3 week introductions period for 8 month old?

[FoldedAndUnfoldedAndUnfolding]

Hi! I've been matched with a gorgeous little 8mo baby girl, and I couldn't be more excited! My matching panel is coming up in a couple of weeks, and I've been told the exact intros schedule will be worked out afterwards. However I've also been told to expect a 3 week period, as this is the standard for my LA for all adoptions. They recently carried out 3 week intros for a little baby only slightly older than my LO.

Can any experienced adopters / SWs please let me know if this seems reasonable? My initial thought is that it seems excessively long. I also need to consider the needs of my schoolage BC, both on days when she'll be with me (therefore missing school) and also on days when she'll need childcare. From the baby's perspective though, this seems incredibly confusing? Going back and forth between the FC and myself for 3 weeks?!

Please can experienced heads either reassure me if this is in fact in baby's best interest? Or if it's not please can you give me a really clear articulation of why it's not helpful for her, so that I can advocate for her in the intros planning meeting.

Thanks!

Far too long.
My 11 month old had 4 days
5 month had 3 days.
Very, long intense days...but they worked out fine.
We had to consider the needs of the baby, needs of our BC, needs of fc and others in placement and timing etc.
Babies were fine and in the review held on moving morning nobody had any concerns.
3 weeks sounds yukky for all concerned and you are right to question it.

Intros for my 8 month old were 7 days (and seemed like a lifetime...). We also didn’t meet LO until the first day of intros and only got a photo a few days beforehand. I know some LAs allow a meeting earlier than this, or facilitate some kind of opportunity to see a child even if you can’t interact with them (eg seeing them in nursery etc).
One week worked perfectly for us. It’s so intense and emotionally draining that I imagine a 3 wk into period would be hugely frustrating and utterly exhausting.
Have you talked to your SW about this?

That's way too long. Our 3yo and 18mo were done in 5 days. It's way to confusing if any longer and emotionally draining. I'd definitely question it.

Thank you, you're all echoing exactly what I feared. Apparently I can't change anything until the intro planning meeting, but I'll be pushing hard to reduce the overall period. 3 weeks doesn't sound good for the FC, for my BC or most importantly the LO!

To buck the trend... I did nearly 2 months of what you would call intros (not in this country) and yes it became very stressful and I didn't have a birth child to think of.

But if I'm really honest - it was much better for DS (who was 11 months but 3 months premature so like an 8 month old) who left with me quite happily. He would absolutely not have been happy to leave with me after 3 days.

It was more stressful for me but much kinder on him.

We did 2 weeks with our 8 month old which definitely felt exhausting but about right for LO.

we had longer intros for our first LO and are in the process of negotiating introductions for our second. Our first was over 4-5 weeks and felt long towards the end. It may be that they mean you going down to visit for a couple of days in the weeks leading up to the more intense (traditional shaped) introductions starting. We found this helpful in that we already had a relationship with LO prior to our involvement in the routine but it meant we could have finished sooner as things moved along quicker but due to the pre-existing relationship. Our draft intro plan was again long for our new LO and we are negotiating to reduce this similarly due to impact on all the children involved.

It good to get other perspectives as well. Thanks everyone!

Mine was 21 months and intros were ten days; i felt this was too long, they were ready to move after 7. It became distressing and confusing for them to be going backwards and forwards; the fc was between 1-2 hours away (depending on traffic) so long time in the car for them. They were very attached to fc and screamed when not with them.... For about 2 mins and then fine and clinging to me. So by the second day of them alone with me it was very confusing to then be bundled back in the car and returned.
The intro period is a necessary evil. It is super intense and super false. I think for younger children who can't really articulate their worries it is better to be shorter as less confusing and distressing for them. I get longer periods for older children who ate potentially leaving school friends behind/ need to build trust (yes younger ones need to build trust but it's more instinct rather than a conscious thought).
Congratulations btw too!

We've been matched with a 7 month old, and intros (in 2 weeks) are going to be planned for 5 days, with a possible extra 1 or 2 if LO needs it.

Ours was 8 days with an 11 month old. 3 weeks sounds too long for everyone. I would be pointing out that this is not manageable with your other child and that you are worried the AC will be confused.

Ours was a week with our then-8 month old. It was just right. Three weeks would have been incredibly unsettling and confusing for her. I don't think DD's FC could have hacked it either - she found it hard to let go of DD (who she'd had since birth) even though she did a very helpful and professional set of intros with us. Three weeks would have been emotionally pretty draining for her. Could the FC give you any back up?

Also - congratulations! It is SUCH a fun age. We loved it (and continue to, now she's coming up on 2).

We did a week and our daughter was 9months. It was the right length. She began to become a little confused about caters a few days in. I think 3 weeks would have killed us all off. It was so hard and we were driving two hours a day to see her so we were exhausted! She left happily with us at the end of that week and never had any issues settling.

Carers not caters

Thanks for all the responses. Having raised my concerns with the 3 week introductions period at matching panel, I was told that "the latest research from the University of East Anglia" suggests that 3 weeks is better for babies. Now I've read through practically every adoption-related report on the UEA website but I can't find a single report that says this (or anything specific about introductions timescales). I've also spent a good couple of hours looking for ANY research from ANY source recommending ANY specific length of time for baby adoptions, and I've only found random local authority websites recommending "7 - 10 days" but no actual research.

I'm going to go back to my LA to request they refer me to the study they are talking about, but I also wanted to check on here in case anyone knows of ANY research-based recommendations for the length of introductions for babies? Anyone?

Sigh, I hate that what should be a time of excitement and anticipation is being marred by all this wrangling. However I wouldn't be worthy to be this LO's Mum is I wasn't willing to advocate for her! I'm sure this will be the first of many battles on her behalf!

I've gone through intros with a baby twice now so I can share my experience.

DS who was 10 months went like this :

First meeting was just for an hour.

Second day was half a day at the FC's house.

Third day was whole day at FC house with us taking DS out for a walk in the buggy for a couple of hours.

Fourth day was an early start with us giving DS breakfast lunch and dinner and doing bed time routine.

Fifth day was FC bringing him to our house and leaving him with us once he had settled. We had him all day and then took him back to FC house and did bedtime routine again.

6th day - drive over very early to FC house to wake DS up , get him ready and bring him to our house for the day and then back to FC for bedtime routine

7th day - morning only at FC house to give everyone a little break.

8th day - FC brought him to our house and we all had a meeting with the social workers to check that all was ok for placement to happen the next day.

9th day - we collect DS from FC house and take him home for good.

FC visited after two weeks and then wasn't allowed to see him for three months. We took him to see FC regularly after that but recently he has refused to see her and gets quite angry if we suggest a visit. He believes she doesn't want to see him which is absolutely not the case.

DS really felt the loss of his FC and had night terrors , terrible tantrums , tried to hurt himself and even now , at 12 years old ,has a deep fear of change and has feelings of rejection. He has had to have therapy and counselling and I honestly believe that most of his problems stem from his feelings after being separated from his FC.

DD was also 10 months but her intros were taken more slowly.

It followed the same pattern as above but went on for two weeks. Things were taken at a much slower pace.

Also we were advised that it was now best practice for the FC to retain some regular contact with DD so that she doesn't just disappear from her life.

DD settled in really well and still has a great relationship with her FC who has become a good friend to me and our family.

DD has so far ( now almost 10) not had any problems or issues relating to her adoption. She is a very happy little girl with none of the insecurities common in adopted children.

Now this could all be down to their differing personalities -

DS was a very advanced baby - was already walking and talking at 10 months. He is very bright and seemed much older than 10 months ( many people , including my heath visitor .mistook him for a two year old) I think he was much more aware of what was happening to him than your average 10 month old and this may have caused some problems.

DD is and always has been very behind in her development. At 10 months she looked and acted like a 6 month old. She has always been happy and content in her own little world. I think that she was far less aware of what was happening to her and fared better as a result.

So who really knows what is best?

It's a tough one but my advice , based on my limited experience is to take it slow and make sure your existing DC is included in the process as much as possible.

Whatever happens I hope it works out well for you all. Congratulations

"the latest research from the University of East Anglia" suggests that 3 weeks is better for babies.

How the hell would you control the variables well enough to get meaningful results out of such a study? What is 'better'? If you ever get hold of this research I'd be very interested to read it. I can't find it either.

We did 7 days for or 10 month old (7-8 mo in development terms, we were very inexperienced) and 5 days for our 4 month old. I would not have wanted to do longer- it's a very intense period.

You've probably already found this, but this seems to be the group doing the research. Can't find any mention of 3 weeks though
www.thechildrenwerefine.co.uk/
I had 7 days intros with DD at a similar age and that was about right. 3 weeks would be exhausting for everyone.

Thanks everyone. I rang the university directly today to find out whether this research actually exists or not. I'll let you know when I get a response!

Found it. www.thechildrenwerefine.co.uk/uploads/5/4/1/8/54185117/the_children_were_fine_-_full_paper.pdf OMG, it is the worst 'research' paper I've ever read.

1. There were only 5 kids in the cohort- because of lack of funds.
2. They didn't analyse all the interviews they did- because of lack of funds.
3. All they were doing is interviewing adopters, FCs and SW. No issue with that, but you can't conclude what is 'best' for babies from that.
4. They constantly refer to their own feelings about things:

It was during the actual move that we felt adults struggled the most to remain open to what was happening for the child emotionally.

1. Worst of all, they drew conclusions which were completely in opposition to their data. They got a uniform view from all participants that the current best practice was best practice and drew the opposite conclusion because it was what they reckoned:

we felt that there was a heightened state of anxiety among the adults that created a sort of collective ‘blind spot’, hampering their capacity.

They raise lots of perfectly valid questions about SW understanding of attachment theory and whether the current best practice really is valid; but to assume that all the experienced SW are wrong because they are emotional about it is ridiculous. All of their conclusions are supported by claims from 'their knowledge base'. Why fucking do research if you know it already?

In fairness they absolutely do not claim any evidence of this: the latest research from the University of East Anglia suggests that 3 weeks is better for babies. so whoever told you that is lying. They do recommend that contact with the FC is ongoing. There is nothing to support this in their research and I'm aware of many experienced adopters who've had problems from this- I definitely don't think it's a great idea in all cases.

How on earth can such small scale research justify such a large glossy website and such wide ranging conclusions? Very, very grumpy from reading that.

I've read that research paper and do think it raises some interesting points however I get fed up of SW spouting pseudo science and 'research' to prove their agenda. So many things I've been told in this process don't actually make sense if you follow them through to their end conclusion. The SW I've met seem to deal in absolutes, of course there needs to be some guidance but surely it's should be child centred. What is suitable introductions for one 10 month old may not be for another.

I've read that research paper and do think it raises some interesting points

I agree, I'd be very happy to read a similarly argued article just making the case for changes to practice.

I get fed up of SW spouting pseudo science and 'research' to prove their agenda

Yep. What frustrates me is it being cloaked as 'research'. Letting an agenda dictate your conclusions really isn't Science. I'm sure they want a child centered approach as well, as do the SW, as do the FC, as do the adopters- problem is, interviewing a few people does not give you a crystal ball.

To kind I wouldn’t have it
Who is driving this is it the fc