say no to older children, as that was really left unsaid, and I don't think all people will be able to think why this might be and the system behind it as well.

I wish I was in a position to adopt. I know lots of people say that and mean they want to but don't, I mean, I actually can't (disabled single mother hanging on by a thread). I think I'd be emotionally able to cope in alot of ways. It's such a waste :(

MAI think most prospective adopters want younger children because they feel that it is the next best thing to having your own child (many adopters are unable to have their own children) so they're thinking of a baby or toddler and so an "older" child doesn't really appeal and I can understand this. Also I think there is a feeling that the younger the child is, the more easily he/she will settle into the family (not always the case) and that they will not have experienced numerous moves as some older children have (usually true) and again that they will settle more easily. I can understand a childless couple or single parent desperately wanting a baby, to be offered an 8 year old is just not going to be right.

In fact I think I am right in saying that children over 5 are categorised as "hard to place" especially if they are part of a sibling group, or have medical needs, disabilities etc. It's sad but true I'm afraid, though of course that doesn't mean any child of 5+ will not be successfully adopted.

I think when the sw in tonight's programme dismissed a couple because they only wanted 0 -6 would be for another reason other than age. It is common practice to try to "push up the adopter's offer" - e.g. Would you consider a child slight older than your original offer, and I can't imagine anyone refusing a child because she was just 1 year older than the age range for which they were approved.

I know there has been some discussion about why foster children can't sit on carer's knees and I know it sounds stupid in a way. This is an issue about "safer caring" - some children will have been sexually abused and obviously when this is known, the foster carers or adopters will be given full information, and these children very often show sexualised behaviour, like wanting to sit on the laps of males in the house and that's why it is discouraged. Also some children will have been sexually abused and it isn't known about, so there tends to be a blanket "rule" about this issue. Personally I think "safer caring" is a good idea but that it has been taken to quite ridiculous lengths and a lot of my colleagues felt the same, but we had to toe the party line.

Incidentally I thought Tommy's foster parents were lovely but how on earth did they have the energy to care for a 2 year old. I think they were probably coming to the end of their long fostering career, but must have helped dozens of children over the years.

FAS Parent have you really adopted 8 children? Did I read that right!

I genuinely think social services need to recruit new adopters from new places. Lots of adopters I have met in real life have either no birth children or one birth child. I can only think of 2 real life couples who adoptered already havng more than one child. Compared to about 5 adopter couples and 10 potential adopters couples who did not have children before or had only one. When people come to adoption to have children, having not had the young stage, some do really want to have that baby stage or young child stage, and I think that is totally understandable.

If people who do already have one child look to adpoption (like me) then I think they may often have an age peraminter to work within. Adoption has a better success rate if there is a bigger age gap between the children.

So I think social services actually needs to target older people who either have not had children and do not want babies and young kids but do not want to miss out on parenting (e.g. they are in their 50s and had they had kids at a younger age those kids would not be 7 or 10 or 12 etc) or they have older children who have grown up.

Not sure if that is making sense. I guess I am saying it is more complicated than just pursuadng adopters to consdier older children, Because adopters do not generally adopt to be altruistic! They adopt because they want a child, yes, they want to help a child but ultimately they want to be parents and people who have children get to have that child from bump, scan photos and all, and so adopters miss that bump to birth bit automatically and usually the frist year. We were matched with a preschooler and I was a little sad (for about a minute!) that I was going to miss out on his early life, then I figured was it worth missing out on the rest of his life for! And I figured NO, it was not. I am so glad we said yes and so excited. And I must say that having already got a birth child and having been through the bump and scan stage it totally does not bother me that I won't be doing that again. Sadly, too, there are now a lot more younger babies and children in the system and the myth is out there that babies are easier and I feel frustrated when it seems to be perpetuated as I am just not sure it is the case.

Whoops massive essay! Sorry!

Cross posted with NinaNana who said some of the same things as me!

NinaNana, I had not realised it was true about the not sitting on a lap. Clearly some foster carers may not do that though. They said the older couple had fostered about 100 children!

Much as I dislike picking apart posts, I'm going to do it anyway because of the language issue

I think most prospective adopters want younger children because they feel that it is the next best thing to having your own child (many adopters are unable to have their own children)

I think I know what you mean Nana, about trying to have a baby leading later into a desire to adopt a baby...but I'm going to politely point out that "own child" is pretty loaded and potentially offensive language on this board, and our children are our own children. I have my own children, and I don't love them like my own (because that would imply that they weren't really mine), I love them because they are my own. Also, I really don't think any of us consider our children a next 'best' thing. Our kids are not consolation prizes. Do many people come to adoption as a second choice, yes of course, and there's nothing at all wrong with that, but second choice is not second best, and we don't consider it in that way.

I'm not trying to be rude, or patronising or anything, but "own child" and "second best" used like this does make me feel very uncomfortable

Disclaimer, before anyone reads the next part of my post, I have not struggled with fertility issues, and having no experience, there is a big limit to what I can say

But my (personal, humble) opinion as to why most parents would prefer to adopt a child aged about 0-3, is a combination of the following

• It's a natural desire to want to experience as much of your childs life as possible with them. The idea of missing out on many of your childs milestones and earlier experiences can be an upsetting idea

• And of course experiencing a baby or young toddler, baby cuddles and nappy changing and pram pushing and everything about looking after a younger child, many people do feel such a strong desire to do these things. Parenting an older child is very different to parenting a 0-2/3 year old, and it is a strong and natural desire to hold a baby in your arms IMHO.

• Preparation to adopt really does hammer home the fact that many older children do have emotional and behavioural difficulties, but it is true that the way it is discussed can make it sound as if 100% of older children have very significant difficulties, which isn't the case. People do want a family life which they enjoy (for the most part), they want to always be happy that they made the decision to adopt that they made

• As Devora always and rightly says, prospective adopters are worried about post adoption support and reluctant to committ to older children or special needs if they don't think the support is in place

I guess one of the issues could be that someone like me (ignoring disability ruling me out), I would be open to adopting an older child, as I've had pregnancy birth and early years with my son now, and somehow those years don't seem as precious now because I've done it and loved every second... But loved my boy as himself more than the ages and stages IYSWIM? I wouldn't have thought like that before Ds though, baby & toddler years were imbued with more significance then.

So now I'm in that more appropriate mindset, but I have a child so they recommend a big gap, so it puts the onus on the adopted child being young... And by the time my birth son would be old enough to be able to adopt a 7,8,9,+ yr old, I'd be approaching the 'too old' limit (I think?).

In spite of all of that, I wish my health stabilized and I didn't need so much care for me to be able to parent. Currently some of the hours care awarded to me is to help me do parent-y things (like lifting child into bath), so it would be odd just financially for the council to be paying for a carer so I could care for an looked after child for example...

Anyway, if health stabilized then I maybe could still adopt or be a long term foster carer. I've always been drawn to the idea, maybe to try and understand my own flawed upbringing, but then beyond that, I used to spend work lunchtimes looking at foster care and adoption agency sites, from my first job onwards really (job had nothing to do with that area). It's just such an important thing to do, so needed by society and (most importantly) for the specific children themselves.

You all do such a valuable thing you know, I admire you - though it's hard to say that without coming across as an idiot glorifying in an unrealistic way! (but I do admire you still sorry!)

Sorry if I'm sounding really ignorant or putting my foot in it in some way - i do alot of lurking on this board but don't post as its for people truly involved in the process.

MiscellaneousAssortment it sounds like you have a great love for children and I really hope one day you may be able to realise your dreams. The age limit where I live is 50 years difference between child and adiult, so at 55 you could adopt a 5 year old etc. Also you say I've always been drawn to the idea, maybe to try and understand my own flawed upbringing I am pretty sure you would need to have a handle on your own upbringing and understand it and have resolved any issues from it before you adopt. That may be something to work on now, in rleation to support or counselling (IMHO) so if your health was better and you ever did adopt then your past would not be an issue for you.

Yes Lilka second choice but not second best! Agree totally, I am so excited to be adopting. I think the feekling I have are just like the feelings I had in pregnancy, in fact in some ways it feels more intense as I know what is coming!

At lot of people have been commenting on the individuals / couples who were dismissed for the sibling pair that included a 7 year old because they only put 0-6.

As far as I understand it, if you are approved for 0-6 then you cannot be considered for a 7 year old. We were approved for a very limited window and only one sex. Therefore, we would have had to have returned to panel if we changed our mind. You are approved for what you are approved for. Well, this is what we were told by our social worker.

I would be interested to know whether other people were told this.

Just to add a bit to the LTF and legal guardianship bit - they do tend to be in specific circumstances.

In my family's experience we had a long term foster child who has severe special needs (no speech, in a wheelchair etc) and would otherwise have spent his whole life in residential care. There is no way my (older) parents could commit for life to someone needing 24 hour care in a very physical way, but fostering him until the age of 18 gave him a life in a family home that he wouldn't have otherwise had. Another child that my family respite fostered went to long term foster carers. Again, there were special needs and also contact remained with birth family.

Another foster child came to us as a baby straight from hosptial but was difficult to place and 5 years later they had pretty much given up. They looked for long term foster carers but that didn't happen either. My parents are too old to adopt any more children but in the end my mum (who is younger and in better health than my dad) took legal guardianship.

All the other 40+ children went back to birth families or were adopted.

Age is interesting. We're approved for 2 children aged 0-6 and one of the first profiles we were shown was for a 4 and 7 year old. We were told the age we were approved for absolutely wasn't set in stone.

I still think this programme was disappointing and really didn't paint adopters in a good light which is a shame. Although total disclaimer, I didn't see the last 20 mins and will watch it today.

Odyssey I would hope that approval panel is the main guidance but if it were a year old then matching panel would be sufficient to agree it? It's a discussion we will definitely be having with our sw.

Velvet I completely agree with your sentiment. Maybe we just got our wires crossed or it is just our LA.

I'm a Foster Carer and have never been told that our FC can't sit on our laps.

I'm going to disagree with some people here and say that the older FCs really should not have had Tommy calling them mummy and daddy. The female FC (Jean?) had been told that this was wrong, she even played it down when she told the SW that tommy called them "mamma" and "dadda" which we later saw was actually "mummy" and "daddy".

Wrong wrong wrong.

They were obviously doing it for their own reasons but claiming that that's what tommy had chosen to call them himself was ridiculous. A child will call you what they are told to call you, if they are wrong and get corrected they will stop. The FCs were using these terms when talking to tommy "give it to daddy" etc so basically reinforcing it.

I have seen this cause real distress and confusing when children are placed for adoption and it can contribute to longer lasting problems in the relationships and insecurity for the child.

If an older child in LTFC decides for themselves to use those labels then that is different but with a young child who is going to be adopted I think that using those terms is really damaging. It gives the children the impression that "mummy's" and "daddy's" can come and go when actually they should be believing that "mummy" and "daddy" relationships are very special and permanent.

On a separate issue, a lot of people who consider adopting are put off by thinking they are too old. Many people think that you can't adopt if you are over 40 even though it's the age gap between you and the child that is more important. Some publicity should be done around this.

Yes Nana Nina 8 children and 2 SGO's, crinkly's going strong and we all still love it . All our FC's called us Mum their choice natural thing as every one in the house calls us Mum and Dad, lots of hug's and love
promotes self esteemed and inclusion, contrary too the text book's, but have too use common scene on some occasions.

Love and hugs are great and essential but many FC families (and step families) do manage quite well with different children having different names for the adults, depending on their relationships. Not sure why some find it so hard or choose to encourage parental terms that are not appropriate tbh.

8 adopted dc and 2 SGO! Blimey that's a lot of laundry!