Meg Henderson

[MeeMeeMoo]

She is a journalist who writes a lot about her experience of adoption (she adopted three children). Her latest article is out (if you google her you can see her writing).

I’m curious to know your thoughts really on what she says.

I don’t wish to influence but I’m not her biggest fan and wonder if I’m being too harsh. I’m an adopter by the way.

What are your thoughts on her?

Many children offered for adoption are not doomed from birth... they are doomed from conception

Haven't read her before. After reading a number of articles across a few publications, I think she's pretty awful.

All her articles are exactly the same- LAs don't provide enough support/adopted kids are hell.

Now this is a very important issue that deserves a higher profile- the true challenges of many adoptions are not widely known..........but she makes sweeping statements about ALL adopted kids. Her use of statistics is contorted and biased. She makes no attempt to be balanced and reasonable in her reporting.

What a shame that an adopter is just contributing to the stigma of adoption. Now in fairness, she clearly had a very tough time and apparently her daughter committed suicide. I can't imagine what that's like and it's quite understandable that it would result in a one sided view, but that is not journalism.

Yes I found her articles in poor taste, especially all the photos and details of her children’s lives published for the world to read. The points she tries to make are just hidden under her sweeping generalisations and bitterness. I felt really sad and cross with her writing really. I also feel she is writing from a dated point of view. I’m not naive enough to believe that social services never try to hide things but I think adoption is a lot more open and honest than it was 30years ago. Also the constant reference to “damaged” children really gets my back up. My child is not “damaged”, they are a person who has had some difficult life experiences. They are not damaged goods

The fact that the latest article is in The Daily Mail says it all. The Mail have been very nasty before about adoptive children and have also published children’s photographs and stories. I get tempted to write to the press complaints body whenever they do this.

Yes I was reluctant to link to the Daily Mail in my op! She has articles in all sorts of places sadly.

I read that link somewhere else, and was appalled at the way she spoke about her children. I feel sad for the very hard time she's had - I can only imagine how dreadful things have been but the children have had a worse time of it by any measure.

I think she could have shared her story without all the photos and specific details of her children's life pre adoption. Of course then papers like the Mail wouldn't have been interested.
I do think life is like this for some families but certainly not all families and the generalisations really annoy me too.
I've found a lot of adopters who have had a very tough time say we need stories like this published to balance the happily ever after stories. Honestly, I don't see a lot of happily ever after stories in the press.

I’m sure we all know of real life adoption stories like this but equally, I think it is important not to label children or allow the whole thing to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Daily Mail always seems to have a negative view of adoption!
What I found especially annoying is that she provides no suggestions about what would help children like this. The conclusion seems to be they are doomed from conception. What's the right thing to do then? Leave them to their fate in a giant children's home?
I agree that it's an outdated scenario as adopters are now given all the information available about the early experience of their children.
My only real question is WHY AM I STILL READING THE DAILY MAIL?!!!

HAHa I know! I only read it to see what rubbish is being sold to the masses to be honest. I like to know what half the population are buying into! Yes definitely agree the issues need to be talked about but I only ever read horror stories now!

Wow. What a horrid lady. Even just the way she describes her children! I also read she sent them to boarding school!

It’s a horrible article but I don’t disagree that the truth should be known - both about individual children before they’re placed and that it’s not all unicorns and rainbows ever after.

There was a thread here just this week where SWs had been v economical (at best) with truth re two children they were trying to place.

I stopped reading part way. She has clearly had a terrible time and so have all the family.

But I think those private revelations of her children's lives should have been done in an anonymous article.

The whole language is very dated. A 14 year old having an affair with a drug dealer. We would probably now mention 'grooming'.

Very sad, I don't blame her for being angry.

I also think this is hopefully not a common occurrence now and certainly not the general picture of adoption.

She blames a huge amount on her children though, not just social services. In one article I read that she actually fostered them for 6 years before adopting. And mentions a terrible time from when they first came age 2. So I am quite amazed that she blames absolutely everything on social services, when she saw with her own eyes, for 6 years, what the future could hold and still went ahead with the adoption.

Yes I found her articles in poor taste, especially all the photos and details of her children’s lives published for the world to read.

In many ways (though the title I quoted is indefensible) I think the article about her kids is the most acceptable. It's expected that on such a personal topic, she should be emotive and one sided. Not an article I like, but I suppose that's her choice.

My big problem is that she says the same things over and over, implying they are true about all adopted kids, making silly generalisations and exaggerating statistics.

It’s a horrible article but I don’t disagree that the truth should be known...... that it’s not all unicorns and rainbows ever after

Well, sometimes it is (in so far as any child is) but the fact that it is often much harder than expected is very, very important to the adoption narrative, and it's not known enough.

It's such a shame that this isn't being put across in a balanced and accurate way- it's easy to dismiss the important truths hidden in these DM articles because they are coated in goady drivel.

My only real question is WHY AM I STILL READING THE DAILY MAIL?!!!

Some suggestions:

• You hate immigrants? Or maybe teachers?
• You like the way the ink doesn't stick to your fingers because it's coated with hate?
• You enjoy feeling vicariously angry at everything?
• To have things to talk about, at your UKIP meetings?
• You enjoy learning the truth about how the bloated, overfunded NHS is wasting money as a placeholder until the glorious day it's privatised?
• It's positive and empowering photos and articles about female celebrities?
• You find watching Jeremy Kyle instead, too classy and upmarket?

(intended in a comradely and jovial spirit)

I get the impression that many adoptions are still at this level of crisis.

It is completely wrong that the children like this are doomed but they do need proper help.

In terms of solutions, I think one solution is that proper individual psychological assessments are done as standard if children have certain ACEs or certain factors exist in their family, and if at any time after adoption certain certain behaviours arise. Prospective adoptive parents need to know all the relevant details at the right time (not after they are "hooked" fgs!!) and to be aware of what will be required of them and to be given specific training to deal, and it should become the norm to work with clinical psychologists/psychiatrists who specialise in this area, who focus on healing and not on merely maintaining or managing. For example, the writer said said that one of the children stole and that this was not able to be controlled and so things had to be hidden. This isn't right, afaik, a child stealing is an indication that the child's emotional needs are not being met and if the needs were met the stealing would stop.

I think that she is right that normal loving parents providing love and being nurturing will not be enough for some children but I think that the key message should be that it is possible to help these children.

I have kept in touch with/become friends with 5 other families who have adopted. None of them are anywhere near this level of crisis. Not anywhere near. Seriously, life is pretty normal and it is managed (us included). I know it is only my experience but I don’t see these “many families” and I feel it is more accurate to say a small minority. Unfortunately those with terrible experience are, understandably, the loudest and most vocal which can give a skewed view. I found my local authority brutal in the training material provided. I certainly did not feel I was going in with my eyes closed and I would hope that the majority of adopters feel the same. It’s a pity that no real research is really done. Unless anyone can point me towards some? Something more trustworthy than the Daily Mail

Brandolax your comments about stealing sum up the issuues faced by adoptors who have adopted the children most damaged from their experiences both before and after birth. I am an adoptor and fc and have experienced enough to know that meeting every need of a child , whether physical or emotional , does not always solve the problem. This is the love solves all philosophy that underpinned adoption for so long but which is largely now disproved .
Some childrens trauma is such that no amount of counselling, expert input and parental ( therapeutic ) love can resolve it and so i feel it is important to acknowledge that and not imply further blame for beleagured adoptive parents who have given their all often at the cost of their own mental health.
But we need to have a balance , as with all things. Yes there are many wonderful adoptive families who are living a mostly normal family life. Then there are some who have some issues but nothing unmanageable and then others where it is frankly a never ending nightmare as in this case. Why oh why cant the media get a balanced outlook ? Life is v rarely black and white.

mee
Every adoptive family I know IRL is living in very difficult circumstances. Not crisis yet because LOs are little, but give it time...

mee there is a study with percentages and I will try to find the link.

flapjackfairy I am sorry but I think you are quite simply wrong, current psychiatry thinking focuses on healing, not on maintaining or managing only, as I said in my first post. I am absolutely confident of this as I have seen it in action. I didn't refer to love, incidentally, I referred to meeting a child's emotional needs which is different, and the therapy is neuro based, though love is vitally important it is not the same thing as meeting a child's needs, both are important.

Some childrens trauma is such that no amount of counselling, expert input and parental ( therapeutic ) love can resolve it this is quite simply totally wrong, and the only criticism that could be levelled at beleaguered adoptive parents would be not believing this and getting the help needed.

mee just following on from that, I agree that it is not at all helpful if there is an assumption that adoptions will runaground (as per a recent thread!). Adopted children should have a normal childhood, be supported where needed, be heading towards stability and confidence in their teenage years, and independence, even if there are wobbles. I think that that is possible for all with the right help at the right time, but things won't change for the adoptions in crisis unless there is an awareness of their existence too.

I think assumptions in relation to "all" or even "most" adoptions either way are unhelpful, as it is unhelpful to assume rainbows and unicorns and unhelpful to assume the opposite.

I never for one minute was suggesting that parents shouldnt get all the best help available nor was i implying it is a lost cause but i have known and had experience of enough adoptive parents and foster carers to know that v sadly healing is not always possible no matter how much a childs emotional needs are met.
That is not to say that children cant make progress , of course they can and do but to suggest that all behaviours will cease if all emotional needs are met is not the reality in everyones real life experience despite whatever research you quote.
We will have to agree to disagree on that one but like you i agree that sweeping generalisations are not helpful.
Btw i am a huge advocate for adoption and never subscribe to the view that children are condemned from conception. All children have the right to a great childhood and to receive all the help and support available. Sadly we know that post adop support is woefully inadequate for those families struggling with these v complex issues and that is a scandal destroying the lives of adopted children and sometimes sadly their families as well.

I think the research that is often quoted is the Selwyn report that I think says 1/3 adoptive families have few issues , 1/3 some issues and 1/3 significantl issues.
In my family (10 years in) with two teenagers I would say I have one child with few issues and one with some. Saying that I think we have a pretty normal life. I know about 20 other adoptive families quite well. I would say most are in the some and a few are in the significant.

As PPs have rightly pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data.

I think the research that is often quoted is the Selwyn report that I think says 1/3 adoptive families have few issues , 1/3 some issues and 1/3 significantl issues.

Yep, dead right. To my knowledge that is the only attempt to do large scale studies of the problems of disruption.

A huge caveat though: those proportions are not an accurate representation of the numbers of adopters who experience difficulty. The selwyn report was, I believe, not trying to estimate the scale of difficulty accurately- it was trying to study difficulty and disruption. There are selection biases in it's respondents on purpose

There is (shamefully) no accurate data showing what proportion of adopters have difficulties. I think from the research that is available we can reasonably say:

1. It's substantially higher than unadopted kids; and bear in mind that raising children is rarely easy whether you grow your own or get them off the rack.

1. It not nearly as high as the 2/3 in the selwyn report.

1. Even in the largely silent majority who don't have known issues linked to the reasons their child was adopted, there will be difficulties which might have more subtle causal links.

1. A small proportion (but big absolute numbers) have huge, life changing difficulties and support for them is awful and getting worse.

1. There is a persistent (and poisonous) idea that all adopted kids are damaged because of adoption. This is not supported by research and is usually 'justified' by a misunderstanding of attachment theory. I hate this stuff as I think it leads to prejudice against adoptees and adopters. The needs of adopted kids are varied, treating them the same is not helpful.

1. The average outcomes of adoption are much better than if similar cohorts of children remain with BFs. Adopters who take on the more challenging kids are bloody heros who work miracles (even if not always as successfully as they'd hope).

I am (of course) happy to bow to superior knowledge with these assertions. I'd love to find out I'm wrong and there is better research I've been missing.

It’s very interesting seeing how our experiences differ. Fathers, for example, sees families with only issues and I see families with few. I do take issue with the “give it time” though fatberg, as you are unhelpfully suggesting that all adoptions will have the same results.

Thanks for your input all, it is a frustrating subject as I feel there are no concrete modern stats really. I have worked with so many children and I see problems in adoptive families and birth...perhaps I am more accepting of issues and therefore don’t see issues as out of the ordinary. Who knows.
Thanks again for the chat though