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?

@sadwithkiddies this is the kind of invasive draconian decrees that lm talking about. Asking people who are to infertile to use contraception! Is no dignity at all allowed?!

Sounds dodgy to me. And as if the SW are suggesting that having-a-baby-and-bringing-it-up is an irresistible temptation compared to nurturing-a-child-of-trauma.

Which admittedly for some people it might be, but not for anyone who's making such heroic attempts to adopt.

Surely a guarantee that you wouldn’t use them during the process or for x number of years after adoption would suffice?! I think it’s absolutely unreasonable to say you must get rid of them. It’s entirely acceptable in my view to possibly want to use them at some point.

I’m curious as to how they know if you have actually used contraception or not if you are infertile - it seems bonkers. Anyone can show a packet of condoms or whatever. I certainly would not be arsed to actually use it if I had been diagnosed as infertile

EL8888
Adopted children need a different type of parenting due to the trauma they have been through. Adoption is about finding families for children - suitable families, not about meeting the needs of childless people.
It sounds draconian Yes, but ensures adopted children have what they need - a new baby when newly adopted is not helpful at all.
If people are easily offended by that the other issues will feel way more complicated - finances, bedrooms, leave from work, family networks etc. It is an extremely intrusive process - it needs to be for the children involved.

Adoption can and does fail even at the best of times,with the best intentions, why would SS risk it if they believe there's unresolved trauma,grief, attachment etc?
Are there really any people at all in this world without any of these issues?
I am in the beginning of the process of adoption from my home country, where orphanages are overflowing. Being in work is seen as a good thing. Having siblings and pets is seen as a good thing. Being a single parent is not a bar if you are financially stable.

I would withdraw from the reasons that Candy states. You could destroy them and then get turned down for adoption.

I supported a friend through the adoption process and was shocked to be honest. She was a single adopter, looking for an older child. Years of failed IVF behind her. She had a successful, flexible business, was completely self sufficient and mortgage free, but was told that she would have to close that down, despite the fact that she would have to provide for the potential child and indeed at the age group she was seeking, he/she would have been at school anyway. It became so impossible with the conditions imposed that she eventually gave up. A loss to both her and her potential son/daughter. I couldn't understand the logic.

Further, my parents applied to foster when we all left home. They had time, space, financial means and would have been perfect for the job. Because they were wealthy and had a large home and nice cars, they were rejected on the grounds that it would be unfair on the children to see that sort of lifestyle and not be able to have it themselves . This was 25 years ago now, so I'd like to think that things have improved since that attitude.

I didn't mean to derail from the OP's original question, but given my own experiences, I am not surprised they have been asked but I do think it's wrong.

I certainly would not be arsed to actually use it if I had been diagnosed as infertile.

Using contraception can be really helpful for your mental state if you’re infertile. You’re always looking for the miracle baby every month and it’s awful when your period arrives, even though logically you know there’s basically no realistic chance you’re pregnant. When you’re adopting, you have to have accepted that giving birth isn’t going to happen for you.

About a third of adoptions fail (I think, I might be overstating it) and it's usually because the DC doesn't want to be there/is violent to the adoptive mother and siblings/runs away/family can't cope with range of previously unadmitted SN.

Adoptions don't fail because the parents have another child.

@thewinkingprawn exactly! I currently can find little upsides to my fertility, one of them is not having to bother with contraception. I have had more than enough hormones and procedures as it is. My partner isn’t a fan of condoms, lm sure under the circumstances he would decline a vasectomy and be declined one!

Sorry meant infertility

I have a friend who adopted and then went through the ivf process years later and had a biological child.
I personally think that asking you to have the embryos destroyed is unreasonable. Asking you to commit to not using them for a certain number of years possibly is reasonable.

In order to adopt you have to give up any hope of your own child. While you still have the embryos you can’t blame the adoption people for g you still have hope.

EL888 SS are not interested in an person who is not full committed to the child/children they want to adopt. They adoption process is not to provide a ready made family for the couple but an absolute rock of a foundation for their future. You have to be in it for the absolute long term come thick or thin. They are only interested in people who are prepared to give up everything for a child who has already had a devastation start in life through no fault of their own.
The idea that you should be able to keep your embryos in case the 'adoption doesn't work out' is absolutely appalling as far as any SS is concerned. They are not there to make you a happy little family, they are only there to find the right family for the child.

but you could still do ivf in the future.just like if you didnt need ivf you might adopt and then go onto have more kids togther.why is it different?
i dont understand this.if i adopt.i would still possibly want a brother and sister for them.why is that wrong.should you kill any other kids you already have then?

Doubletrouble99 but i would never see it as the reason! it would only be to add to the family.you can give your all to more than one child.they can still be as loved and adored and cared for. people who adopt who dont need ivf arent told they must have the snip etc to stop them having future children

@Doubletrouble99 so people should be left with literally nothing then? Removing all other options they may decide to explore in 3-5+ years time, incase they MAYBE get to adopt? Embryos hardly grow on trees . You can’t pop out to Tesco to get more

A massive and emotive sacrifice which may ultimately decide to not be enough. It’s hardly reasonable or fair

In order to adopt you have to give up any hope of your own child.

Supersimkin2 - what a load of rubbish. Adoptions fail because the child is often much more traumatised than at first thought. The adoptive parents haven't been fully prepared as to what to expect and can't cope. SS and other agencies haven't provided enough support. The adoptive parents become traumatised themselves and end up with mental health problems. Their family and friends 'support network' disappears when they realise how much hard work a traumatised child is.
I could go on and on!

It's usual to ask this of adoptive parents, and if you think it's unacceptable then you are not ready to adopt.

It’s not even remotely usual and I think it’s unacceptable and I’ve already adopted...

Read the thread that a PP poster linked earlier.

It’s normal to be asked not to TTC.

@sueelleker No, you're being ridiculous.
But the potential parents would drop out of the adoption process if they got pregnant.
This is a waste of SW and LAs/Charities time and resources.
I was told that it costs at least £15-£20k to vet and train potential adoptees so you can understand why they don't want people to drop out half way through the process.
You have to buy into the idea of parenting a child you didn't give birth to whole heartedly if you want to adopt for the child's sake.

I think you should look at the reasons why the sw has asked this & speak with them again. Parenting a child through adoption will be different (whether from early childhood experiences or simply that adoption is trauma in itself). Although we had no fertility/ health issues we were asked to truly consider if we adopted would we be prepared to never have birth children (I.e the words were have you grieved this potential loss). We had already had these discussions and absolutely agreed that the child’s needs would be prioritised.

Ultimately, they cannot force you to do anything. If you would commit to be child-centric in terms of future adoptees needs (as they may not cope with having younger siblings) and explain this to sw clearly.

Nod and smile op. Keep nodding and smiling every time they bring it up. Once you are approved you are approved. Next week they will be obsessing about the size of your lawn.