Adopting a baby,

[Bewildered1]

I am writing this for two reasons tbh,

1. As a fact finding mission hopefully
2. To rant

1. How many potential adopters are looking for a baby under 1 years old??

1. So baby under 1 years old no problems at all and absolutely perfect put out for adoption by a local authority and no suitable adopters found, now I thought there would have been loads and there was under 5 in my area so then it was made a larger area search and 0 were found. So the case was made to use a agency to match and the reply was that is not an option as that will cost money. Now is that a national thing as I think it's a absolute travesty to allow that poor child to be messed up when all they need is a permanent family. I was told today that there is a national shortage of adopters looking for baby's under 1?? Is this really the case as it shocked me as I thought it was the polar opposite and everybody was looking for a baby??

Surely it's better that they get the right family fir the child in the long term than someone who "wants a baby "?
The thing is you dint know it's "Absolute petfect" with no problems at all because it's under one.

We weren't looking for a child that young. We said between 18 months and three years.
We're you one of the families who showed interest?

The child has been in care for 90% of their existence so they are pretty sure the child is OK medically, I'm not one of the interested parties but have a vested interest in the child's best interests. I want them to find the perfect home long term but as there's nobody in the local ish area and they aren't willing to A. Expand the search, B. Pay an agency to find the perfect parents so the child will end up in permanent foster care, now this is another problem as they have no permanent placement available due to lack of suitable carers

I too find that hard to believe with the shortage of kids coming through the system !
But then a friend has told me there are 2 little girls locally ( 2 and 4 ) and they cant find a match as no adoptors waiting!
It is all v strange!

P.s. permenant fc will be more expensive in long term ! And can they do that? If courts grant a placement order the la have to exhaust all avenues to achieve that and cant just switch to ltfc because they feel like it!

Well they won't outsource the matching process as it's money out of a dwindling budget, but ltfc comes out of a different budget so they can justify that. Apparently it's the way the system works but I think ltfc is a mistake for the child as he needs to build a bond with forever parents. Foster parents would love him just as much but it's attachment that may damage in the long term.

That is odd. One of the reasons we've ruled out adoption is that we've been starkly told we wouldn't get to adopt a baby, and for me that bonding time is really important (not so much to have a baby for the sake of it, but just for those early early bonding times).

I despair of the system at times.
What happened to the childs needs being paramount?

P.S. again I always thought the la have to go back to court to revoke placement order if no adoptors found and the judge may well have an opinion on the subject!

1. The adoption 'market' varies wildly across the UK. In some LAs there are healthy babies waiting, in the majority of LAs there are cpeople waiting for 'easy to place' children. In many cases LAs won't train adopters who don't commit to considering sibling groups or serious needs.

1. An under one year old, with few health/development concerns, placed on linkmaker and children who wait (the national databases) will get matches in days at the mo.

1. As flapjack says, the matches need to be right, and it isn't as simple as it sounds, but the right parent(s) will be out there. Broadly: more time in care = bad.

1. Legally, the LA cannot do what you describe. There is a court order instructing them to find some adopters. The child has an IRO for this purpose. If they have explicitly said they are not looking nationally for matches to avoid paying the matching fee, the IRO can fix it (unless the LA are really awful or the IRO is crap).

Everybody has such good advice on the subject!!!! The LA are very poor tbf, this should have been sorted a very long time ago, there will be some more going on soon and hopefully it'll all get sorted out but atm the LA haven't put the child on national databases or don't seem to want to for some reason other than money or lack of, children who wait was mentioned and that was money issues again. I'm hoping by this time next week they'll have been some intervention from somebody and get it all sorted for the little mite. There was mention of a national shortage of adopters for baby's made by the LA and they said this was also a factor which surprised me!!!!

although you seem to know a lot about this child I think there must be something you don't know. Adoption is by far the cheaper option for a child. Keeping a child in long term foster care costs a lot more than a one off agency fee to go out of area to place them.

This happened with my DD.

The LA dillydallied about family finding nationally, to try and save money, and this delayed her coming home by nearly a year.

However, while she is a 'healthy white baby', she also has a factor which the wider family and friends of her BF wouldn't know, that made her 'hard to place'.

But my experience is that, yes, a 'healthy white baby' can be hard to place, unless you know everything about that baby's history, you probably won't know why, and, yes, and LA will leave a child in foster care longer when they don't need to, in an attempt to save both money, and effort. The child is safe in foster care, and placing out of area is hard work for all.

A child being healthy now does not mean there's nothing there that puts potential adopters off. Viruses, substances, family history of mental health problems, or genetic problems, etc could make a child 'hard to place.'

Potential adopters are often told 'there are no babies', so, yes, many are looking for older children. Slightly older children have slightly less uncertainty, which is important for those, for example, with children already at home.

Adopters are asked to tolerate a lot of uncertainty, but the younger the child is adopted, the more uncertainty there is, for example the effects of neglect, drink, drugs etc, so many prefer older than 1yr old, yes.

If you have concerns, I would ask who the IRO are, and highlight these concerns to them. They will have the whole picture, and can intervene.

As much as id like to intervene, I cannot at this point, I know everything there is to know about this child and it comes down to money and lack of staff and potential adoptees. I will intervene at the next opportunity/meeting unless something changes. There was uproar at the last meeting down to the decisions made and something needs to change.

I'd say there are plenty of people looking for babies judging on a post I just read on Link Maker from a SW.
They were commenting on the fact that they have had an expression of interest from someone re: a sibling group but with the caveat that they actually only want to be put on the waiting list for the baby in the group if the children are split up. SW said this was at least the fifth time this has now happened so definitely some people who only want a baby.

Bewildered I would love to know which LA. We want to adopt but have been led to believe it's hard to get a child under 3... we would love to take on a baby. We are at the very start of our adoption journey. We have so much love to give...

We wouldn't qualify right now I guess as we have to go through the process to be accepted but they are confident it will go through

It'sbeen how sad is that? Do people not realise that babies grow into children? Our son was 20mon the already hard to place he was judges as too old by several couples.

delilabell I agree, so sad. I can't understand how people with that mindset have gone through the entire assessment process without something being said. I know that lots of people only want to adopt one child & of course people often start off hoping for a baby but to be looking at children (that SWs have judged should be placed with their siblings) to find a cute baby they can "reserve" is just awful. Glad your DS found you!

As one of the ones who would selfishly like a baby (though wouldn't suggest splitting siblings), I think I can safely say most people know they grow into children.

But there's so much emphasis on the value of early bonding and attachment and experiences, and the problems someone can face if you don't get it right.

There's also that desire to know someone from the start which would make it so much more likely to get it right throughout the rest of their childhoods and lives. Especially when you don't already have experiences of children; you're learning with them as they grow, rather than being thrown totally into the deep end of a stranger in your house with epic special needs and getting it completely wrong with a six year old or something.

Maybe it makes people like me unsuitable adopters, and definitely it made us back right off so other unsuitable couples will have too - but for me, and I'm sure others too, it's not at all about a "cute" baby.

Happily/sadly there are all sorts of age children needing adoption, and all sorts of adopters who feel they could be right for all sorts of ages. Personally, I wasn't willing to cope with the very high level of medical uncertainty that comes with a young baby, and also felt the insecurity of "foster to adopt" wasn't for me. My LO was 3 when they came home, with a developmental age of 12-18 months. They are utterly amazing and extraordinary, just as every child is to their family . Of course there are challenges related to attachment, but that's something that needs years and years and years to grow, whenever you start.

Klassy I guarantee whatever age child joins your family, you will get it "wrong" some of the time. And that will be fine, and make you human, and you'll figure it out as you go along I hope all goes well for you.