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?

And I'm not saying @patrick80 is going to want to use the embryos but they will want to know the plan

I'm also not saying adopting is crap, I'm saying it that what SWs know is the best that they can leave you with as support for you and your child isn't good enough a lot of the time.

It seems perfectly valid to me (as an adopter) to ask about your future plans. And also query why you have kept the embryos if you do not plan to ever use them - your actions and your words have a possible mismatch, which is the sort of thing the SW should be picking up on.

If asked, you need to be able to explain your decisions, and be aware that the panel is assessing your commitment to adoption. Which the SW rightly pointed out could come into question while those embryos exist. Or it may not.

I have never experienced IVF or trying to conceive, so I cannot comment on how the emotional stress compares with adoption - but I can confirm that adoption often comes with extreme emotional stress, so this might not be the best reason for choosing adoption over continuing with IVF.

I wish you all the best, these are such difficult and personal decisions.

We have frosties too. Pretty much zero chance we will use them unless we opt for a surrogate but no way would I have allowed our sw to bully us into destroying them. It was never even presented as an option. Stand your ground and talk to a few other LA's if that's their stance as my personal opinion is that this is a pretty horrific request x

@patrick80 I've not read all the replies here. It's rare for the adoption boards to have 9 pages on any thread.

We have a birth daughter, and had treatment with donor eggs and had stored embryos for a frozen cycle. When the last frozen cycle failed we had a break of a few months and started the adoptoon. Our adopted son has been with us for over 5 years.

In my humble opinion it is utterly wrong for the agency to demand you destroy your embryos.

What they need, IMHO, is an assurance from you that you are fully committed to adoption and have no currant plans to use these embryos.

I assume they are stored for a limited time which you can choose to extend if you wish (I believe) and some will make decisions at a set time to end the storage.

People going through adoption do need to assure the social worker that they are fully committed to being parents by adoption and hopefully you can do this without being pushed into something you regret.

The position of having to make a choice about these embryos seems utterly unfair to me.

I'm really sorry you told them because it is none of their business!

After years of treatment I knew I could not realistically get pregnant again but if they had asked us to use contraception I would have done so. (We were not asked.)

But those embryos are not something you should have to make a decision on to satisfy a social workeR. If it limits your chances in adopting I'd say decide what you both want to do and stick to it.

Good luck.

Ps someone else on here went through this many years ago (7 years maybe) I think they challenged the decision but not sure how it worked out.

I think it is an invasion of your privacy. Yes, adoption means you have to share a lot of information, potentially be asked to lose weight etc (I was!) But this, to me, is a different level of intrusive!

Having been through adoption and IVF I found IVF much more stressful.

I am still ploughing through the thread and spotted that this old thread was linked already.

I hope you read it as it is very helpful.

I'm not sure if this is the one I was thinking of. It might be or there may have been another.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/adoptions/1903780-Drawing-the-line-during-home-study

@WTCT I am an adoptee and I think @thehareandthemoon has it absolutely right. There are a lot more important things than using the "right" language. Understanding the child, loving them, bringing them up to have skills to survive in the world and to reach their potential - all far more important. The language issue you are so upset about is not as relevant or important compared to some of the issues adoptees have to deal with. I understand you have strong feelings about it, and perhaps you could get some support about it from other like-minded adopters elsewhere, but not derail a thread about it.

Patrick finally got yo the end! Phew. I wholeheartedly wish you the very best.

My goodness, what a thread. Please do update is when all is sorted or start anre thread in adoption. We are a relatively quiet area of MN (normally!) But usually very supportive.

There are a lot more important things than using the "right" language.

To SOME people involved in adoption

Other adoptees on this thread have said they are affected by language choices and frankly it's so easy to change, it's not something that should go unchallenged.

Most adopted children need a lot more than just love - fostering a sense of belonging is often important to that and language is part of that.

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'

And yes - the thread has derailed somewhat. But when I was going through the approval process, I found it helpful to build a good understanding of the sorts of things I might face as a adoptive parent, no matter how big or small. Helped me prepare what I would say, for example, to my children when someone used terminology like 'own' or 'real' in from of them. Something that, no matter how many people try to normalise, isn't right and does affect both my children and a lot of other adopted children I know.

Italian This thread started elsewhere and was moved which is why it got so long.

happy new year to all.

Thanks for all the comments and the link to the other thread. Was good to hear the different perspectives.

patrick80 as you've spotted even adopters have different views!

Re-reading that other thread was intetesting, what was especially interesting was that everyone on that other thread seemed to be totally understanding the original posters viewpoint and very shocked at the 'expectations' of the voluntary agency involved.

UnderTheNameOfSanders Yes, I picked up on that but usually there is a mumsnet note on the thread to say it's been moved.

In this situation, interestingly, the adopters don't all agree anyway. Often there is more consensus on here.

I think there is consensus about being (and showing) commitment to adoption, and your adopted child. There are different opinions about how that relates to having frozen embryos.

That possibly reflects our different journeys to adoption, and whether we have experienced IVF.

I haven't (experienced IVF), so find it difficult to understand why someone would keep embryos while not planning to use them.

That doesn't mean it isn't possible to keep the embryos AND be fully committed to adoption. But I think it is a valid issue for discussion for a SW assessing potential adopters.

And it seems as if the title of the thread - compared to the OP - is a bit of an exaggeration. The SW did not say (from what the OP said in their post) that the OP had to destroy the embryos in order to adopt, but that having embryos might raise questions at panel about their commitment to adoption. Surely SWs/panels should examine potential adopters words against their actions? And encourage potential adopters to reflect on discrepancies?

The exaggeration of the title is a bit worrying. That doesn't mean the OP would not be a great adoptive parent - but why say the SW is asking for the embryos to be destroyed, when it seems as if the SW did not ask that? But pointed out that this seems contradictory to their decision not to use them, and that they need to be willing to explain the discrepancy?

@Allington I agree. The fact is, the OP and his DW have actually been given a panel date, which means that the SW is supporting their application. She was just warning them that the frozen embryos might be an issue at panel. The SW can't predict which questions will come up at panel, so she was right to warn them.

There hasn't been any misunderstanding at all from what I can see. The OP has stated that they were told it would count against them if they didn't destroy them. ANY pressure by ss to do this IMO is totally unethical. Embryos are a potential for life that once destroyed you can never get back again. When you first apply to adopt you have no idea whether you're going to be approved to adopt and even after that I didn't realise that it was an absolute no to introduce siblings in some way or other when the time is right. Plenty of people have families mixed with biological and adopted children and you deal with that exactly like you deal with any other issues, by being sensitive and focussing on making your children feel loved and accepted. Asking that fertility treatment ceases whilst your applying to adopt is perfectly reasonable, exploring prospective adopter's feelings around IVF and their thoughts about how they've greaved this and their intentions for the future are also perfectly reasonable. Making any suggestion that a couple ought to destroy a potential life just for the chance to adopt is I think completely indefensible. We were asked about our IVF attempts and made it clear that we had no intention of using our frosties for the forseeable future but that we may consider it IF we felt it was right for our adopted child and there were no issues with this response at all. Each to their own but if I was at all encouraged to to this I'd tell them where to shove it

Allington I agree most people are of the opinion one should be fully committed to the adoption process. But I am not sure that is such a surprise, even to non-adopters.

Mist people who have had fertility treatment and have frozen gamers (as I did) will most likely tell you it is a hugely emotional (expensive) and challenging journey. For me personally mich more complicated and difficult than getting to adoption approval.

Also, the title of the thread is 'Adoption social work ask for embryos to be destroyed' maybe the social worker did use that language and did ask for the embryos to be destroyed. In which case, to me, that is shocking language.

Frozen gamets!

Jannt86 I completely agree.

We did choose to give our very low grade embryos a go at life before adopting. We knew it was a very long shot. It did not succeed. I don't regret doing it and I am not sorry it didn't work because we adopted our gorgeous boy.

But I do know if I had been put under pressure then. It would have made the whole thing hugely stressful.

It is usually best for adoptive children to be the youngest in the family. Sometimes another child (birth or adopted) does follow an adoption. That may be planned or unplanned or in some cases another child born to the birth family and suggested to join their older sibling in an adoption so a bit of unplanned and planned.

Another child on a family is not always a disaster!

What is curious to me is the reactions on that other thread, from 7 years ago about frozen sperm, saw prert much every poster completely in agreement with the OP and as far as y can remember once the issue was revealed no one questioned the posters commitment to adoption. But here various posters have made sweeping generalizations and pronouncements about what this means. Maybe it was partly due to this being in another sectopn of mumsmet initially but I'm not sure that wholly explains the difference in replies.

I think this thread has been derailed by a number of things, it started off in AIBU, and inevitably a lot of people with no clue about adoption chimed in with some quite frankly ridiculous comments.

For my part, and I don't think I'm the only one, I made an an assumption that the op was at an earlier stage of the process. I think most people were trying to explain what the possible reasoning could be behind it. I did ask upthread if he could clarify exactly what the SW had said but that was never answered. The fact that they have a panel date was a massive drip feed and suggests that the issue has been resolved, so maybe not a case of a bullying SW after all but an SW exploring pertinent issues?

@Italiangreyhound

Similar threads on MN can elicit different responses depending on the posters involved. There do seem to be people on this thread who genuinely think that being asked to destroy embryos to signal commitment to adoption is ok. Personally I think it’s unethical and a human rights issue.

I don’t think the fact that the thread was originally in AIBU explains it - It seems to be mainly people who had been through the adoption process who were defending the premise.

TatianaLarina I agree with you. Which is why it puts it st odds with that thread 7 years ago where even requiring destroying frozen sperm was considered wrong.

Ted it seems like this is a 'new' issue in that it has just come to light for the SW and prospective adopters.