Special Guardianship orders

[Ted27]

@Glenlivet

have you actually read the circumstances in which SGOs are made.
If you read the below SGOs are applicable where there is an existing relationship or connection with a child. This is not the case for the people coming to this board seeking advice about adoption.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-special-guardian/apply

Yes that's what I thought special guardian ship was,I'm sure its a whole different thing.

Yes. Special Guardianship is completely different to Adoption, like long term fostering is.

My son has extensive medical information. And his original NHS no and information within that CAN be accessed if required.

From what I have seen with Special Guardianship families this Order is fraught with immense difficulties for the children. Barely any Support from SW's to help with challenging behaviours, being pulled apart by birth parents trying to undermine the Special Guardian, birth parents keep asking for more access, the Special Guardian loosing the family as members on different sides.

Honestly from what I have seen Special Guardianship leads to far more problems than Adoption does.

But... regardless of what I have seen or think it what @glenlivet thinks it is the JUDGE who decides what the long term plan is for a child: long term fostering, special Guardianship or adoption. This legal decision has absolutely nothing to do with Adopters.

I can see why for an older child an SG might be appropriate as it keeps links to birth family whilst giving more stability.

I can see why for extended family an SGO might seem more appropriate than turning an aunt into Mum or whatever.

I can't see why / how an SGO would be appropriate for a 3 yo being placed with non related/known people.

When we adopted, our wider families knew these were our children forever, and they have treated them as such. We (and grandparents) have made long term financial commitments to them as well as emotional ones. We know our DC have a birth family, no one is pretending that is not the case, but our DC are legally part of our family and that security and stability is good for them.

@UnderTheNameOfSanders

My son came to me at nearly 8. I can't see that an SGO would have been better for him.

But the key point which glenlivet refuses to acknowledge is that the decision to adopt or for him to move under an SGO was not mine to take.
If I had said I want this child to live with me and raise him to adulthood, but I will not adopt him, I will only have him under an SGO, he would not be with me now. Same goes for any other prospective adopter.

@Ted27 My DD1 was nearly 8 too.

I wasn't thinking 'adoptable' age, I was thinking ~11-16yos who maybe would still appreciate the extra stability of an SGO but feel they are too old for a 'new' family.

I see SGOs as a 'better' way to do kinship care, and also a more committed LTFC.

@UnderTheNameOfSanders

Interestingly enough I am just about to leave work as I have been approved as a foster carer under a specific scheme for that 11-16 age group.
As a foster carer I don't think I would want to take on the legal responsibility of an SGO of a young person immediately. It might be something I would consider later on.
But that comes back to the guidance I posted. SGOs apply when there is an existing connection with a child or young person.

We have several care leavers in our family who were considered too old for adoption at the time. When they see their adopted siblings and all the stability and support their siblings get, they feel they got the short end of the stick - yet again. Their foster carers also could not consider SGO because it would have meant even less support than the little they got. My children have very strong feelings about older children being given the chance to be adopted.

Adoption offers the most stability and the strongest sense of belonging, both of which are fundamental to good outcomes.

it appears @Glenlivet does not wish to engage with us on debate about this.

@Ted27 its so much easier to scatter gun a less than informed opinion over multiple threads than engage in a debate. SGOs are far from ideal in many situations, or the child wouldn’t have been freed for adoption in the first place.

Adoption severs adoptees from their family, their heritage, their ancestry, complicates legal access to birth records, medical history (harmful) and open adoption, letterbox contact with birth family is at discretion of adoptive parents. Legal guardianship is a better option.

🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️

@UnspokenL

Have you read the legal framework for SGOs

They are applicable where there is an existing relationship with a child.
It is not something prospective adopters can offer

Is it really that difficult to grasp.

Lets take this step by step:

Adoption severs adoptees from their family

yes, legally, and yes physically as adoption happens when the brith family has failed to keep the child safe

, their heritage, their ancestry,

adopters are encouraged to 'promote the child's heritage'. Where possible adopters of similar background are sought for, but thi can't be at the expense of the child spending an excessive time in a non permanent placement

complicates legal access to birth records, medical history (harmful)

Other than the birth certificate, what birth record are there that aren't medical? My DDs have copies of their original birth certificates in their life story books. As far as I am aware, medical information from prior to adoption is still in their records, I know because I asked for some details of birth weight etc.

and open adoption, letterbox contact with birth family is at discretion of adoptive parents.

Adopters use this discretion (generally) in the best interests of the adopted child. As the legal parents that is their obligation. If they feel that contact of whatever type isn't working for their child then as their legal parents they have that right.

Legal guardianship is a better option.

Legal guardianship isn't currently an option unless there is a prior relationship with the child. So the argument is somewhat moot.
Legal guardianship does not permit a surname change making the child easier to find by abusive parents.
Legal guardianship ends at 18 whereas a parental relationship lasts a lifetime.
Legal guardianship does not give a child a fully functioning extended family.
Legal guardianship does not give a young child the permanence they need.

@UnspokenL Obviously some adoptees may wish they had been placed under a SGO instead of adoption. But under your proposal I think many current adoptees would lose out. May I ask what your personal background is so I can understand your position better?

@UnspokenL btw I don't think any adopters here would deny that there is a lot of trauma in adoption. There is the view it is the 'least worst option' for many children.

By the time the courts decide on adoption, a child will have been removed from birth parents because they haven't kept the child safe. The child will be with foster carers. Moving the child again from FCs gives the child another loss. It is those early experiences and moves that causes most of the trauma. It isn't whether the child is then placed under SGO v Adoption order.

Of course there is trauma in not being with the birth family, but the whole point is there is more trauma in staying with a family that abuses / neglects / harms the child on a day to day basis.

Note I am not talking about historical adoptions where unmarried mothers were forced to give up their babies. I am talking about the vast majority of modern day adoptions, where the child has been failed by the birth family.

I'm adopted. I'm just sharing my lived experience of being an adoptee and the issues we face lifelong as adoptees. I think it is important for adopters to know how adoptees feel as they are rarely heard from or listened to. We do struggle with our identity, which is why many adoptees wish to keep their original birth name, many would like dual birth certificates for example, to show birth and adoptive parents. I am just advocating for adoptee rights and educating, from adoptee perspective. Hope that helps.

I too am an adoptee. I know about my background, have met birth family, have my original birth certificate. I certainly don’t struggle with my identity and have never wanted to retain my original name. Trying to imagine what it would have been like to have had guardians instead of my lovely mum and dad… I would have missed out on being at the heart of a wonderful family - and a very big extended family who mean a lot to me. The sense of security and love from my adoptive family was and is precious. Had there been just a guardianship, I can only imagine how lost I could have felt when that ended at 18.

I also have an adopted grandchild, who as well as being much loved, has the security of the extended family for life. Little One is very well aware of their birth family, none of whom were capable of keeping the child safe. You may think guardianship the best thing @UnspokenL but you do not speak for this adoptee.

Thank you for coming back to us @UnspokenL

Adoption is a minefield and very complex for all parties of the Adoption Triad: birth parents, adoptee and adopter(s)

What I can say is that nowadays it is drummed into prospective adopters about the importance of identity and keeping the lines of communication open with birth family. And there is still access to all the pre adoption medical records.

At the heart of everything I do is my son. He knows exactly who his birth family is, sees lots of photos, we talk and talk about birth family. He is involved in writing the letters to birth family. I think about birth family every day and cry with my son on their birthday, mother's day, father's day.

He needed to be adopted - the Judge said that very clearly. All relevant family and friends were approached but all of them were a significant danger to him. My son needed to stay alive and to have some chance of having a life of some happiness.

If my son ever wants to contact his birth family when he is older I will be right by his side. He has not been told any lies or had things kept from him. At the age of 7 he knows everything and moreover remembers so much. He remembers horrific things that happened. It will be his complete choice whether to make contact or not.

@UnspokenL & @glenlivet those of us who have adopted are doing absolutely everything we can for our children. We are fighting every day: schools, medical professionals, society, for our children to be understood and listened to.

Nobody wants Adoption to have to happen but sadly it is needed. If there are no suitable options for family/friends to take on SGO Adoption has to happen.

I know some Adoptees are very angry about being adopted but please understand that us Adopters are doing absolutely everything we can for the children we have adopted. And we want to connect with birth parents and adoptees on here. There have been two birth mums very active at times on here. They have helped me. Thank you to them.

Take care @UnspokenL / @glenlivet xx

Hi, as an adult adoptee with 56 years of lived experience and a long successful career involving legal contracts, I can confidently say that the benefits of guardianship over adoption are huge. Importantly, guardianship is an HONEST TRUTHFUL relationship where the child has both a birth family AND one or more guardians - REMOVES the pretence and all the associated trauma that causes an adoptee.

Legal guardianship is just like any other contractual relationship, the exact terms and nature of the contract can be tailored to the individual case. For example, if there is a real safety issue where the child surname needs to be changed, this could be done but the new surname would not need to be the guardian's surname.

Yes, the current arrangements for triggering a guardianship might be problematic. BUT, that is simply a process change that CAN and SHOULD be made by REPLACING adoption with guardianship.

Importantly, guardianship is an HONEST TRUTHFUL relationship where the child has both a birth family AND one or more guardians - REMOVES the pretence and all the associated trauma that causes an adoptee.

In what way is adoption a pretence or dishonest? My children know they are adopted, they know they have a birth family and that they became part of my family through adoption. We have their original birth certificates and their adoption certificates, and they know their surname changed when they were adopted.

They are able to grow knowing they have the security of a family where they are wanted, loved and cared for, where their dad and I made a life long commitment to them come what may.

Special guardianship has its place, but it’s not a substitute for adoption. It used to be the case that children weren’t told about their adoption, or given information about their birth family or the circumstances of their removal from birth parents, which I can understand causes significant issues around identity and sense of self but that hasn’t been the practice for many years now.

@Junedog @UnspokenL

I started this thread so there could be debate, so all voices could be heard but
just to give some context for how this has arisen

glenlivet has for some time been pushing the case for SGOs on threads started by people seeking advice about adoption. Its just not helpful or appropriate. As far as the current legal framework goes its just not an option for prospective adopters to offer SGO instead of adoption.

I dont know any adopter who sees adoption as anything other than a last resort, we all see the trauma in our children. Yes if at all possible children should stay with the birth family. But where those relationships are abusive and damaging to the child, adoption can be the least worst option.

I will be leaving my office job in a few weeks to become a full time foster carer. I’ve had a meeting this morning about a 12 year old who it is planned to be with me until adulthood. He sounds so much like my son, but I am struck by the difference in how I feel about him and my son at the same point in the process.
I will do my absolute best for this child, no doubt I will grow to love him, in the same way as I grew to love my son.

But it does feel very different - and I know those are my feelings. But there are reasons why it is thought long term FC is better for him, just as for my son it was thought the best option was adoption.

@Junedog Im interested in what you say about SGOs being an honest and truthful relationship which removes the pretence, which implies adoption is not.
My son is a young adult, as far as I can see we have an honest and truthful relationship. I don’t deny his birth family, in fact I have fought tooth and nail for him to maintain contact with his dad and his brother.

"I started this thread so there could be debate, so all voices could be heard but
just to give some context for how this has arisen

glenlivet has for some time been pushing the case for SGOs on threads started by people seeking advice about adoption. Its just not helpful or appropriate."

@Ted27 You say you started this thread so there could be debate, so ALL voices could be heard, yet when adult adoptees lend you their lived experience, you don't want to listen. We have decades of experience of being adopted, and your adoptees will all grow up. There are a great many adoptees we know that, when life events happen, realise how deeply being adopted has affected them and when not in a power imbalance relationship, when they are adults themselves and can speak freely, they start to process their feelings about adoption. Adoptees like us just want to offer up how it feels to be adopted and if we think that adoption is harmful and guardianship is better, then we will say it. @Junedog has given reasons why it is preferable. If you don't want a debate and to hear all voices, then you should have said that adoptee voices were not welcome on your thread.

@UnspokenL

I am listening, can I not ask a question?

I could say that you are not listening to what adopters have to say.
Would I rather my son had stayed with his birth family ? Actually yes.

But not one of his numerous aunties and uncles stepped forward for him, not in the 4 years he was being neglected by his parents, not in the 3 years he was in foster care.
7 years. Not one of them - all people in professional jobs, nice house, stable income who could have had him.
His brother- removed from dad in dreadful circumstances, when he was 8. One of those aunties had him when he was 6, handed him back to social services within a year, same when he was 13 only that lasted less than 3 months. Same auntie who took him for weekends when he 7/8, took him back to a house unfit to live in. He is 15 now, has barely had any secondary education.

For all adoptions flaws - you tell me who has had the better deal.

It seems to be that adopters are more than prepared to agree that SGOs are sometimes the best option. But sometimes it's just not there as an option. What do you suggest happens to these kids.
FYI - my son has had contact with his birth family throughout his time with me. He kept his full birth name. He now wants to change it. He wanted to do this when he was 14. I put him off then and I'm encouraging him to think again now. But he is 18 and its decision.
You have one experience of adoption. @MrsMatty does not agree with you - is she not allowed to disagree with you either.

@UnspokenL

Do you accept however that adoption 'decades' ago is different from modern day adoption?

Do you accept that most adopters today keep the birth forename unless advised for security to change it, and it is only the surname that changes?

Do you accept that maybe in the way changing your surname made you feel less belonging to your birth family, that maybe keeping your birth surname might also have negatives such as demarking you as not belonging to your new family?

I don't see how you can say SGO good, Adoption bad. Surely they both have their place?

@Junedog

Sorry I have to disagree. I am my son's mum in all the ways that matter.