Concurrency/ Foster to adopt

[PetuniaPetunia]

We have been asked whether we would consider concurrency or foster to adopt (I still don't quite understand the difference, even though the social worker did explain it to us). We're in Stage 1. I have spoken to one family that did it and they ended up adopting the baby. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on here has any recent experience of concurrency/foster to adopt. Thanks.

Yes I have done Foster2Adopt. My baby came to me at a week old and she is now 9.5months. It took approx 8 months to get the placement order and we have now applied for the adoption order.
Foster2Adopt has worked brilliantly for us. We got the experience of caring for a newborn and my little girl has had the advantage of permanency from the start.
For us, the risk has been massively outweighed by the advantages and I would definitely do it again.
We did have to do contact sessions but this has finished now.

Firstly can I ask are you considering foster to adopt or concurrency or both? I ask cause there is a distinct difference between the two. Foster to adopt has a high likelihood to end in adoption (95-99%), the real risk and even that is small is that a birth family suddenly comes out of the woodwork and offers suitable kinship care. Basically the decision has been made that adoption will be the plan but all the legal proceeding get a placement order has to be carried out.

Concurrency is when rehabilitation home is still an active plan. A parenting assessment has to be carried out and parents are supported to make necessary changes. Social workers still acknowledge that there is a high chance ( greater than 80% ) that adoption will become the plan and so place with foster carers who are also approved adopters who could adopt them if adoption becomes the plan. Therefore ensuring early permanency for the child. Around 90% of these cases do go on to adoption but still the risk is much greater than with foster to adopt.

To do concurrency you have to believe in it as the best for the child. It can not be to get a young baby (often straight from the hospital). You have to trust the system to make the right decision for the child and accept that that may not necessarily be for the child to remain with you.

You need to be clear what version of early permanency your LA do? Ask specific questions - do they do true concurrency where they are aiming to reunite and if so what are the LA’s percentages in the number of cases that do not end in adoption order. To be honest though the statistics do not matter. It does not matter if it is 2% or 20% if you absolutely know you could not cope with the thought of a child not remaining with you then you should not take the risk. I do have personal experience of concurrency which I will share with you my PM if you wish. Early permanency is without a doubt amazing for the child and also for the adopters if it all works out. I am a huge advocate for it but only if the potential adopters know they have the strength to accept whatever the outcome.

You have to be utterly brave and selfless to do this.

I have a friend who is part of a same sex couple. They FTA. It was a relinquished baby and they picked the baby up from hospital.
They cared for the baby for 6 months and then the birth mother changed her mind and the baby went back to her.

He is utterly devastated as is his DH. I am not sure they are going to go through it again.

We did foster to adopt. We were placed at 3 months and our lo is now 2 and half. We met the birth mum beforehand and had to take lo to contact visits before the second panel. Our baby was also relinquished so there was a risk, but birth mum had a solicitor to represent her and had signed a legal dec that this was what she wanted. It was a harder journey but worth it for us as we had the early baby months.

Thank you so much for sharing your stories amd experiences. I now have a better understanding of the differences between concurrency and foster to adopt. I will ask my social worker more about how our LA differentiates between them and what their "sucess ratios" are (although of course baby going back to birth parents is also a successful outcome).. We are interested in both options. The SW did say that even with concurrency it is highly unlikely that the baby will go back to birth parents.

*Pieinthesky2" It must be so hard having to hand back a baby you have cared for to their birth parents, even if you know from the outset that that is something that might happen.

I did FTA. When I went on training they referred to 'early permamance' as a broad term for both FTA and concurrency - and we were told in both cases plan A was the birth family.
My son came to me at just one day old. He is now two - he is amazing and I'm so grateful he's been with me since the start and it was definitely the best thing for him.
However, despite thinking and talking through it all and truly believing I would have been able to cope should he be returned to his birth family before starting - which looked like it may happen at one point - nothing could prepare me for the uncertainty, and it was very hard and stressful. I'm glad I did it but don't think I could do it again. If he had gone back to birth family, I don't know how I would have coped - but I'm glad I was able to carry that stress on his behalf when it was all going through court.
So yes a lot to think about.....feel free to pm if you have any questions...