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?

As an adopter I think it is not unreasonable for them to have asked you to draw a line under IVF before adopting.

Adopting after infertility can bring up a lot of issues around not having conceived your own child and you do need to have come to terms with it as much as possible. Keeping that 'door open' would hamper this for many people.

Note this is not the same as otherwise fertile people adopting as a first choice, though they would be asked to commit to contraception until a child was placed and well settled for quite a long time.

Seems like Social Services do their best to disqualify a lot of excellent potential adopters. No good deed goes unpunished.

I was told that it costs at least £15-£20k to vet and train potential adoptees

And how much does it cost to keep a child in foster care?

I adopted after failed ivf. We were asked to commit to contraception for 12 months after placement, though had I got pregnant naturally at that point I'd have been truly amazed. I wasn't asked about frozen embryos as far as i remember (we didn't have any anyway), but I would have thought agreeing not to use them for an similar period of time may have been reasonable.

That’s absolutely disgusting

So adopted children should never have siblings? What happens if you conceive naturally a year after adopting a child? Contraception can and often does fail.

There are now more adopters available than children waiting

Is this really the case? I knew there were more would-be-adopters of babies than babies available, but had been told there were many more older children waiting for adoption than families ready to take them. Surely there aren't even enough foster families?

In the experience of people around me their are plenty of potential adopters for babies and very young children.
Few want older children. I think it was Banardos who said "too old at four!"

This was usual and what was asked of us 16 years ago. I couldn’t face letting them perish, defrosted the last 5 and ended up with our dtwins.

@CakeandCustard28 My son is my own thanns

Social services has limited funds and resources for assessing.

If they assess a couple for adoption who aren't fully committed, or who drop out because they get pregnant / decide to have another go at IVF then not only have they lost the money invested, they have also not assessed a more committed couple. So that means a child / children stays in foster care longer.

Yes they are often crying out for adopters, but they want adopters who will see the process through to completion, and who will be suitable to adopted the children that need adopting, who are willing, if needed, not to have additional birth/adopted children. (i.e. If needed due to the needs of their first adopted child, which may not be initially apparent).

They can’t stop fertile couples from trying so I don’t think it’s fair.

Kateandme - the point is that any potential adopter must be mentally prepared to give up on the idea of having their own child. It's your mental state that is important to the SWs. The idea that an adopter can go on and have other children naturally of course does happen very occasionally but it is not as simple as just deciding to add to your family. An adopted child may well have many issues including insecurities and rejection which can manifest itself again if another child is added to the family.
Once adoptive parents have one child they often go on the adopt another but more rarely have a biological child, although I do know one couple this happened to.
Of course you can always adopt a sibling group as we did - so you have an instant family, sorted!!

I don’t think it’s that unfair. IVF is hell to go through. Adopted children have often been through enough. Parents focusing on the IVF process shouldn’t be part of their lives. Either let them perish or have them implanted.

I think it speaks volumes that those who have adopted can see the sense in this policy.
If you just nod and smile at social workers then you are heading to disaster with adoption. You need to engage.
But - done ivf, done adoption assessment. Both are so very hard. I hope this moves to the adoption board so that you get the best advice.
And my adopted child is as much my own as my birth child - but needs to be parented in a different way.

Exactly this 👌🏻👌🏻

Seems ridiculous that you couldn't adapt AND have another go at IVF.

I was an adopter but our placement failed. I never thought of the 7 y/o I had as anything other than my child for the short period he was with us. Sw want people who do not see adopted children as second best or am insurance policy.

I think it’s appalling and possibly discrimination against couples with fertility issues.

They could not and would not force fertile couples to be sterilised. At most they would insist contraception be used for a limited time. The equivalent would be asking you to sign an agreement that you would not pursue IVF for x amount of time.

Asking you to destroy those embryos is asking something they simply couldn’t ask of a fertile couple. It’s appalling.

the point is that any potential adopter must be mentally prepared to give up on the idea of having their own child.

That’s the third time the phrase ‘own child’ has been used to differentiate between an adopted child and a birth child.

It is SO offensive to many adoptive parents and adopted children, and yet people come on this thread, using that language, while trying to pontificate to the OP as to why they are being unreasonable.

It really beggars belief.

The idea that an adopter can go on and have other children naturally

Ooh, lovely. Now my children are unnatural, to boot 🙄🙄🙄

I agree @SinkGirl

I know two families who are mixture of adopted and birth children - it’s very unfair to target couples with fertility issues.

Three months on and I am still grieving for 'my' child having returned.

My DH and I went through IVF before we applied to adopt and then eventually adopted our 2 DDs. It was more clear cut for us, as there were no embryos, after only one immature egg was harvested. I was told that there was only a 1-5% chance of IVF leading to a healthy baby, so that settled it.

We had a preliminary interview with 2 social workers, who told us that we had to take time to come to terms with not having our own bio DC. We had to agree to go through therapy, which helped and the following year we were ready. I knew I was ready, as my DSis told me she was pregnant and I was just delighted for her, not jealous at all.

Adoption social workers have to be sure that you're not going to change your mind sometime down the line and, as you have those frozen embryos, they're bound to have concerns. (Although, from my experience with social workers, they're not exactly the most tactful of people so I can understand you being upset.

You need to have a thick skin if you want to get through the process, but if it's right for you it really is worth it, I wouldn't be without our 2 DDs now.

Sw want people who do not see adopted children as second best or am insurance policy

That’s fine. But they can’t force fertile couples to never try to conceive in the future, they can only request contraception while the process is ongoing.