Adoption social work ask for embryos to be destroyed

[patrick80]

My DW and I have been trying to have children for years without success. This culminated in us spending a lot of money on IVF which too was unsuccessful. We decided that the emotional stress (and financial stress) was too much and so gave up on IVF. Now a couple of years later we are going through the adoption process and obviously the IVF came up. During a discussion with the social worker, it was mentioned that we had some frozen embryos which are still being stored (not that we have any plans to use them). The SW told us it would count against us unless we had them destroyed. I am being unreasonable in thinking this request was completely unacceptable?

Personally, I don't think there is anything misleading on the opening post.

"Now a couple of years later we are going through the adoption process and obviously the IVF came up." That doesn't say how far into the process the couple are and if they were right at the start then they may feel it relevant to mention it. But they didn't need to say they had a panel date to get advice.

"During a discussion with the social worker, it was mentioned that we had some frozen embryos which are still being stored (not that we have any plans to use them). The SW told us it would count against us unless we had them destroyed."

That, for me, doesn't go against the thread title. Those words may be word for word what was said. But more may have been said.

OP I don't think you are unreasonable, as as I understand it you are concerned that practicalities (ie that you won't be using the embryos) is being confused with ethics (ie you being told what to do about an decision relating to embryos which have potential for life) and if I got that right, it sounds like a knee jerk reaction on their part and I hope that there was/is proper consideration given to the issues in the end.

Thanks for your 'concern' but I'm not upset by this and I don't need support. People who refuse to consider their language choices should be called out on it, just like people (as a PP said) using racist or disablist language which, IMO can be harder to get 'right' Ok, well I understand the points you have made, but you are in fact calling people out about something you personally find offensive, not something which is objectively offensive. In relation to "racist or disablist" language, what constitutes discriminatory language is covered by law. The same thing doesn't apply to "positive adoption language" ie the language you are concerned about here. I think on a 1:1 you can point out to someone the language you prefer and certainly if I were talking to someone who got upset about language I would be careful with my choice of words around them and I would hope they'd show me the same courtesy. But it is a personal thing, not an objectively offensive or discriminatory thing.

*a decision

I’m an adoptive parent and I think their request is very unreasonable. The adoption process is a stressful time with lots of decisions to be made. It’s not a good time to be making other emotive decisions and no one should be bullied into making decisions by SW. Your commitment or emotional connection to your embryos has no bearing to your commitment to adoption.

Can I ask whether there is an evidence base to support what is demanded from prospective parents? It is one thing to demand things you know make a difference, but to demand things which you only believe, or think might make a difference is quite quite another.

There’s a significant evidence base in relation to adoption, crossing a range of disciplines including child development, trauma informed practice, change and loss etc etc. How that evidence base is interpreted and understood, and then translated into practice and policy is less straightforward - throw in a multidisciplinary panel to the mix and it gets “interesting”.

I can understand the assessing SW pointing out that the panel might have concerns about frozen embryos. It’s not stopped the assessment process and she’s clearly happy to support the assessment so I guess in that discussion I would have expected her to explain how she has addressed this in her report and to explore with the coupe how they might answer questions about it. That assumes the issue has already come up as part of the assessment process and been fully discussed.

The way it’s described in the OP though it looks like this was possibly the first time the existence of frozen eggs came up in which case I can imagine the SW bring surprised and also thinking on the spot about the potential impact on the assessment and the PAR, which now needs updated to include the information about the frozen embryos, possibly with a panel date around the corner so limited time to talk it through.

No, you can’t be expected to destroy frozen embryos - you can, and most likely will, be expected to explain why you’re keeping them and what that might mean for any child placed with you. The fact that they exist should have been raised and addressed early in the assessment process so that you and your wife were clear about how you want to address it at panel if asked.

That’s an extremely sensible answer from @jellycatspyjamas

If the couple have decided not to have any further treatment then they may feel it is irrelevant, not necessary to discuss.

If they thought it would be an issue they would probably have brought it up at an earlier stage, or kept quiet about it completely.

The fact they did neither, suggests it is not an issue to me.

In my drawer there are photos of my first boyfriends and I. I never told my husband they are there. If he found them I would say they are part of my past and destroying them would feel unpleasant. If he demanded I destroy them to prove my love, I would question his thinking. They don't mean I plan to hook up with the guys on the future!

This is not the same. But in the same way it is a private piece of this couple's life and if the couple are fully committed to the adoption process then the embryos are a private part of their life.

Even the use of the word 'destroyed' suggests a total lack of understanding if that is what the social worker said.

My understanding is embryos are thawed and if not implanted will simply evaporate away. Some might bury them (or the drop of liquid they are in) beneath a tree or something similar.

As someone who once had frozen embryos stored, and had to fight for my low grade embryos to even be stored, it's very personal and emotive.

Their presence doesn't imply a lack of commitment to adoption any more than healthy sperm or eggs in the body of any other prospective adopter. When we adopted my dh had healthy (all be it slow) sperm and no one questioned him!

Their presence doesn't imply a lack of commitment to adoption any more than healthy sperm or eggs in the body of any other prospective adopter. When we adopted my dh had healthy (all be it slow) sperm and no one questioned him!
But your choice to not continue tycoon would have been discussed fully, possibly along with any medical reasons for infertility and the process you went through of grieving the possibility of birth children, and your commitment to adoption. Like anything, new information well into the process (particularly nearly at panel) will throw a bit of a spanner in the works because it suggests intention to mislead.

In the SW eyes, I can imagine they’ll be thinking “this has been a really open, transparent couple, they’ve been honest about some really difficult stuff, why has this only come up now”, because that’s what her Senior will be asking when she’s amending the PAR for panel, it’s what the panel will wonder if they’ve already had the PAR to review and now get an amended copy. It’s not about the existence of embryos evidencing a lack of commitment to adoption, it’s about that being drip fed to the SW after the PAR is completed which suggests the couple keeping their options open which, as you know, is a huge red flag.

It may be the OP was open all along and it’s the SW who didn’t pick up and explore earlier in which case I’d agree with you.

Either tell, or don’t tell, but don’t drop any new information toward the end of the process.

jellycatspyjamas yes I agree. We did discuss it and i expect tgis couple did too. It-s very standard. And I think the discovery of frozen embryos should indeed lead to a discussion. 'what do you plan to do/what does this mean?' If the SW felt the existence of these embryos coukd be an issue s/he was right to say it. But if it was spoken of in the way implied here by the OP then I think that was wrong.

Just as every one else on the other (drawing a line under home study') thread did.

"...because it suggests intention to mislead." It doesn't suggest that to me. Quite the opposite. If they intended to mislead they eould not have mentioned it, IMHO.

If one is trying to keep a sectet, which can only be revealed by a person actually saying it, I think the person would not say it.

It would definitely have been better for the couple not to mention the frozen embryos; The SW wouldn't have found it, as it would have been in the hospital records, not in the GP records.

It's easy to fall into the trap of seeing the SW as a friend after several weeks of interviews, and over share with them. I've done that in the past.

But SS is still supporting their application to panel, soo personally wouldn't give it too much headspace. You will have the chance to demonstrate your commitment to the process at the panel.

Both times, I've been really nervous going to panel, and then the questions I was dreading (in my case, my mental health) haven't come up.

Jelly if I were thinking "This has been a really open, transparent couple, they’ve been honest about some really difficult stuff, why has this only come up now”

I might be inclined to think - because it is not relevant to this adoption.

No 'drip fed to the SW', simply unintentionally revealed.

Even the term drip feed has negative connotations. A very mumsnet term!

Connotations that one knows a bit of info is vital but holds it back for some reason.

There was no reason to hold this info back and then reveal it!

Eggs, sperm and embryos can be stored for many years and never used, but the decision to stop their storage is huge.

Really in a way bigger than the potential to use them if one has chosen a different route to parenting, IMHO.

I have several Christian friends (and am one myself). Christians who do use these services like many others of faith (or no faith) may have special significant to these embryos, which some others may not share.

That is a perspective some may not share or understand.

"which suggests the couple keeping their options open which, as you know, is a huge red flag."

I think keeping one's options open in relstion to an adopted child is completely wrong. And I have heard it myself and seen it and seen of it. All horrible to me.

This is not the same, IMHO.

"It may be the OP was open all along and it’s the SW who didn’t pick up and explore earlier in which case I’d agree with you."

That's possible. I mean we were not specifically asked 'Do you have frozen gametes?'

We said we were done with treatment and I think it was not explored in a huge amount of detail.

The fact people are allowed to adopt who have no fertility issues says to me this is hugely discriminatory to people who have had fertility treatment.

Ps what is tycoon?!

Lizzie so true. I was worried about so many things! In no particular order: the fact we had a birth child would to against us; or the fact we are Christians; or .y weight; or my previous mental health issues with anxiety!

In the early stages I even worried my house was not clean enough!

@Italiangreyhound so true. I'm also a Christian and there's always somebody who will say that SS is prejudiced against Christians, which is something I've never experienced in my years dealing with SS.

From my experience with adoption SWs, they actually want you to be approved at panel, otherwise they wouldn't have started the assessment, it's a lot of work for them, after all. They have to prepare you for questions that might come up, and sometimes it means telling you things that you don't want to hear.

They also have to give their own account of why they've brought you to panel, so they can't leave any stone unturned during the assessment.

Your job is to convince a group of strangers on the panel that you're someone who can be trusted to look after children whose own parents weren't able to do it. They have to be cautious; who do you think has to pick up the pieces if it goes wrong?

To be honest though it's SW's job to ask the right questions as it is our responsibility to give answers. I was totally open and honest when I applied but there were things I wasn't exactly going to volunteer either. That should be expected. Besides which anyway I feel like this SW is blowing this way out of proportion and being unethical. I doubt a SW has ever asked a fertile couple to permanently sterilise themselves or even asked them to justify why they haven't permanently sterilised themselves so how is this any different? SWs have a duty to try and assess that a couple takes adoption and the surrounding issues seriously but they also have to accept that once the AO is granted there's pretty much nothing they can do to stop a couple raising this child just as they want. Personally I think that they sometimes make too much of irrelevant issues to try and compensate for this when they should really be focussing on whether the couple has the integrity and strength of character to raise an adopted child sensitively and put them first

@jellycatspyjamas there was no intention to hide anything or "drip feed". We were open and honest with the ASW at all times. We were asked a question about stored embryos and gave an honest answer (which we could have lied about and they would have no way of checking). We didn't realise this would even be an issue. We had made very clear we didn't plan to continue with IVF. I don't see the need for a scorched earth policy to prove that we really mean it. I personally find it unethical to make such a request. I would really love to hear HEFAs perspective or a fertility healthcare workers perspective on this.

lizzie 100% agree with loads of what you say but in my experience when things go wrong it is not the social workers who pick up the pieces.

It is the families themselves who are left working through things. That's been the message here on these mumsnet boards!

But yes, I agree in theory with everything. Social workers are out to do the best job possible. I have fantastic social workers, all except one, who went on sick leave very early on.

Yes jannt good points.

patrick so much rooting for you and your wife and hope it goes well.

i had (past tense).

Actually, yes, that isn't exactly what I meant. Getting help for my DD1 (10) has been like banging our heads against a brick wall. We finally got help from Post Adoption Support but it wasn't easy. As long as the adoptive parents are prepared to persevere, then SS don't get involved at all.

I was talking about adoption disruption here, though. If the adoptive parents give up, then the children go back into care, and that's when SS have to pick up the pieces.

I personally find it unethical to make such a request.

Did they ask you to end the storage of the embryos though or did they say their existence might count against you? One suggests they won’t take you forward if you don’t, the other highlights it’s an issue that you need to think about ahead of panel. I fully understand the ethics around IVF, and storage of embryos - I chose not to go through IVF because I knew I wouldn’t be able to square the circle around what happens to genetic material if I then decided not to continued or, indeed, if we were successful what would happen to any embryos.

Has this come up as an issue throughout the assessment or just ahead of panel? If the later it suggests the assessing social worker’s Senior has a concern and has possibly seen other applicants have an issue at panel. Tbh I’ve never seen it raised as a concern by panel beyond the couple being able to explain why they were keeping them in storage (usually for faith or ethical reasons), and the reasons aren’t usually disputed or disagreed with.

How have you agreed you’re going to deal with it? I assume the SW is taking you to panel and is supporting your application and will field any questions re IVF?

Ps what is tycoon?!

My phones autocorrect for ttc 😁

Yes, 8Lizzie0869* I know what you meant. I do know of one case where an adoption broke down quite early on and I do think there had been a failure in the process beforehand, but nothing to do with fertility treatment.

However, I also meant that even when children go back into care, if there has been an adoption order then adoptive parents are still involved and often still need to be emotionally and physically present. That is my limited experience.

It's also my 'experience' (well from reading here) that the issues that put adopted children back into care are all the issues they bring into the adoption with them, not something a social worker could ever fully prepare for!

So I guess what I mean is for most cases I think adoptions break down because there are just too many issues, and not enough post adoption support, not because adoptive parents aren't or can't do their bit or because social workers fail to spot something vital.

@patrick80 you definitely do not need to answer this but did you read the other thread linked to, early on?

I was on that thread 7 years ago and everyone on that thread was equally offended at the suggestion a prospective adopter's stored sperm be disposed of.

Anyway, just really hoping it goes well for you.

Ah man just tell them you've done it.