Life story talk guidance

[Gertruude]

Hi all

One of our LO's is talking very regularly about BF and asking when they can see BM and why she can't see her. I always empathise and gently explain that BM couldn't keep them safe, judge decided they couldn't live there and needed new forever family (basically talking through the life story boom structure we've been given). But I don't know if the things I'm saying are helpful or not as I'm obviously just going by my gut instinct but it's all such heavy stuff for a 4 year old. In trying to build LOs self esteem I feel like I'm being so empathetic to the BM that my LO could be left feeling sorry & worried for her and I feel like this could be just as damaging. I've no idea really!

I'm wondering if any of you would recommend any particular books, courses or resources which may be useful for me in terms of giving me the confidence of what to say / what not to?

I've seen a few books on amazon but unsure as some seem more aimed at practitioners (perhaps this could still be useful?).

Anyway, long story short any advice or guidance would be massively appreciated!

TIA

We don’t get priority, no but waiting lists aren’t as long - I think about 4 months in our case any my DD is doing ok, her treatment is longer term. We do have a specialist service in CAMHS for looked after and accommodated children/adopted children so I’ll see what it’s like, failing which I’ll arrange private therapy for her. Like @Ted27 my children were older when placed so some of their challenges were known at placement but not all.

You learn something new everyday! Do wales or NI have anything similar to the ASF?

I’m aware of the lack of parity in relation to SGs and adopters ( and yes, now SGs do have access to the ASF, but not adoption leave, etc). From what I’m hearing, as adopters, despite your children’s being entitled to needs assessments/support because of their previous LAC status, unless it’s agreed pre placement then you are left fighting for scarce resources. So the gaps between legislation, policy and practice are as wide for you as they are for SGs.

I think it depends tbh, my circumstances are such that thus far any support I’ve needed has been available but that’s mainly due to the school placement being excellent, my GP being on the case and my own professional experience of navigating the system - I know there are gaps in service provision and assessment, I’ve just not been impacted by them.

The reality of dwindling resources and a lack of understanding of the impact of early trauma means support can be very scarce and hard won but that’s the case in ASN across the board, not just for adopters or SGs - I think history will judge us as a society harshly for the way we support ASN families.

Your little one is lucky she has a mummy that knows how to navigate the system 🙏🏻

@Gertruude, am aware I’ve hijacked your thread. Sorry. In terms of books, their are lots out their - brainpickings is a great resource; this one is mainly about dealing with grief but you might find something useful ( Sendak books are great). www.brainpickings.org/2015/03/23/best-childrens-books-death-grief-mourning/

Also Micheal Rosen’s Sad Book might be worth a look.

ang’s Anger is also a good one.

The flat rabbit is also great.

My colleague at the Tavistock was recently putting together a bibliography, so I’ll ask her for it and see if I can post it her.

However, before 18 he isn’t meeting her. He has his forever family and that’s that I think that the idea that contact should be letterbox until 18 and nothing else, with the choice for the adoptee at 18, is longstanding but was not based on research and has now been questioned as to whether it is the best thing for children and more research and guidance and information has been promised about this and all other aspects of adoption, to the best of my knowledge. F2F contact isn't going to work unless the adopter is confident they would make it work, or unless there are sufficient supports and guidance in place, which won't come until there has been more research and until professional input at all stages of adoption improves. And so in the meantime, I think that a flexible approach would be ideal, staying alive to the child's changing thoughts and feelings and needs and reading up on what research and evidence there is.

I have said before that I am pro contact if it is possible and if it is managed properly, assessed on a case by case basis. If the BF caused intentional harm then regular contact is unlikely to be deemed as beneficial by professionals during childhood (I think) but it is generally considered that most BFs in fact were not able to parent to do with capability, not to do with intentional harm, there is often love, and in those circumstances, f2f contact might well be the ideal thing if managed properly. I hope that distinction makes sense. But even where the bio family are violent offenders who caused intentional harm or in other extreme circumstances, your average maturing young teenager may well want to know far more and have more intimate knowledge about their roots than life story work provides - and with appropriate help and guidance this may well be a good time for their to be more contact even if brief - so stay open minded and flexible about needs. The current lack of sophistication in determining what would be appropriate and what wouldn't is also tied in with the lack of research and guidance available.

In relation to "they won't like what they find" - this will depend, obviously, on many factors and often it is shades of grey. Some things will be difficult to accept, other things may make them happy, it it just depends.

Therapeutic life story work is invaluable, I absolutely agree with this, though it is not the same thing as f2f contact, obviously. Again, a note of caution re life story work is that adoption files may be (likely to be?) incomplete and inaccurate and if so it won't be possible to know pretty much everything there is to know every time.

@Gertruude,

This book is quite beautiful and deals with the difficult feelings of loss, and different approaches taken to deal with it

www.amazon.co.uk/Rabbit-Listened-Cori-Doerrfeld/dp/073522935X?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

Re your LA, if it’s been 3 years since the child was placed with you, 5en yes, it becomes your LAs responsibility to assess needs. You may need to get legal advice to encourage them to do this. Your child’s school/nursery should have a named individual for ACs and may also be able to offer support with engaging the LA.

@sassygromit

NO more research needed In Terms of direct contact... as the research and evidence informed the introduction of section 51 (?) contact orders... the lower family courts/cafcass/CS have failed to catch up with it... as have APs
The evidence that LAs continue to fail to assess re statutory kinship care PRIOR to bringing cases before the lower family courts, let alone their fail,ures to appropriately assess and support parents is prolific, resulting in Researchers suggesting their will be pandemic of young adults bringing lawsuits against LAs, suggest as a country we have learnt zero. Cases brought to date have focused on the failures of the church ( mass shipment of children to Australia)....do today’s children have to wait until they are in their 70s to feel complete? I hope not. But the facts are, as many have mentioned here, CS decisions are always ‘ resource based’.

I have no issue with adopters-in General, in fact Im Glad they are there - (given the majority of FC are in It for the financial reward ). But Im Simply not prepared to excuse LAs or those who collude with them to disadvantage children and their families ( and by families, I include both birth and adopters)

But the facts are, as many have mentioned here, CS decisions are always ‘ resource based’ the resources such as they are have been held to be wholly inadequate in the 2018 independent enquiry - ie in relation to all things adoption, in every respect. I agree in spirit that everyone has failed to catch up with the current and past research and recommendations, but more research is needed I think, about how to make contact work, how to best help children in relation to separation from bio family, how to deal with life story work, and more.
s51 provided a mechanism but it was not seen as a big change to the status quo, more as a mechanism amid ongoing discussions and research about contact, i think. But certainly, I find it beyond appalling that the same mistakes and misunderstandings which were being made when I was young, decades ago, are still being made now. As for LAs, a lot of problems there.

@sassygromit, sadly, yes.....I think provision from central gov across the board has been proved to be woefully inadequate! NHS, ASC, CS. but It’s not an excuse for professionals to behave unethically.

I think section 51 was introduced based on the research, and had the lower courts made use of it we might have seen ‘the seachange’. McFarlene had hoped for. I’m not aware of any cases were it’s been implemented though. There was an unsuccessful case last year (post adoption) for an application .... I really hope I do not have to go down that road.

Aren’t potential adopters asked at the outset if they’d be prepared to consider direct contact? I’m sure there is a tick box for it on the national register.

@ClArabelle67 here are two legal commentaries re s51 in case you haven't seen them. The first recent 2019 and the other 2014, and it seems the conclusion drawn in 2014 still broadly stands:

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed200419

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed136606

The first refers to the UEA research (as did the speech by LJ McFarlane which you linked in a different thread):

www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3437903/0/Contact+report+NEIL+dec+20+v2+2013.pdf/f2d766c7-39eb-49a3-93b7-1f1368a071a1

The first commentary above has summarised some points re the above research. I looked through it quickly the other night, and it highlights the fact that there is no correlation between direct contact and instability in an adoption - this is a key point as this has been a hotly debated point in the past. And that there does seem to be a correlation between how satisfied the adoptees were with the level of contact (which included direct) and the extent to which they were thriving. The personal qualities of the adopters are very relevant in relation to whether direct contact will work, as is the quality of emotional support available for adoptees is very relevant.The research states that it is limited to a particular group of adoptive families, not a survey across all of adoption, but also makes it clear that the above surmises are notwithstanding that fact.

The speech by LJ McFarlane highlighted the above research as essential reading for everyone interested or involved in adoption also the 2018 enquiry. It also interestingly talked about the introduction of an approach similar to private law cases re contact - drawing really interesting comparisons I am sure you agree - though having said that I think many involved in private law cases would say that while absolutely recognising the need for contact, far more of it should be supervised, not unsupervised, in cases where there has been abuse.

In summary, I think more research is needed to reinforce the points which have been made and also more about child devmt and parenting guidance in the context of a child being apart from bio family to inform both adoption policy and practice and the selection of adopters and the training of adopters. Also a more thorough and consistent analysis of "risk" in this context.

In the meantime I agree with the first legal commentary, children's services need to have a better, more accurate, understanding of the research as it stands.

It isn't just a question of provision, I think, it is also a question of culture. It is also galling that a vast amount of public funding goes on private companies running children's homes and fostering services.

@sassygromit, I. With you on all of that.. a d it shou,d be based on a case by case basis, not a blanket policy...continuing contact decisions should absolutely be based on risk vs merit. But ofthe. It’s based on resources ( supervised contact, for example).... as much as I want to be PC I’m totally against continued contact when there is proved harm/neglect...

Sadlt, the money simply is there for LA to support continued ied contact, let alone early intervention.... these are bigger, political issues I think?

And yes, MsFarlene et al envisaged a seachange to the approach to closed adoptions, which hasn’t happened, and how could it when VS is so underfunded... they are either playing catch up or unethically making decisions about permanacy based on finances . I think the past few years NALGO reports reflect that.

I honestly have no idea what the solution is ( as side from proper funding for early intervention, not only in CS, but MH,DV intervention etc).... and of course for adopters....

It’s a difficult situation and seems everyone is getting a raw deal... how can we gather more evidence on continued contact if it’s not happening?..and it’s not supported, for everyone involved? If you are an adoptee and you take on a child that’s been at risk and the your asked to facilitate contact, without support, at the same time as bonding with a child/dealing with any fallout...your effect ly being asked to put you LO at,risk...

.... I have only just found out about the existent of family justice Board’s... I’ll look into their reviews.. I’m also very interested in what the process is in other countries... how they safeguard children a d families...ive a sneaky feeling it’s down to more foundational economics, but I will,look into it ...

Re private fostering, I’m aware there is a massive issue.... but maybe the government here need to recognise FC appropriately, including family FC, so they’re not ru ing to private agencies.... I honestly thing the answe lies as a t more foundational level... education,social/cultural norms/ mental health support/early intervention etc..

I will leave you to investigate and report back! I think that there are two distinct issues - what should happen (with research to back it up) and what is impacted by political issues/funding shortfalls.

In any event, it is heartening that lawyers and research centres are contributing as they are.