Direct contact

[Cassie9]

Does anyone have any experience with direct contact with BP or other relatives? Is it beneficial? How was it organised? Any negatives? What are peoples thoughts on it?
I'd like to consider it. It was never given as an option by SW.

I think it totally depends on the birth family. It wasn't safe with regards to ours, so it wasn't an option.

its a very difficult thing to sustain. A lot of variables - including the pre- existing relationship with the child and the capacity of the birth family to commit to it, and who in the birth family.

My son was nearly 8 and had been in FC for 4 years with fortnightly unsupervised contact with dad and a sibling. My son was relinquished into care, dad is not a danger.

The plan was to maintain contact with dad and brother. It was OK for the first year. After that it deteriorated depending on the mental health of dad. I went above and beyond what I could have been expected to do. But in the end there were too many disappointments and the stress of organising it too much for me.
My son is 14, he knows I have tried my utmost and accepts he won't see dad for a long time. We are not trying to reestablish contact with his brother who is now in long term FC.
Tread carefully, think about who it will benefit, and what you want to achieve. if the BF member capable of sustaining it, the practicalities.
I do think that in some circumstances it can be benefical, but its hard work and stressful.

I'm assuming you mean direct contact for the children, rather than you meeting the BF?

Are you thinking of a regular thing or a one off?

How old are the children?

If you are thinking about setting up F2F contact with BPs when SW have not recommended it then I think that's probably an awful idea. If you are thinking of meeting BF members yourselves, then it's a worthwhile thing to do.

I think it is hugely beneficial for reasons given below, and in relation to how successful it is it comes down to how it is managed, where it is held, who is present etc. There are very, very few situations where it will be risky to an unmanageable degree. (I do appreciate what Ted27 has said though, and she clearly tried her best).

The following is a study (from memory a longitudinal case study but it has been a while since I read it) which has positive stories if you are very keen, as well as highlighting less positive experiences and making recommendations to LAs (very few of which have ever been taken on board sfaik and the fact that it wasn't an option given to you is probably testament to that!):

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/216938-289731-1-PB%20(4).pdf

The author has a website with more recent info and has written a book about managing contact.

My views about how important it is are my personal views, obviously, and based on my experiences and experiences of other adoptees I have known well, and in summary, provided that you as adoptive parent are present at all times until the child is an adult and you are able to interpret things for the child afterwards, and also help them process difficult feelings :

• it will prevent an unhelpful positive or negative imaginary image being built up and it will help prevent the child from worrying about bio family
• it will help the child make sense of their lives, their appearance, their personaility
• it will make it less likely that the child will seek out the bio family for themselves at a time when they are very unlikely to be able to deal with it well, as a young teenager or young adult - and it will mean that any contact at any time in the future will be easier to deal with and less of a huge event - it becomes more normal
• where there has been an existing love relationship then to maintain it is a positive thing and it should not challenge the relationship with the adoptive parents, who will be the parents, and who should obviously have a strong love relationship too
• there will be fallout, and it may be difficult and stressful, but I am very much of the mindset that anything that can be talked about, ie anything anyone experiences where we can talk about it and our feelings about it, is something we can deal with ddand in this case it worth it, and it will increase emotional maturity
• where the behaviour of the bio parents has been very poor, if managed properly it can still be beneficial for reasons above

I have known adoptive parents allow or encourage a child to harbour negative feelings about their bio parents and I think that this is fraught with danger, and is likely to impact on MH on some level at some point.

I also think that many children will "decide" what they think the adoptive parents want them to do and this is something to be cautious about. This happened to me for a couple of years.

I realise that my opinions above are likely to be very different from those of some other posters, and I would ask that we respect each other's opinions and that we remain respectful to each other. Re pp's post, I have assumed you meant direct contact between dc and their bio parents.

that should have said we ARE trying to re- establish contact with the sibling who is now in FC.

I agree with all the reasons set out in that case study as to why contact can be beneficial, they are precisely the reasons I hung on for so long.

But the adopters are only half of the story. The birth family have to commit to it and follow through. Most of them can't even manage letter box consistently. And that's the problem

@sassygromit. The link you provided seems to be a file in your downloads folder (unless I'm being dim). I'd be interested to read the original study if you can repost.

I think the arguments you gave provide an excellent summary of the advantages of contact. When contact is appropriate it can be very positive, but the circumstances of adoption vary wildly, so I would add some notes of caution:

1. Most BPs in the UK today are child abusers (though to varying degrees and often from deeply sad circumstances of their own). They are usually unwilling to face the reasons their child is removed and so are not accepting of the adoption or willing to engage with SS.

1. F2F contact means BPs know what a child looks like. It also provides the opportunity to obtain specifics about the child's life. This hugely increases the risk of unsolicited contact.

1. When a child is adopted young they have no established relationship with BPs. The goal is to make adoption a low-key, normal, open, positive part of their life story. Speaking for myself I would have found it incredibly unsettling to visit my BPs- very different from the normal childhood I enjoyed.

I desperately wish that all adoptees at least got letterbox contact. The main reason that contact isn't ubiquitous is the choice of many BPs not to engage. Even if this were not so F2F contact would not be appropriate for most adoptees. It can be of immense value for older children with an established relationship- when low risk BPs engage positively.

The direct contact which does occur is usually helpful, because when it isn't the child's parents stop it or (usually) SS don't ask for it in the first place. The final decision must lie with the parents and is different for every situation.

Sorry, try this, you may need to copy and paste into browser, let me know if it doesn't work:

www.adoption.on.ca/uploads/File/The_benefits_and_challenges_of_direct_post-adoption_contact.pdf

In relation to your points 1 and 2 I have in the past approached social work departments to get their views and it seems in the majority of cases there has not been abuse, but there has been risk of neglect/abuse/not competent enough parenting, and it is rare that the risk is such that direct or f2f contact would not be possible. I realise that this view is differently from that often expressed on here, and I couldn't comment as to what is correct either way.

A common view is that there is a strong cultural bias against direct or f2f contact, because of the history of adoption.

I think that most of the advantages I listed would apply equally to your point 3, but I would like to stress that I have read your comments before on the subject and I understand and respect your views that you did not want contact.

In terms of what adoptees say generally, there was a recent report commissioned by the head of social services (I think, and I have only read the summary not the report) and opinions of adult adoptees and adopters and other relevant parties were mooted and the outcome I believe was that a significant number of adoptees had said they would have wanted direct contact and it was highlighted as something which needed future attention in the report. Not certain of the details of that as I haven't read the report fully though.

@sassygromit. Thank you for the link.

In relation to your points 1 and 2 I have in the past approached social work departments to get their views and it seems in the majority of cases there has not been abuse

To be clear, I do not necessarily mean physical and sexual abuse- I am including severe neglect and severe emotional abuse. The threshold for removal is incredibly high. I know many children who suffer horrible neglect but don't even warrant regular visits, let alone removal. The courts only sever biological parenthood in the most extreme circumstances.

Have you actually read the files of any adopted children? Have you supported children who are abused/neglected, but not sufficiently for removal to be considered?

I am surprised if any SW who is involved with removal of children would express themselves in the way you describe. Just today I was speaking to a SW very upset by a number of children returned to BFs by the courts where the risks were substantial.

it is rare that the risk is such that direct or f2f contact would not be possible.

Of course F2F contact is often possible, but it's about what's best for the child, with an obvious emphasis on risk aversion.

I wonder whether you have really understood my point (in PP) about the selection bias in the report you quote? The families actually pursuing direct contact are a small proportion of adoptees. They are in contact with the lowest risk BFs, who have engaged with SS and where direct contact is of most benefit. Even then, it doesn't always work.

The benefits described are very real, but that doesn't mean it works that way for all adoptions.

@donquixotedelamancha I think you misunderstood what I wrote - yes I do understand about threshold and I do also understood the severity of the risks, so the SW you spoke to was upset for a reason, but indeed what I am saying reflects the discussions which I have had with SWs from the coal face, and it also reflects what SWs themselves have said on mumsnet a couple of times recently. I probably put it really badly - it is late! - I should have been clearer.

In relation to the report and your point about selection bias, selection bias isn't really relevant to why I linked the report - I said that if the OP is interested the report covers a lot of positive stories, also not so positive stories and also made recommendations re policy - I didn't go further than that.

I am sorry for all these long posts - I will try to keep it brief to allow others to express views after this post - I think ultimately the way things are set up at the moment it makes things very hard for adopters to set up the sort of contact they would like, to manage it properly, and also to make informed decisions about how and when and why because there is so little informed guidance. Also it is not surprising that bps don't engage because from what i can work out there is no follow up (also relevant to what @ted27 has said which I agree with) - the awful situation of mothers have baby after baby removed, just horrific really, and in other situations bps clearly in need of help just get lost. I put my views supporting contact in response to the OP. For those that really want to make it work, there is probably enough info out there to help them make it work, but it takes a lot of digging around.

Sorry about my long posts, will let someone else get their views in now.

Re my first para, still probably not clear, there is no conflict between there being severe risks sufficient to warrant an AO, but that the risks being too severe to mean that f2f contact could not be achieved successfully, notwithstanding the risks.

@sassygromit I am sorry for all these long posts Not necessary, I think. It's relevant to the question and an interesting discussion. If we are hogging things, then I'm just as guilty.

selection bias isn't really relevant to why I linked the report I understand, but it's key to the point I'm making. I agree with your standpoint, but think it won't scale. The factors which make direct contact work well are often absent. Hence I am suggesting there may be very good reasons why it's not being considered in OP's case- not just cultural bias.

I think ultimately the way things are set up at the moment it makes things very hard for adopters to set up the sort of contact they would like.... This is very, very true.

Also it is not surprising that bps don't engage because from what i can work out there is no follow up I think this is key. From what I can tell (no direct experience), far too little work is done with BPs and the resources to support BFs are non-existent. I doubt that it would make direct contact work for most situations, but I do think far more could be done.

I put my views supporting contact in response to the OP. Absolutely reasonable. On another thread, I'd be making the same points, but I think the OP should be really cautious before seeking direct contact when the SWs haven't put it in the plan.

Thanks - my last post last night should have said "risks not being too severe to mean that f2f contact..."!

Thank you so much for all the responses. You've raised some points I hadn't considered. I think I need to do alot more research. The link was very useful and I'm going order the book by the author.
At the time of the adoption there's so much going on and so much to think about when the social worker said letterbox will be once a year I never questioned it. Contact was almost treated as an after thought. Like letterbox is the standard. It's only now that AC is settled and I've experienced letterbox that I'm questioning if this the best form of contact for my AC?
The two main reason I think it could work are
BM relinquished her rights as she accepted she could not parent due to her current circumstances. She has not expressed any anger towards myself, the social worker or the process.
She attended all direct contact whilst AC was fostered. Thank you Ted27 for raising your struggles with maintaining contact as I had not considered that.
Lots to think about.

I think I have commented on here before re. Direct contact and know my views do not represent many. In Northern Ireland f2f contact post adoption order is very common. The majority of adoption orders granted in the last five years have been so with direct contact as part of the agreement. My lo’s Have twice yearly contact. They are still young enough that they just accept it. We are always present. It lasts about an hour and is a very low key play date really. I accept that at some point in the future it may not be right for my children and when and if it becomes an issue we will seek a change to the agreement and go with indirect with the view to re-establishing again if appropriate. I believe it will give my children an insight into their BM as they grow. It will remove the air of mystery and keep the narrative of their past alive for them. Rightly or wrongly our children will grow up knowing they are a part of two families, ours being the primary one but acknowledging with them that there is another family who love them very much but their life circumstances were such that they could not keep them safe. My lo’s did live with their BM for a time and yes she made some poor choices but I hold no negative feeling for her. I absolutely know that her life and past was so horrific that she made the only choices that she could. I doubt if I had led her life I would have done much better. People tell me if she loved them she would not have let the neglect and emotional abuse happen. The short answer is she did not see it as either and I know without a shadow of a doubt she loved and continues to love them. I want my children to know that as they grow up. F2f contact seems to me to be facilitating this at this point. Contact is arranged through a co-ordinator. It is always in a neutral venue, social workers co-ordinate it and bring BM and ensure that our confidentiality is maintained. No photos are taken at the contact.

I am a birth mother and am in two minds about direct contact. As much as I would love to see my daughters on a yearly basis would it hurt to much?

I relinquished my children due to severe mental health problems. I agreed with the local authorities plan to have my children adopted because, my mental health was starting to have an impact on my children.

I wouldnt be happy to see my children whilst I was still unwell. I know that adopters have said that they would consider f2f contact down the line when the girls are older. However, I am not holding them to it.

I do think there is fits all approach to adoption and I think its unfair for the BP when they ARENT abusive. (I was never deliberatly harmful or abusive to my children.) I am lucky in the sense I will get six monthly pictures and letters.

@Cassie9. I certainly think that the circumstances you describe are ones where direct contact is much more viable than the norm. I think it's great that you are considering these things.

I would certainly encourage pushing SWs for you to meet BM- it's hard but worthwhile and it may influence your thinking. You might want to post on the adoption UK forums for some more experience of direct contact.

Ultimately this is your decision- I'm sure whatever form of contact you choose will work out.

I did - my daughters were older at placement, and it started as a foster placement. Older one in particular wanted to maintain contact.

First mother was no danger, alcoholic and chaotic, but loved her daughters and supported their placement with me and adoption as being in their best interests.

I have mixed feelings. I think it tore DD1 in two different directions, stability and long-term thinking (get a good education!) with me, excitement and fun and no responsibility from birth mother. As a teenager with LOTS of anger and unresolved issues it was too easy to go back to the excitement and fun (through a teen pregnancy, dropping out of school).

For DD2, removed aged 2 and so with fewer memories, it was fairly straightforward, nice to see her and get lots of hugs but with me nearby for reassurance. Birth mother died when DD2 was 6, so as she has got older and more aware of complexities perhaps the contact would have been more difficult, perhaps not.

On balance I am glad we did (partly because Bm's death was completely unexpected, so we didn't have lots of time to 'see how it goes'). DD1 (aged 20) has worked through a lot of her issues and we now have a close relationship again, she's back education and doing well. Would she if her first mother was around? I think so, but who knows.

So, I think it was worth it now, but if you asked me 3 or 4 years ago you would have got a different answer! And I think that's the case in a lot of adoptions, once your children have reached their late 20s you pretty much know how it turned out, but before that all you have is 'at this point it is XYZ'!

But birth family accepting your role is essential (and of course in turn I respected her role as their first mother, but as the resident parent I set the boundaries).

I’m a birth Mum and would love face to face contact and this was recommended by the judge at time of placement order that this be fully explored with potential parents but shouldn’t prevent a placement if parents were unable to commit to this.

The fact a judge has made the recommendation to me shows that I am not considered harmful or a risk to my child. I was just unable to protect both myself and my child. I’ve worked extrememly hard to be where I am now.

However I have also maintained contact since my son was placed regularly every six months and have chased it.

I’m hoping that When my son is old enough to want contact they will feel able to support him in that. I have always said they are his parents and I will not undermine their role. I am truly grateful for the job they are doing so well, when I could not. My son is very lucky. He has 2 mums that and dads that love him very very much. He is OUR child and by that I mean ALL of us. All 4.

I will continue to answer relevant questions as openly and honestly as I’m able to for my sons age

The issue is if they stop coming

The La will not support you in picking up the pieces or the fall out so if they have limited of little contact while the child was in fc then you have to ask yourself

Should it be happening at all just because the adult wants it to I think many family members think it will lead to increasing and longer contacts but ultimately it won’t and then that’s when it trails off

Thank you for all your experiences and opinions. It's useful getting perspectives from both a adopters and birth parents.