what do you think adoption will look like in the future?

[Snazzygoldfish]

Just that really. I think open adoption will become much more common and adopters will become more like long term foster carers with ongoing contact with birth families facilitated wherever possible.

My suspicion is that one of the things preventing this now is that adoption is a cheap option for LA's compared to long term foster care.

Personally, I would be open to face to face contact but only on the condition that there were strict boundaries in place and whatever support was needed for all involved in the adoption triangle. This too would be costly in comparison with adoption as I know it. I'm aware things are different in different parts of the U.K.

@sassygromit
I can't find the link but this is a screenshot of the article she shared

I think you mean uea!

I must agree with jellycatspyjamas

"no one understands my children’s needs and what they can cope with better than I do."

@Italiangreyhound, @jellycatspyjamas

I must agree with jellycatspyjamas

"no one understands my children’s needs and what they can cope with better than I do."

Unfortunately in this day and age our children can find out things before we have told them. I went on a therapeutic life journey work course and the trainer said one of the biggest issues he comes across in his practice is that children have found out information about their birth family that they have yet to be told because their adoptive parents don't think they can cope with knowing it yet. This means that the children have no way of working through that information and it impacts negatively on their mental health and behaviour.

The thing is that theory and practice change all the time and what is hailed as a ground-breaking initiative one decade an be the latest Panarama expose the next.
Basically I am a bit cynical of research because that can be skewed any which way if required and doesn't always hold up in the long term.
It is great that direct contact is beneficial to some adopters. However I know of other children who were destroyed by it even when in foster care so I am cautious about the long term results myself. And it seems to me in my experience of the system that many supposed experts ( sw, reviewing officers , therapists etc ) are actually very ignorant of even the most basic understanding of issues around trauma and attachment so I would not want them having the final say about contact. Those kind of decisions should be down to the legal parents who know the child best .

When I adopted I agreed to direct contact with dad and little brother because I believed it was in his best interests. I still think that, however, it worked ok for about 18 months, then dad had another breakdown and couldnt/wouldn't maintain it. I went way beyond what could have reasonsably be expected of me, at considerable cost to myself. But my son was increasingly devasted by dad not showing up. He is much more settled now that he doesn't have expectations around dad.

@sassygromit mentions a number of benefits of contact. I agree they are all important, but my son has gained all of those things from very skilled theraputic life story work, not from contact with his dad.

@ifchocolatewerecelery thank you but I can't read it! Or I am not tech savvy enough to know how to. Can it be linked in any other way? I note from the headline that the parents had killed, and as I said in a previous post, I think that there are going to be many suitable situations, but there will also be unsuitable situations. But I would still be really interested to read if it can be linked differently.

@Italiangreyhound this is going to sound a bit sassy, but I think that you cannot agree on the one hand that the adoptive parent knows best as per your quote above, if you then say on another thread - well, permanence is permanence on one level, but it is fine for adoptive parents to "care" from afar when the going gets too tough. I hope that is understandable, if not I will rephrase using your actual words. There may be a link between ignoring research advice re things like this and the going getting too tough further down the line - the disruption report you linked on the other thread highlights contact as a key issue in relation to disruption which indicates that what happens now doesn't work well enough.

I am sorry about the messed up acronyms and names of unis - I was posting while my attention was being divided both times!

The thing is that theory and practice change all the time and what is hailed as a ground-breaking initiative one decade an be the latest Panarama expose the next. Basically I am a bit cynical of research because that can be skewed any which way if required and doesn't always hold up in the long term The research about this has been the same for decades, and across jurisdictions, in fact. In the UK none of the recommendations made decades ago have been put in place for adoption because it hasn't fitted with policy and culture and no one has shouted loudly enough about it probably.

It is great that direct contact is beneficial to some adopters. However I know of other children who were destroyed by it even when in foster care so I am cautious about the long term results myself I think that this highlights that there are zero effective systems in place - inadequate advice for prospective adopters, inadequate training by SWs who themselves will not have expertise and will often have a personal bias one way or the other (either for or against), no proper support and management. The affect on the child will come down to management - when the child is told about upcoming contact, how they are told, how things are done directly afterwards and so on. It is just completely lacking in the UK.

In relation to don's comment about psych being in its infancy simply isn't true any more - we know far more now and far more is predictable, we have far more evidence due to advances in neuro science. Interestingly and for example in the National History Museum there is a section on how babies' brains develop and how their perceive things - and at what age things start to change, ie when developmentally they are ready to do certain things - this display was pretty much the same there when I was a kid, it is still good science, it is nothing to do with fads or cultural influence as it applies to all human babies... the research to do with contact with bio in adoption situations needs more attention I think but the research generally has been around for decades.

In relation to divorce, the courts have considered it vital that children retain contact with both bio parents because of decades of psych advice saying that. The courts are going far too far nowadays IMO, allowing unsupervised contact when there is risk, but that is another thread - but the comparison here is to do with the psych advice about growing up knowing both bio parents is the same, the only difference with adoption is that there is a new legal status - the reasoning for the psych advice remains the same.

Unfortunately in this day and age our children can find out things before we have told them.

That’s something I’m very aware of, not an issue at the moment as my two aren’t able to do the kind of searching that would find them information about their birth families and don’t have an online presence but as they get older I expect they’ll both look.

Research has its place in helping us understand patterns and processes but it needs to read with a thinking, critical eye and balanced with contrasting views. The fields of psychology and psychotherapy are still in their infancy relatively speaking, we’re learning things every day and there’s a whole host of differing points of view about human development and wellbeing, most of which have some merit in informing our understanding of any given situation but any one of which taken in isolation could result in a narrow understanding of the same situation. As such research needs to be taken in context and with the specific situation in mind rather than blanketly considered, ie direct contact has been shown to be useful to adoptees in this study doesn’t equate to all adoptions should therefore involve direct contact.

@ifchocolatewerecelery "Unfortunately in this day and age our children can find out things before we have told them. I went on a therapeutic life journey work course and the trainer said one of the biggest issues he comes across in his practice is that children have found out information about their birth family that they have yet to be told because their adoptive parents don't think they can cope with knowing it yet. This means that the children have no way of working through that information and it impacts negatively on their mental health and behaviour."

We were told to tell everything in an age appropriate manner. It may be my child knows what happened to him in some situations and I do not. When I said no one knows my child better than me, I didn't mean including my child. I meant professionals. But of course my child knows what happened to him. He may not have the skills to work out what it all means, I may not either! But together we can work on it.

Not sassy as much as very inappropriate IMHO.

@sassygromit "well, permanence is permanence on one level, but it is fine for adoptive parents to "care" from afar when the going gets too tough"

I am genuinely shocked you would attempt to quote me back from another unrelated thread possibly not even using the words I used.

That was a discussion on another thread so not relevant here. AND I am pretty sure I did not say it was 'fine' at all. Whatever I said I think I meant it may be the only way when a situation is impossible. Because adoption cannot, as far as I now, be terminated. So sometimes there is no choice but to parent from afar.

"There may be a link between ignoring research advice re things like this and the going getting too tough further down the line..."

That is hugely unfair as the situation on another thread is about a very difficult and complex situation which none of us know the full details of.

I'm not prepared to discuss a situation I don't know enough about in the abstract, I wanted to offer some help to a troubled poster and not to debate her situation in light of something potentially completely unrelated.

as far as I know...

the only difference with adoption is that there is a new legal status

A new legal status brought about by the behaviour of parents who have caused significant harm to their children, or do we just forget that part? In divorce the non-resident parent doesn’t usually present a risk to the child. For a child to be permanently removed from their parents there has to be evidence that the parents would have or have already caused their child significant harm. Children are removed for their own safety and protection - not because someone thought it might be nice for them to have new parents, or that they needed a change of scenery. That fact has got to be part of the consideration when thinking about direct contact, for me to put my children back in the presence of people who actively harmed them would take a lot of convincing.

There are many factors to consider - not least the potential to retraumatise my children who already are coping with flashbacks, night terrors and symptoms of complex ptsd following their early trauma. When they are older they may wish I had supported direct contact, but my job just now is to protect them and provide the best, most healing environment possible which doesn’t include fostering a relationship with the very people who caused the damage in the first place.

I am sorry about the messed up acronyms and names of unis - I was posting while my attention was being divided both times!
No apology needed, twas amusing. I do stuff like that all the time when MNing.

In relation to don's comment about psych being in its infancy simply isn't true any more
My point was that psychology is in its infancy compared to other Sciences.

we know far more now and far more is predictable
I'm not sure even a mature Science could make predictions about systems as complex as the ones you are thinking that psychology can predict. There are simply too many variables to predict the outcomes of contact for individuals. Medicine has had huge resources over centuries and has much more controllable variables; still prediction of outcomes is statistical, rather than individual.

There may be a link between ignoring research advice re things like this and the going getting too tough further down the line
You seem to be saying that psychologists know what children need better than parents. Psychology does not predict individual outcomes in the way you imagine, no psychologist would claim otherwise. If this is not your point you are repeatedly overstating your case.

the only difference with adoption is that there is a new legal status
This is an impressively naive and tactless statement to make on an adoption forum. Needless to say, I do not think that is the only difference between adoption and divorce.

this is going to sound a bit sassy, but I think that you cannot agree on the one hand that the adoptive parent knows best as per your quote above, if you then say on another thread - well, permanence is permanence on one level, but it is fine for adoptive parents to "care" from afar when the going gets too tough.
You have egregiously misrepresented Italian's views here. Taking a point from a completely different context does not weaken Italian's point here. That last part is offensive to all adopters. I think an apology is needed for this.

@sassygromit I enjoy a robust argument. You have a very legalistic approach and a very particular agenda which can be enjoyable and thought provoking on a theoretical thread like this.

You do, however, seem to disregard the opinions of adopters with vastly more experience of these issues than you. This is not the first time your responses have lacked tact and failed to consider the context being discussed. People's experience of adoption varies wildly. This forum deals with very sensitive issues, I would respectfully ask that you try posting with less certainty of your own omniscience and a little more empathy.

@donquixotedelamancha thank you. It is rare I get offended on here but I do feel Sassy has wildly misrepresented my views.

@italiangreyhound the intention was not to offend you but to point out the conflict in the two statements you have made - whether on different threads or not. So, I am sorry about offending you, and I will explain my comment in clearer and less offending terms. If you think that adoption is forever only until it becomes impossible then it needs to disrupt (which is what you think, is that right?) then you must also by the same token accept the limitations of adopters - ie that the situation in many adoptions becomes impossible because the adopters cannot cope (and I am not criticising adopters for not coping) and if you take that point to its logical conclusion then no, parents do not always know best. My view is that it is not fair to adoptive children to wait and see if the adoptive parent knows best in relation to key known issues such as contact, and it is best to get them involved as standard, which is what is done in other jurisdictions in Europe where there is more investment in social supports generally.

I hope that the above explanation is less offensive and more appropriate and clearer.

that should be " and then disruption is reasonable" (not "then it needs to disrupt")

and "best to get psychologists involved" (not "them involved")

@donquixotedelamancha I will respond fully re psychology and being "legalistic", but in the meantime - I am not sure why you think that my opinion is any less valid than any other poster on this thread - it isn't. I accept not everyone agrees with me and I seek to understand other points of view. In terms of my experience, I was adopted as an older child after having gone into care for a while, and all of the issues raised in this forum are more than familiar to me - and Iam now a vaguely competent parent, aware that parenting it itself is damn hard work, and I have read up on child development and trauma. So not particularly naive or uninformed.

In relation to the "naive and tactless" comment I assume you mean "tactless thing to say to adopters" - but again I am posting as an adoptee, with a focus on making changes for future adoptees, not as an adopter.

If the debate starts get personal ("I know more than you - you are just xyz") then I am not continuing and will leave you to it.

A new legal status brought about by the behaviour of parents who have caused significant harm to their children, or do we just forget that part? In divorce the non-resident parent doesn’t usually present a risk to the child

I am not sure where you are getting "usually" from, but in any case, my point was in relation situations where one party has been abusive - the psych recommendation is that there is still contact with the abuser, supervised. Ie the risk of significant harm is very relevant.
In relation to your "usually" there appear to be significant issues re divorce at the moment re this issue.

As someone who did have to disrupt, the idea you out forward that this means the adoptive parents just walk away and stop parenting shows how little you know of these situations. Every adoptive parent I know who has done this has continued to play a significant role in their child's lives, maintaining the relationship as far as the child allowed it, attending meetings, advocating for their child.

I have just taken the morning off work and driven over to see DD1 where she is finishing her secondary education - it is a 30-40 minute drive each way, but when we were chatting over the weekend she showed me a swelling on her leg that I thought should be looked at. So I went to pick her up, we had breakfast together then went to a pharmacist and I bought the meds they recommended plus a few other bits and pieces for treats while she revises. Have just got home after dropping her off.

Just as a child with major health issues may end up in hospital, but that does not mean the parents have 'given up' being parents. Or have parents whose children go to boarding school given up on being parents? What if the boarding school is for special needs of some sort? Does it only 'count' if the parents have adopted?

So that comparison just doesn't stand up.

If you read the Narey report on permanence for children in care he makes the very important point that children need permanence in relationships, NOT in day to day living arrangements. Obviously they need stability day to day, but that should not prevent a child moving if another placement is better for the child, BUT if they move then it should involve planning how that child will maintain significant relationships.

Some children, after abuse in a family situation, cannot cope with living in a family situation. It is constantly triggering beyond what can be healed by therapeutic parenting and other therapeutic interventions.

As for research, well, I assume that the cases that have been studied are those at the 'mild' end of abuse/neglect, as I cannot imagine anyone claiming that a child should have to have contact with their rapist, for example, just because their rapist is a family member. Plus a good number of 'chosen to relinquish' situations. I don't think you can extrapolate from it being beneficial in a limited set of circumstances to 'it should be the norm'.

The crucial aspect that made our contact 'work' (with the disadvantages that I have mentioned above) was that the girls' first mum was 100% supportive of their relationship with me. She wanted them brought up in a stable, loving environment, and she recognised that she could not provide it. The permission that gave our daughters to love me as well, be happy without her, and get on with their lives outweighed a degree of on-going damage.

I have had a look for that Radio 4 episode of the Today programme with Lemm Sissay, but it looks as if they only keep episodes available for about a month, and I think it was broadcast in August.

the idea you out forward that this means the adoptive parents just walk away and stop parenting shows how little you know of these situations. Every adoptive parent I know who has done this has continued to play a significant role in their child's lives, maintaining the relationship as far as the child allowed it, attending meetings, advocating for their child

@allington firstly, my posts are about changing the way adoption is done, and one change is have more psych input as standard from the beginning for every adoption. That is the only point I have made.

But it is not correct that all adoptive parents stay involved after disruption - though you did, and all the families you know did - it is NOT correct about all adoptive parents, I can assure you.

Where a child has reached the point that it cannot function in a normal family, that child should have received different help than he/she received many, many years earlier - and that is the key point I am making here. That in too many adoptions, the parents did not know best - and that is not a criticism of parents, it is a criticism of unfair and unrealistic expectations.

Adoptive and bio families face difficulties with MH and getting the right help and finding solutions - the same - I agree.

@donquixotedelamancha just quickly now in relation to psychology- experienced psychologists and psychiatrists are very clear with their advice in many areas now, to the best of my knowledge, and that there is clear evidence to say "if you do x then y will happen". It is not airy fairy - much reads now almost like a Haynes manual (lighthearted). There is a huge amount of "known" in relation to brain and development, and how changing behaviours changes lives, and how to do that. You can still look at these issues in a theoretical, philosophical or other academic way - of course - but if you are more solutions-focused there are predictable solutions available too in many areas. And i think the latter, being solutions- focused, is better for children.

@allington As for research, well, I assume that the cases that have been studied are those at the 'mild' end of abuse/neglect, as I cannot imagine anyone claiming that a child should have to have contact with their rapist, for example, just because their rapist is a family member as far as I know it is all bio parents other than extreme situations - I would say being raped falls within "extreme". I am not sure "mild" more to do with the affect - ie you could have quite severe physical neglect where the parent had LDs but contact might still be appropriate. As I understand it, the majority of adoptions are because of neglect/abuse but not where the situation is extreme. So not the "norm" and would have to be assessed case by case - but I think the majority (I think ) - eg I think in Australia open adoptions is the majority, even where there has been neglect/abuse - but not extreme damage.

Anyway - I feel I am repeating myself here, so I will stop posting. I will keep reading though.

I have just got my copy of 'The Boy Who was raised as a dog' back (lent it to a friend), and flicking through it came across that young mother who, as a child in care, had been moved from foster placement to foster placement every 6 months because at that point 'the experts' said it was better for children in care not to get attached to their foster parents.

No doubt those experts had an 'evidence base' as well...