British Sikh couple refused to be allowed to adopt a white child

[MrsD79]

Interesting. Thoughts please..

Beyond then posts a pretty offensive post which shows she hasn't bothered to find out any facts

Which bit of my original post was offensive, and which bit showed I hadn't 'bothered to find out any facts'?

i thought it had long been established that all things being equal it was in the best interests of the child to grow up within their own cultural heritage. so if there are lots of adopters with matching heritage they would be selected in the interests of the child. it might be in the interests of the child to be adopted by people from a different background rather than staying in care. but i can absolutely see why that would disadvantage this couple.

I'm not sure I did suggest the posts were fine? My intension was to convey to the OP that adoption is a very contentious issue which can provoke strong reactions...I was explaining this because I thought perhaps the OP might be a bit bewildered by the response they had which to them may have seemed like a perfectly reasonable question with a strong reaction. I think the inference about the 16 rounds of IVF was that this was a reason they should be allowed to adopt. I could be wrong on this and am happy to be corrected. I'm sure the views of the OP are shared with many people who are not aware of the ins and outs of modern adoption and is something adoptive parents have to deal with often. I suspect it's the cumulative effect of having to deal with naive opinions regularly on something that feels very real and raw to them. This isn't just an area of idle chit chat and debate for a lot of people here hence the strong reaction.

I'm not sure any of us are going to have a huge epiphany and change our minds or opinions here. As I said I was tired and feeling quite overwhelmed when reading this which provoked a strong reaction from me too. I'm human and as I said, it's an emotive issue. The tone and inference from when I referred to this was somewhat sarcastic and passive aggressive on your part so it seems as though this thread has deteriorated into a swing between passive aggression to outright aggression on all sides.

allthe I wasn't being sarcastic or passive aggressive at all. As an outsider I read it that you were defending the posts. I am being totally straightforward when I say that. OP had clearly been engaging with the more balanced posts before that. I was surprised you hadn't challenged them. If I got that wrong and you had simply passed over them then then I apologise.

Beyond, in relation to what you got wrong, on the site conserve referred to they are interviewed and they say that their application was not accepted for consideration at all on the grounds of being Indian/Pakistani. They weren't considered or looked into at all. You suggested there may be other reasons they were rejected? You then said they probably wouldn't be suitable adopters (based on zero facts) and you end with "enough thoughts for you?" (I paraphrase). Do you disagree you were very rude?

No worries, I apologise if I got the wrong impression. I was not necessarily defending anyone's post but trying to explain to the OP why they may have got such a strong reaction. The bit I took as sarcastic was the 'adopters have strong emotions' I wasn't really referring to any post in particular, just the overall reaction.

I can see it from both sides as reading the OP's second comment it came across as naive to me and lacked understanding of how adoption works nowadays...that's fine, why should they if this is something they've never had to deal with? On the other hand I can see why it got people's backs up and I suspect the response was really a response to the daily naive and well intentioned comments that adoptive parents deal with. It can be frustrating to have people pass comment on something they may know very little about which often cause pain and suffering to them and their children. Generally people are on this board because they're having difficulty with their families or creating their families leaving them vulnerable to strong emotional reactions.

What I have taken from this is A) how much tabloids distort and sensationalise things to get a good story snd drive traffic to their website and B) not to respond to posts when I'm knackered and fed up!

conservewas it really necessary to call people twats because of a few typos?

Well yeah, if they are a newspaper and that's their job. And it is the newspaper's mistake because otherwise they would have put "[sic]" because that's how quoting works.

You tend to post in riddles which only your cronies understand

Shall we play the ball rather than the man?

they say that their application was not accepted for consideration at all on the grounds of being Indian/Pakistani.

Operative words are, "they say"

If it was down to this sole reason, I'll wager the conversation went something like this.

Agency: "we, like every other voluntary agency and local authority in the land, ideally prefer to place children with families that match their ethnic origin. This is because adoption is completely child centric, not potential parent centric and research shows it is better for children to be placed with parents who match their ethnicity for a whole host of reasons. We don't have many children of Indian/Pakistani descent 'on our books' at the moment and therefore it isn't worthwhile pursuing your application at this time (we have extremely limited resources and therefore can only progress applications from parents who we have a realistic prospect of placing children with). We understand this may be very disappointing for you. Have you considered International Adoption?

You then said they probably wouldn't be suitable adopters (based on zero facts)

Well, that's not really what I said at all, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, it's not based on zero facts. That statement is based on experience.

During our adoption process, we were told at a very late stage, that our application wouldn't be progressed unless we agreed to meet a condition that was completely outrageous. You'll have to trust me when I tell you, had we decided to run to the national press, they would have had a field day... I posted on here about it at the time (under a different username) and people simply couldn't believe it. (This was... by the way... our 2nd agency. The first turned us down at the same stage as this couple because DH was in the military. No other reason).

Anyway... rather than do what this couple did, we pursued the correct avenue of appeal and 'won' (with the first agency we did what this couple should have done which was say thanks, and simply move on to one of the other agencies).

At the time, and for a long time after, I was very bitter about this experience. But it was absolutely nothing compared with the experience of parenting two adopted children.

So, I stand by that statement.

enough thoughts for you?

Was in direct response to the OPs "Thoughts please" statement, which, as Bruno's reply implies was a little.... odd.

Do you disagree you were very rude?

Yes, I really do.

Rather than Indian/Pakistani descent, I should have referred to their ethnicity.

Hopefully you got the gist.

In all of this I feel sad for the couple involved. I suspect they're feeling emotionally vulnerable and have responded in an unhelpful way and have possibly given some duff advice which could jeopardise their chances of adopting in the future (I don't have much experience yet as a prospective parent but have worked in the field for a long time) I wonder if other agencies they approach would be willing to take them on when they see how they've reacted to this. I think it's unlikely they're going to make the authority they approached change their mind or give them a fair assessment. I suspect the papers will have encouraged this and sold it to them as them 'helping' them fight their cause and raising awareness rather than an attempt to drive traffic to their website/increase their readership thus increase their revenue from advertising.

These are all hypotheses but born from knowing the heartbreak and emotional reactions from being desperate to be a parent and hitting barrier after barrier and also knowing how the tabloid press operates.

I think Phil and someotherfuckers summed it up well and in a more straightforward way...I'm not great at being concise!

I wonder if other agencies they approach would be willing to take them on when they see how they've reacted to this. I think it's unlikely they're going to make the authority they approached change their mind or give them a fair assessment

I agree - hence the "shot themselves in the foot" comment that was part of my first post.

Exactly. I'm sure it's been driven by misguided advice, frustration and feeling upset, hurt and dejected. Often our initial emotional reactions and the behaviour driven by this is the most unhelpful response which tends to make things worse. A rational considered response tends to come along later, sometimes when it's too late, especially if unscrupulous or unhelpful people with their own agenda fan the flames and encourage this response

Yup, and I too sympathise with this couple.

The trouble is, with the kind of issues adopted kids most often present with, there is nothing to be gained by the 'jumping up and down, screaming' (or running to the media) approach.

It truly is a marathon, not a sprint; it's about having the ability to step back and look at the bigger picture... play the long game, box clever and lots of other metaphors.

Most of all, it's about being able to stay calm and rational (even in the face of adversity and repeated set backs) and get professionals on side in order to get the best help for your DC.

I'm just not sure those are the qualities being displayed by this couple...

Exactly, this isn't really a demonstration of those skills at all and as you say, it isn't doing them any favours. Might have made them feel a sense of righteousness in the short term but possibly damaged their chances of having a family. Maybe I'm erring on the side of kindness and perhaps if this is how they respond to challenges in general and they don't possess those skills. I guess we can only speculate. I suspect information has been cherry picked for the story. Same as the stories of 'social services took my children because they were overweight/ate too many crisps/didn't brush their teeth once before school/weren't allowed a pet chinchilla which make my blood boil!

Often it's too painful to hear things we could've done better/done something differently so we chose the hear the one bit that seems irrational or unjust to make ourselves feel better.

I suspect information has been cherry picked for the story. Same as the stories of 'social services took my children because they were overweight/ate too many crisps/didn't brush their teeth once before school/weren't allowed a pet chinchilla

Indeed.

conserve
It's been fucking ages since someone came over here to have a go at us all.

That's the kind of comment that gets me a bad reputation. 'Known to wind people up', indeed. Oh well, I'll survive.

A further thought to beyonds summation of how the initial call went. If they said something like this; 'we're a Sikh family of Indian/Pakistani descent and we'd like to adopt a baby, no, just a baby, under a year, say' then they're going to get a different response to if they said something like 'we're a Sikh family of Indian/Pakistani descent and we'd like to adopt a sibling group/older child/child with multiple developmental or medical issues'.

It's easy to say it's not about racism when you're not on the receiving end of it, and I daresay to them it did/does very much feel like discrimination, but in terms of how they've chosen to handle it, I think it's one of those situations where you can get what you want or you can be right but not both.

There you go again tldr you goady fucker - all aggressive and calling people names and trollin' for lols.

I know. I'm such a goady trolly fucker I very nearly posted earlier to say I thought Allthe's apology was very gracious and IMO entirely unnecessary, because OP was, well, something or other. But probably I had to go troll elsewhere or parent a child or something because I forgot/didn't post/am not even real anyway.

EXACTLY ☝🏼

I have this conversation with clients a lot when they want to go in all guns blazing...think about the end goal...do you want to be in the right or do what's effective?

That was for conserve not the trolly fucker 😂

(Or trolley fucker? That's what autocorrect suggested and is perhaps how rumours start 🤔)

She didn't?! OMG. And she's actually been banned from Asdas nationwide because of it?

Dirty besom.

I read it in the metro...

I read it in the metro...

😂😂😂😂

allthe I think you meant beyond not conserve? In relation to not going in all guns blazing? Conserve hasn't said anything remotely like that, has she? She did say she wanted to play the ball not the man in future, though, which sounds fabulous. Good job, conserve! (No I am not being sarcastic).