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.

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

What do you call extreme though? Constant threat of violence? Neglect to where a child’s bone and muscle development is impacted by lack of movement and mobility? Lack of food to where a child expects not to be fed or is competing for food?

Psychology has far from developed to where doing “x” equals “y”, i don’t know a psychologist who would remotely make such claims. If they could our communities wouldn’t be full of people struggling with significant mental health issues.

If you understood anything about trauma response, for example, you would know this comes from a place of fighting for survival. You’d know that people (children and adults) can’t just be managed out of the automatic responses to triggers - that their systems take over to keep them safe. So contact with people who have been dangerous and frightening will elicit a fight or flight response, children's systems are hyper vigilant and either over or under react to threat etc etc, their capacity for emotional regulation compromised so that in our case contact with foster carers left them traumatised for months afterwards - not because it wasn’t managed well but because managed well or not, their autonomic nervous system was triggered in contact and no one, least of all them, had any way of preventing that other than not having contact.

You seem to think that simply adding some psychological input into the situation will render every child well, whole and healthy which simply isn’t the case, and I don’t know a psychologist who would suggest that it is.

Psychological input can be helpful, psychotherapy can be helpful, specific trauma interventions can be helpful but no one size fits all. You say you’ve educated yourself about trauma, while showing a staggering lack of understanding of trauma responses in children and while being dismissive and disrespectful of the expertise of people who have personal and professional experience in this field.

Your opinion matters, of course it does, but when you try to present opinion as fact and refuse to accept that others might actually have a wider depth and breadth of knowledge - or indeed that their experience is equally valid - you do yourself no favours.

to the best of my knowledge, and that there is clear evidence to say "if you do x then y will happen"
Can you present just one clear example of where there is peer reviewed evidence that says “if you do x, then y will happen” in all and every circumstance of neglect, trauma, abuse, or attachment?

@sassygromit
“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 –“

You are really keen to present a view that is not my view. I am not giving a view of what is good or ‘fine’ to use your original word. But rather stating it as far as I understand it to legally be.
If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected!

As far as I know, it is impossible to dissolve an adoption, in law. Unless someone else adopts the child. If anyone can tell me different, I am happy to accept that.

So as far as I see when you adopt, unless you relinquish that child and another person adopts the child, you are legally their parent.

In an ideal world you would live with the child to adulthood and they would find their way out of the nest at a suitable time, as all birth children do.

However, in a very small number of situations a child is not able to live in a family home, their early life experiences, or mental health issues, or any other factors, make it impossible for them to live alongside others in a family setting without being a dangers to themselves, or their parents, or to other children in the home.

In these limited situations a child will be unable to live in the family home. This would be true for adopted or birth children whose presence in the family home had become a major source of danger.

In those situations the parents do not (as stated earlier) stop being the parent/s but are unable to live with their child.

This is not my option it is simply a fact. I do know of real life situations where this has happened but in terms of my comments here I am speaking purely hypothetically.

@sassygromit
"that the situation in many adoptions becomes impossible because the adopters cannot cope"

I am willing to agree that there may indeed be situations where an adopter, or a birth parent, cannot cope with a child's behaviour. Usually this would be the kind of behave that most parents would struggle with so I am not implying any failing on the part of individual parents.

"(and I am not criticising adopters for not coping)"

Thank you, and neither am I.

So, so far we appear to be agreeing?

@sassygromit
Here is the problem, you seem to think because a small number of parents cannot cope in very extreme situatins it meas all adoptive parents do not know what is best for their kids. Is that correct?

Because you say “and if you take that point to its logical conclusion then no, parents do not always know best."

I think no parent is going to assume they know the best all the time, always but in general they do know their kids better than others and they usually do their best and go the extra mile to find the things/services/help their child/ren need.

So to me you are conflating two things, which I feel is wrong. You are suggesting that because some parents in very extreme situations (where children may be threatening them with knives or committing sexual assaults on others or all manner of very very difficult behaviour) is the same as a situation where I, as a birth and adoptive parent, can say that I firmly believe I know what is best for my children. And that I would agree most birth and adoptive parents would know their own kids best (on the understanding those children have not been removed from them for neglect or abuse, of course).

@sassygromit

"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..."

Re key known issues I don’t agree you can say that issues around contact are known. By all means post links to this research and let’s see what they say.

Please feel free to send me any articles on this topic and any information you may have. I am all ears. I have already told you we explored this for our adopted son who has been with us many years and were told by the professionals it was not in our son’s best interests at this time.

I know we will explore it later.

I also do fear that there is a desire to ‘paper over the cracks from the past', so to say, to have every one getting along and it may be that children go along with this (in a way that may not help them) or it may help them, or it may be that they have an overload.

Mentally as a parent I have made a promise to keep my kids safe and do what is best for them, (this is true for our birth child and our adopted child). I am not going to relinquish responsibility for my children if I can care for them because that, for me, is the real link to my kids, not blood.

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

I would not have been offended if you had not misquoted me and misrepresented my views.

I’m fine to discuss these issue but you said presented views as my views.

You suggested I was ‘fine’ with adoptive parents relinquishing their adopted children back into the care service. I am not fine with it but I am aware it is sometimes the only way.

I sensed when we spoke of this topic before that I may have hit a nerve, not my intention.

If so8, why not message me to discuss it? Everything I said on the other thread was meant to be in relation to the poster and her situation, so if I unintentionally* upset you with my views - why not ask there or message privately.

I feel you dragged what you thought were my views into this thread to kind of unmask me as an uncaring adopter. That was hurtful. If that was not your intention, then fine.

I am very protective of my kids, with very real issues, and I am afraid I don't trust others to make decisions on behalf of my son (or my dd) because if the shit hits the fan it will be me, my dh, my dd, and MOST OF ALL my adopted ds, who will be facing that shit when an expert has already road out of town on their white charger. BUT I am also, I hope, open to ideas, so why not send me some links instead of telling others what you think I think.

Phew, sorry, lot of messages!

@jellycatspyjamas you said you didn't want to engage - if you do want to engage, could you please re read what I have written, because you have asked "Can you present just one clear example of where there is peer reviewed evidence that says “if you do x, then y will happen” in all and every circumstance of neglect, trauma, abuse, or attachment?" yet I have very clearly written that there is clear guidance in relation to some areas.

Having said that, when my ds left hospital I was told by the medical drs that there would be likely be significant psych consequences, but they didn't have the expertise to comment further. I searched high and low and there was a dearth of help available at the time. I then found the relatively recent lecture by Kolk (where he was also reconsidering his theories on RAD from the 70s) and related things and in fact in relation to trauma and attachment it was extremely clear - I would not have been able to follow it successfully if it had not been. It required a huge amount of sifting through info and analysis of an area not familiar to me. Carrying it through took many many months and there were gradual improvements, years and it required a lot of faith on my part that I had understood it all correctly. It was not a picnic. But yes, it was clear.

Can you present just one clear example of where there is peer reviewed evidence that says “if you do x, then y will happen” in all and every circumstance of neglect, trauma, abuse, or attachment?" yet I have very clearly written that there is clear guidance in relation to some areas.

You have said there is, and yet still no example of the clear guidance you’re referring to. You said psychology was advanced to where it could reliably predict that if you do x, y will happen. I’m not aware of any psychologist who would make such a claim - your assertion says otherwise so I would like an example please, if it’s that clear then I assume there is a peer reviewed research base to support it.

Yes I said I wouldn’t engage - you said you weren’t posting anymore - I guess things changed for us both.

@Italiangreyhound crumbs that was long! I am going to try to just respond to key points - and the first one is that you and I disagree I think about just how many adoptions are failing - you say "a small number of parents cannot cope in very extreme situatins" and I don't think that that is the case at all based on personal experience and what I read - but we don't know for sure - but (another but) there is now recognition of this - another poster asked me to link the enquiry I referred to and I will in a moment as I have finally found it, and a quote from this is:

There is a dearth of information and meaningful longitudinal research to inform policy and social work practice on adoption. Very little information is collected or known about the social and economic circumstances, the lifetime costs and benefits, and long-term outcomes of the promotion of adoption of children from care. For example, there is no comprehensive data on the number of children who are returned to care after adoption and the reasons why, nor sufficient research into the longitudinal outcomes into adult life of those who are adopted [...] "Without this information, the arguments made for adoption in its current form and current policy are insufficiently evidenced." [...]

I, personally, think that it is fantastic that the above is finally being recognised but goodness knows what the follow ups have been or will be.

I think parents know their children best and in the majority of cases their intuition is spot on because of this, but there are limitations, and you and I disagree about contact being something in relation to which which more expertise is going to be needed.

Please feel free to send me any articles on this topic and any information you may have if you google University of East Anglia Post Adoption" it will take you to a good place to start from. In particular look at the longitudinal study which should be a link in there somewhere.

My post was not intended as a personal attack, it was irritation with what I see as conflicting statements and you have explained that you did not consider them conflicting. My reference to ignoring research being a key thing leading to disruption was aimed at the ignoring of research in policy and at every level including any individual parent. It wasn't an attack on adopters. It wasn't aimed at you as you are not in a disruption situation. But to be fair to me, you and I are both guilty of careless wording, I think - you wrote on the other thread (your exact words) "in one sense if you adopt a child they are your child and they cannot just stop being (as far as i am aware, unless someone else adopts them)" and I asked if you meant "in one sense" (on the thread) and you confirmed yes. I do see this as careless wording or as conflicting with the assumption that the majority of adoptive parents are going to know best, but if you disagree, I understand that.

I hope that you consider the above fair, because after I attach the enquiry I won't be able to post again on the thread for a while.

@jellycatspyjamas I wrote "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". ie - clear evidence in relation to those areas where research is clear. There is a ton of evidence - peer reviewed evidence available in relation to child development. You only have to start looking. A starting point is "ahaparenting" as she lists out research and sources. She refers to where the research is clear. No, I am not going to spend more time sifting through it just to satisfy you - look for yourself!! And - semantics - what I think is clear may not be what you would say is clear, if your approach is more theoretical than solutions focused.

I gave a really good clear real life example of clarity in evidence re trauma and attachment which you have ignored...

I am happy to engage with you if you are genuinely interested in my viewpoint and explain your viewpoint with courtesy. However, I have ohter things I need to do now, I dont' have more time to spend on this thread - but if you did want to discuss your theories on attachment and child dvmt vs mine, if you started a new thread I would respond when I could as I am interested. I think you and I have very different approaches and it is really interesting (to me anyway)

But for now I am out (before my dc start a revolution)

I can assure you our disruption was not due to ignoring research. Nor due to lack of contact - if anything, contact contributed to disruption (though it was not the only factor, by any means).

Another factor was the involvement of 'experts'who thought they knew more than they did/do. And so believed DD1's manipulations and control and encouraged her rather than challenged her. And are now long out of our lives, while I turn up over and over again to be 'mum'.

@Thepinklady77 I have finally found and attach the link relating to the adoption enquiry report and key findings - see the two PDFs in the link

www.basw.co.uk/media/news/2018/jan/basw-unveils-adoption-enquiry-report-and-key-findings

Very relevant to this thread and for anyone interested in adoption. It reflects viewpoints from adopters, birth parents, adoptees and professionals and covers a wide range of issues including relationship with bio family, research, adoption models and looking at those of other jurisdictions, politics driving policy, ethics and more.

I am not sure what has happened since this report and would be interested to know if anyone else has info.

There is a ton of evidence - peer reviewed evidence available in relation to child development.

Yes there is a tonne of peer reviewed evidence, a great deal of which conflicts with each other depending not least on the researchers favoured theory of human development. There’s no evidence clear enough to say “if you do x then y will happen” with any degree of certainty or consistency - which was your assertion and is what I’m asking you to evidence. I don’t need you to do my homework for me - I’ve been studying this stuff most of my adult life - I would like you to back up your assertions with some evidence because, frankly, if the human condition can be summed up in “if you do x then y will happen, I’ve been missing a trick.

We have some good ideas about how children develop, and some good ideas about what gets in the way of that development and we have some good ideas about how to help children recover from disrupted attachments and early trauma. What we don’t have is a Haynes manual (lighthearted) - if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

But what I think you’re saying is that other people have said the research is clear (eg ahaparenting), however I very much doubt Dr Laura Markham would suggest that in any sphere of parenting “if you do x, then y will happen”, my sense is that she acknowledges there are limits to the applicability of her model - it’s certainly not presented by her as a universal model of parenting, invaluable though it is.

If you’re going to make bold, black and white statements I think it’s fair to ask that you back up what you’re saying.

Very relevant to this thread and for anyone interested in adoption. It reflects viewpoints from adopters, birth parents, adoptees and professionals and covers a wide range of issues including relationship with bio family, research, adoption models and looking at those of other jurisdictions, politics driving policy, ethics and more.

It was also commissioned and published by the professional body for social workers, who have more than a little interest in how adoption is managed, particularly in promoting the role of social workers in the process. I’ll read it with interest but with a wary eye to bias. Given it was published last year, and we’ve had wall to wall Brexit since then, I’m guessing nothing will have happened on a policy level.

Yes there is a tonne of peer reviewed evidence, a great deal of which conflicts with each other depending not least on the researchers favoured theory of human development

I have not seen any evidence for any of this, so I will turn it around - can you provide lots of links for me all about the various theories of human development and conflict between different theories?

Dr Laura Markham is quite robust in her videos in terms of strength of clear evidence for certain things so I think you are wrong there too.

As I say - I think you love theorising and questioning and picking holes in things - I am the opposite, I want solutions and have been able to find them so far.

I look forward to the links.

@allington it sounds as though you have been failed and I am sorry to hear that. You have written about your dd1 and how she told experts things which were not true in order to deflect any criticism of her and to get them to believe in her, a survival mechanism, and I am sorry if that is misquoted but I have seen it happen and so can relate if I got it right - I knew a child at school who did it. It is wonderful that you have a good and growing relationship with her now.

This conversation has developed, which is great. But I think we need to look back at the assertions which have been challenged - that more contact is a good thing, and that adoptive parents should have their ability to decide their child's level of contact decided by experts - which are highly questionable.

Neither has a clear evidence base.

The report cited has findings that:

1. policy makers had tended to promote adoption as risk free in a ‘happy ever after’ narrative. The Enquiry heard from a range of respondents across the UK that this is unhelpful.

Agreed. Nothing to do with the above assertions

2. The researchers found austerity was adding to the “considerable adversities” faced by many families in poverty who are seeking to safely care for their children.

Agreed. Nothing to do with the above assertions

3. The enquiry found social work’s professional ethics were not routinely or transparently used to inform adoption practice and said this area needed further exploration. It heard groups of parents such as birth mothers with mental health or learning difficulties and young parents who grew up in care were particularly vulnerable to both losing their children and not having their human rights respected.

Agreed. But there is sometimes a tension between the human rights of the parents, and human rights of the children. Personally, I prioritise the rights of the children. Nothing to do with the above assertions

4. The enquiry found the quality of the relationship between social workers and families was “crucial” to pre-and post-adoption support. However, it warned the pressure of rising caseloads and cuts to services, meant many practitioners felt limited in the time and support they could provide and some families feared their children would end up taken into care if they sought help.

Agreed. The budget should be available to support families. That is a domestic political decision. Nothing to do with the above assertions

5)There was a consensus that post adoption support needed improving for everyone, with ethical issues raised in relation to adoptive parents being left caring for traumatised children without adequate help.

Agreed. Nothing to do with the above assertions

@sassygromit I have not seen any figures.

The people I know in real life - a couple of families who would be included in the demographic of 'disrupting the placement before the adoption order was made'. Maybe one in the 'getting an adoption order and then years later adoption breaking down' category.

In all cases it is totally heartbreaking but relatively very rare. I have not seen statistics - and I have tried looking.

"I do see this as careless wording or as conflicting with the assumption that the majority of adoptive parents are going to know best..."

I really think you have taken my words in the wrong way.

There is one case I read about where a child was legally adopted and then for very complicated reasons taken back into care and placed with a family member. In that one situation the adoption was not a permanent placement for the baby/child.

That was what I was thinking of when I said 'in one sense' because to me it was clear in this case the adoption for this child was not permanent.

Does that now make sense?

Maybe it was careless wording. For the record, I unequivocally think that most adopters are doing their best and they are families for life and my commitment to my adopted son is just as great as my commitment to my birth daughter. Is that clearer?

I will look at the documents you suggest.

Let's bury the hatchet, sassy?

Yes, DD1 survived by being able to control and manipulate adults. I do not blame her. I do have a problem with saying 'experts' know better than adoptive parents in situations where they disagree. Because it is not one or the other. And, as jelly has pointed out, the 'experts' are not the ones who live with the consequences.

The most helpful experts we have had involved are those who understand the limits of their expertise, and value other expertise e.g. that of the parent(s)

relatively rare not very rare... in my experience, for adoptions to disrupt totally... I mean.

I am just catching up on this thread and see it has sparked a lively debate !
Anyway I do not know how to highlight or cut and paste but several pages back I said that I have seen foster children destroyed by direct contact and Sassy replied that that was due to lack of input from sw , psychologists etc to manage it properly.

Well actually it was quite the opposite, the young person in question had significant input and intensive therapy and it made no difference whatsoever to the outcome so I cannot concur that a bit of specialist input will solve all problems .
I cannot point to research projects etc to support my views only my own first hand experience of the system .

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 do not think that. I think you have an interesting point of view and argue well. I am trying to redirect you because I think you sometimes (and particularly here) come across poorly in your determination to make an argument.

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.

I don't think my post was a personal attack. I don't think it was any more robust than your posts have been. I think if you reread you will see that I have tried hard to explain why people are reacting quite strongly to your posts, which you say you want to understand.

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.

You chose to frame your argument around the most traumatic area of adoption. I would expect anyone doing so to be thoughtful in their phrasing around such sensitive and raw topics.

This community exists primarily to support one another through adoption associated issues. It has adopters, BPs, SWs, psychologists, family lawyers and adoptees and is better for that range of views and experiences. I would expect anyone to listen to those who have direct experience. I would also expect anyone to understand that there is no right answer (least of all mine) amongst so much complexity and hard choices.

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

I generally like to avoid being too firm on my statements about Psychology; not my area. I do, however, know a lot about the Scientific Method and validity of data. What you claim is not possible for individuals in the examples you give, for reasons I explained above. I note that posters with more psychology expertise than either of us have said the same, along with adopters with an awful lot of combined experience in these areas.

@Allington Amongst many excellent posts from several posters, I do like the clarity of your last one. I fear I/we are in danger of becoming bogged down.

I have not seen any figures. I've seen some, enough to convince me disruption is uncommon and pretty heavily affected by quality of agency. My agency hasn't had one in many years.

I have not seen any evidence for any of this, so I will turn it around - can you provide lots of links for me all about the various theories of human development and conflict between different theories?

I won’t be posting links, I’m not doing your homework for you but if you’ve studied anything about human development you’ll know there are various schools of thought.

Some focus on attachment as the vehicle for human development and understand distress from the place of disrupted attachment, there are obvious reasons for understanding childhood trauma from this perspective in adoption. Other approaches focus on psychodynamic theories - Freud being the obvious proponent and also being considers the father of modern psychology. Largely discredited at one point, researchers are being drawn back to revisit his work again. The approach the NHS in Scotland have adopted for treating trauma is drawn from the extensive work of Judith Herman, whose background is psychodynamic. Others come from a behaviourist approach - dialectical behavioural therapy is a key treatment model used by psychologists to treat ptsd, and doesn’t draw on attachment theory per se, neither does compassion focussed therapy again often used in work with trauma. Humanistic theories of human development will touch on attachment but understand the process of growth and disorder very differently, and again are evidence based approaches used by the NHS in treating trauma. Van Der Kolk who you referred to earlier isn’t a proponent of attachment theory particularly but is a leading expert in working with trauma who favours body based therapies to talking therapy, in contrast to Judith Herman who promotes what she refers to as “good old fashioned therapy”.

There are many many theories of human development and what happens when we experience trauma, at the moment attachment based approaches are very much in favour in relation to children - I’ve been around long enough to remember when attachment theory was pretty much disregarded, with folk like Bridgit Daniels and Sally Waddell very much swimming against the tide with their ground breaking work. Currently work being done by Stephen Joseph and David Murphy around post traumatic growth is gaining significant traction and neither could be considered to come from an attachment perspective.

Things move and change, these theories all have something to offer different people at different times in different situations, in the same way as the myriad of theories relating to bereavement and loss have something to offer. The more ways we have of understanding the human condition the better frankly, because the more likely we are to understand how to support this person in this situation to move forward.

I do like theory, yes, not for the sake of theory but because every day I sit with people who need me to have as wide a view as possible about them and their lives. It’s not a game of who can be most clever or who can win the argument - it’s a case of how can this person recover from unimaginable pain to live a safe, healthy, happy life. That’s got nothing to do with “if I do x, then y will happen” because oddly enough people don’t work that way. I argue with you because holding dogmatically to a particular train of thought means that you might miss something that might help you hold your experiences more lightly, allow you to be softer and more flexible and because you might mislead others to thinking there’s one way to do this.

No-one is attacking you here, I have nothing to prove to anyone.

Waddell
Sorry, Sally Wassell