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?

@Weatherforducks your notes from your fertility clinic won’t form part of your medical records. They are held by the clinic where you had your treatment and are protected by the HFEA. Your GP wouldn’t have a clue about your fertility treatment the only thing that would be there would be the referral for investigation.

@thehareandthemoon

You aren’t an adoptive parent. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

On one hand you talk about fostering ’a sense of belonging, of where they fit into the world and their family. I think it’s a really strong grounding for a happy future when a child has a sense of stability and ‘this is my mum / dad / brother / sister.’

Then on the other, don’t see a problem with using ‘own’ when talking about birth children, but not adopted children. The mind boggles.

Your personal view... as neither an adoptive parent or, presumably child, is just that. Several adoptive parents and adoptees have said that language is objectionable. 🤷🏼‍♀️

And this...

you have to talk to her about her poor, poor birth parents who weren’t able to look after her, you have to remind her at every god given opportunity that she is different

Is utter rubbish.

Point is WTCT if you teach your children that the language is offensive, then that’s how they will see it. I prefer clumsy / misguided.

Language is a huge part of belonging. When adoptive parents have their own language, it includes, which is great, but also excludes, and that’s something to be aware of.

My son is 15 , we have been a family for 8 years. Yes being adopted is an important part of his identity, yes sometimes we have to talk about stuff I wish we didn't have to.
Most of the time he is just a stroppy,spotty smelly teenager. We argue about clothes, music , staying up to late, homework -you know the ordinary every day stuff just like families with their "own' children. I don't talk to him constantly about being adopted. We do have to talk about him being different but that's primarily because he has autism.
For what it's worth, I don't think its uncommon for prospective adopters to worry about how they will relate to their adopted children. It worried me a lot. But for those of us that persist and do adopt, well we have come through tht and our children are very much ours.

Of course they are. But I’m sure at 15 your DS knows people do say things like ‘we will think about adoption if we can’t have our own,’ and know what they mean.

And you hare can’t imagine that that might be incredibly hurtful to Ted’s DS or Ted and therefore best avoided out of courtesy?

In terms of what is hurtful to adopted children, I think if you think you can change the way people talk for them, carry on, but I doubt it. Disruption is probably the most hurtful thing of all.

So your argument is ‘disruption is more hurtful so I’ll carry on using the words I want because at least they’re not a disruption?’

No, my argument is that if you act like a clumsy expression is the end of the world, your child will see things in similarly dramatic terms and act accordingly, making disruption a more likely outcome.

You’re aware that our children aren’t on this thread however? A few posters have politely said ‘please don’t say that, it’s hurtful’. It’s not really making it ‘the end of the world’ is it?

I think that expecting the world to adhere to positive adoptive language is unreasonable and setting up for failure.

So you’re sticking to your guns about the language you use to show us how misguided we are. It’s kind of you really.

What I’m trying to explain tldr is that most of the world will not ever come across adoption in the U.K.

Your adopted child on the other hand WILL have to navigate her way through that world, and when people are going out of their way to be offensive, you absolutely should correct them.

However, as in the case on this thread, my personal opinion is that by making a fuss about it it creates two distinct sides if you like of people who have adopted and people who have not. I don’t really see it in those terms, but I do find it interesting as I’ve been on both sides of this.

To go back to the OP, I don’t think any sane person could believe that what they are being asked to do is reasonable, yet some people - those who have adopted - believe it is. I think that in part is due to the fact that what is pushed forwards at and leading up to panel is seen as something not to be questioned and accepted as fact.

How about we look at this differently and suggest that a child’s parents choosing her name is both normal and reasonable, that contraception, TTC and sex are all highly personal and social workers need to keep their beaks out and frankly even if a pregnancy follows an adoption then we deal with that because that’s part of life.

Unpopular view, maybe, but it is just life. As is language.

You do need to be careful about the language you use with adopted children. My DD1 regularly says, 'I was born different', which isn't just because she's adopted but because of a head injury she had whilst in foster care at 6 weeks old (she came to live with us when she was 1), which damaged her sight and hearing.

One thing I've learned is not to talk about our DDs' adoption to their friends and their friends' parents. They don't like feeling different from their friends and that's their right.

Look we must all accept @thehareandthemoon is quite right really we must.
She's gor her vast understanding from somewhere and it's more valuable than anything people have learned through research and personal experience. She hasn't listened to any discussion contrary to what she's saying because she is right...

@patrick80 I hope the discussion points on the thread have helped you prepare your answers if they come up at panel, panel.is a funny beast and even then there is final sign off. Tense times and I do believe mist social workere are simply trying to get you there as close to a yes as you can be, because every slot is valuable and every slot from their point of view is potentially a new family for a child who needs it.

How about we look at this differently and suggest that a child’s parents choosing her name is both normal and reasonable, that contraception, TTC and sex are all highly personal and social workers need to keep their beaks out and frankly even if a pregnancy follows an adoption then we deal with that because that’s part of life.

Of course you deal with a pregnancy post adoption. That’s a world away from TTCing whilst being assessed. And having a baby in the very early days post-adoption is absolutely not optimum.

What’s wrong with wanting optimum? In life or language.

Point is WTCT if you teach your children that the language is offensive...

What on earth makes you think I (or anyone else) teach my
/our children it’s offensive?

Bit... It’s fine not to accept poor choice of language you know, and (try to) educate others as to why it might be clumsy/misguided/offensive and what alternatives might be better.

It’s not something people in adoption circles should simply sit back and accept because some people don’t see how problematic the language they are using is.

Most level headed, open minded people will listen, learn and adjust...

Who said you couldn't name your child? That's a new one for me. Unless you are adopting an older child and even then they will sometimes request a new name.

And as an adoptee my parents never talked about positive adoption language but I certainly felt crappy when people asked about my "real parents" or if they couldn't have kids of "their own".

I think you are making it hard for yourself if you keep those embryos. Once you get to matching phase, things get tough. You read files and files of children who were born addicted to drugs, who were physically and emotionally abused, who have suffered severe neglect. Children who have gone through hell and who all carry their history as trauma. Their birth parents might have serious mental health problems, might be drug addicted, might have severe learning disabilities. Usually it is combination of all of the above. You will be asked to make a decision on each child whose file you read. Will you be able to parent that child? Could that child become yours? What might the future hold for this child and what does that mean for you?

How will you feel about your frozen embryos when you read those files? Will you waver? What feelings will they bring up in you? You need to get to the point where adoption is your first choice. Your adopted child will be YOURS. You don't need those embryos, you will have your own child.

We adopted our children 7 years ago. They were 5 and 6 years at the time and have a very complex background. They are the light of my life. They are everything I ever wanted and no biological child could be more wonderful (or similar to my husband and me!). You will have your own child.

I have never taught my son that its offensive, I don't need to, he understands the implications well enough for himself.

I suppose if there is no point trying to influence the use of language around adoption then we should give up on racist, sexist, homophobic or disablist language as well

I think that's horrible of them to suggest you'd need to do that. Similarly I think it's unfair that the NHS wont fund a round of ivf if your PARTNER has a child (I was in this position) doesn't make sense.

This thread has made me more and more angry. I’m disgusted that anyone thinks they can tell you to destroy your embryos. And the people here trying to sound sage and knowledgable about ‘traumatised children’ and how it’s a completely justifiable request pre-adoption need ignoring if you can.
And those of you suggesting OP is somehow not ready to adopt because she’s not willing to blindly destroy her own embryos are perverse. (And dense).
Please ignore the social workers OP. Tell them as little as possible. They are suggesting something grotesque. As soon as they have moved a child to you they will wash their hands of you all anyway.
(And I know a lot about this from personal experience).

I have both a birth and adopted child. I came to adoption through medical reasons. I read this thread with great interest.

OP, when I went through adoption I wanted my birth child to have a sibling and it felt like the right time and adoption felt right (and it definitely has been). However, my son (adopted) has much more complex needs than I could ever imagine (don’t underestimate trauma!) that to add another child (regardless of how they joined my family) would be so detrimental to him. That had never been a consideration during the adoption process. I wonder if your Sw could have been hinting at this during your meetings? Personally, I hadn’t considered what my family would look like in 10 years time. I’d always wanted a big family and just thought I’d have more children. I found this crushing when I came to my own conclusion and perhaps wish this had been explored during the assessment process.

Also, panel is nerve wracking. For weeks beforehand, I questioned everything. What would they ask? What would I answer? Have I done the right thing? Could I have another birth child? Is it worth the heartache? Could I handle the trauma? What is trauma? What if I didn’t find the right child? I wonder if you are feeling the same. I hope you are more level headed than me and coping better than I did.

Good luck with everything to come and I hope matching panel comes along really quickly and you have your child/children home with you soon.

The trouble is traumatised child is not grotesque it's real. It's not dense to accept that, it's a reality for 1000s of families around the country.
The moment a child is removed from it's birth mother it's a trauma, and a trauma chucked in with all of the other trauma they have experienced.
And the process to adopt is so tricky because SWs want it to work. Yes you are more or less left to it, which is why they need to ensure they leave you with the best set up they can. Because it's crap and they know that.
If the OP isn't ready to release those embryos to others or to try just yet (even with a surrogate) then they aren't ready to say goodbye to what those embryos are the start of children and that is fine there is nothing wrong with that. I totally understand that I think SWs will too.
What might be a problem is IF the shit starts hitting the fan with an adopted child and the family decides to have a birth child. A family adding an adopted child to a securely attached birth child is hard, adding a securely attaching birth child to an adopted child's family is possible and happens but it can be hard really really hard.
The question is probably going to be why do you want to keep those embryos not why don't you destroy them. There is a difference.