Letterbox

[Brieandcamembert]

Has anyone ever got a response from the birth family years after no replies?

I always send lovely detailed letters and ask questions to try and elicit a response.

No significant literacy issues in either of them. (We did FFA so corresponded via the contact book).

Neither birth parent has ever written back. The complication is they have children adopted across 4 families now. Ours are the youngest. I wonder if it's too much of a task to send 4 letters or if we might one day hear back?

Neither were very motivated during proceedings.

But I don’t think it should be continued if it’s at the detriment of the child, especially if they are asking for the letters not to be sent.

If a child is in long term foster care or an SGO with direct contact, they can say no I don’t want to have contact with parents today and the sessions do not go ahead. Why are adopted children not afforded the same autonomy over their relationship with their birth parents?

yes letterbox is an agreement between adopted and birth parents, but it’s function is for the adopted child, so their wants should be taken into consideration

In our case it was complicated because one of my girls wanted me to write and the other one didn't. It is all so tricky. And when the elder one turned 21 the letterbox for her stopped - people should be aware of this as it came as a huge surprise to us. We ended up meeting up in person with half sisters as a result but that has not gone smoothly to say the least. We did ask if birth mother wanted to get in touch but she didn't reply.

as a Foster carer of 20 plus years and an adoptor I have to say that I have seen several cases where direct contact was most definitely not helpful to a child's mental health . Quite the opposite in fact.
There is no one size fits all as I am sure we all know. Personally I would like to see a system that truly prioritises the child's best interests because often I feel they are sacrificed to placate adults needs instead. No.child should have to engage with adults they have no wish to or have their person information shared if they want it kept private. etc
And if a child wants direct contact and it is safe and helpful to.facilitate it then the adoptive family should support that in my opinion.

@Arran2024 sorry I completely understand that situations are complicated, and there is no judgment of the decision you made to continue. I apologise if it does come across that way,

@flapjackfairy i hard agree with your post, I’m open to direct contact if it’s in the child best interest, and is something I would consider with my oldest, and would happily facilitate it if that’s what happens in the future.

My youngest birth parents really wanted direct contact but I KNOW it’s not right for my daughter right now, and would be done purely in birth parents interests.

I also know that she feels rejection easily and them continuing to not reply will have an effect on her as she grows up. I can’t hid that they don’t reply, as my other daughter gets two letters a year, and when she’s old enough to connect the dots and feel the reject I will stop. I’m not going to continue to do something that harms my child, when I’m in the position of being able to
stop.

I have to disagree to an extent. I'm empathetic to the birth "parents" to a point.

However, I absolutely categorically do not think that direct contact is in the best interest of a child (maybe very rare cases of older children being removed).

How can they ever feel like you are there real and only family if they are made to see their genetic family?

Adopters are not baby sitters, they are a child's parents. Too many adopters make so much of adoption and cause issues. Children should just be your children (albeit, incidentally knowing thar someone else just happened to grow them).

Sorry, but imo avoiding the adoption issue rarely works out well. You can insist on the children being "yours" when they are little, but in the teenage years they will do what they like. It is easier to keep them in your family rather than eg running off to the birth family if you have drip fed info about the birth family, if you are open to some contact later on.

I have to disagree to an extent. I'm empathetic to the birth "parents" to a point.

Why put parents in inverted commas? The child you have adopted has a biological family. This you knew before you adopted.

However, I absolutely categorically do not think that direct contact is in the best interest of a child (maybe very rare cases of older children being removed).

Why? Experts and more recently the UK government has said the exact opposite. Direct contact, is, where safe to do so, in the best interest of the child.

How can they ever feel like you are there real and only family if they are made to see their genetic family?

You are not and never will be their only family. You knew that when you adopted. Ties with biological family are vitally important.

Adopters are not baby sitters, they are a child's parents. Too many adopters make so much of adoption and cause issues. Children should just be your children (albeit, incidentally knowing thar someone else just happened to grow them)

No adopters are not babysitter's. You are their legal parents, but not their only parents or family. Again you knew this when you adopted.

Of course children should still be children. Letterbox or direct contact won't change that.

Interesting that you believe it's due to adopter's making too much of adoption that causes issues and not that the child most certainly will have some trauma and identity issues due to the being adopted and removed permanently from all biological kin. You do a great disservice to your adopted child/children by relegating their natural parents to mere vessels.

Your child's natural parents gave them life, their appearance, their genetic history etc,. Do not relegate them to being 'someone else who just happened to grow them'.

I sincerely hope that in a few years, attitude's like yours will become extinct as adopted people are given, in law more rights.

Imagine someone telling you that your bio family weren't your real family? You'd be outraged. Adoption doesn't change genetics or that reality. Then imagine, due to a contract, that permanently and legally removes you and all of your kin from being family. One that you cannot revoke in adulthood and if you chose to, return to your natural identity. Then you had someone, particularly someone like you, their legal parent, dismissing a huge part of who you are and their identify.

Disgusting stuff from you really with views that definitely belong in the past.

@simonlebone
I think that adoptive parents attitude to birth parents depends to some degree on what has happened to the child.

Personally I would struggle to find any empathy for someone who had willfully committed violent acts or sexually abused a child. Would contact ever be safe? Safety should also include mental health of the child, should they really be expected to have contact with their abuser?
Another poster appeared to think I was derelict in my duty as an adoptive parent because I didn't think it was in my child's best interests to be present at a so called children's birthday party where there were dozens of adults drinking and taking drugs. Apparently I should just suck it up. Sorry but no.
Having said that, I adopted my son when he was 8. It would have been downright stupid to deny his birth family. I never faffed around with language, I didn't use first, birth or real family, no tummy mummy stuff, mum was always mum, dad was always dad. He had their photos in his room. But neither of them were a danger to him intentionally, though they had endangered him through neglect and inaction.
We all need to recognise that as adopters and adoprees we are in a very complex situation with interests that don't always converge and can be very nuanced.
I absolutely agree that theoretically contact should be something we strive to achieve. The reality is somewhat different.

@Ted27

I think that adoptive parents attitude to birth parents depends to some degree on what has happened to the child.

This is difficult I'm sure. However, the adopted parent/s should not be showing any type of attitude towards the biological parents. Factual stuff, without any judgment and communication is the way forward. Whatever the adoptive parents think of the child's natural parents there is no excuse whatsoever to hold these views, write them or speak them.

Personally I would struggle to find any empathy for someone who had willfully committed violent acts or sexually abused a child. Would contact ever be safe? Safety should also include mental health of the child, should they really be expected to have contact with their abuser?

I believe most would struggle in these circumstances. Perhaps you missed the part in my comment where I wrote "Direct contact, is, where safe to do so, in the best interest of the child"? Nobody is advocating, for any child to be unsafe.

Another poster appeared to think I was derelict in my duty as an adoptive parent because I didn't think it was in my child's best interests to be present at a so called children's birthday party where there were dozens of adults drinking and taking drugs. Apparently I should just suck it up. Sorry but no.

I don't believe reading that comment that's what was implied. Of course if the child isn't safe, then it stops. Along with sending an appropriate letter to the authorities to explain why.

Having said that, I adopted my son when he was 8. It would have been downright stupid to deny his birth family. I never faffed around with language, I didn't use first, birth or real family, mum was always mum, dad was always dad. He had their photos in his room. But neither of them were a danger to him intentionally, though they had endangered him through neglect and inaction.

This inmo is trauma informed parenting and a well understood and fair rationalisation of your child's needs.

We all need to recognise that as adopters and adoprees we are in a very complex situation with interests that don't always converge and can be very nuanced.
I absolutely agree that theoretically contact should be something we strive to achieve. The reality is somewhat different.

The reality, providing that the child is not going to be harmed and is safe, that it has been proven to be beneficial for an adoptee to have some form of contact with biological family members. Yes it's nuanced, however this is part and parcel of adopting a child.

I have known adopters who adopted children from criminal birth families, where everyone is terrified of the individuals. My girls' situation involves a paedophile ring. It is not always birth parents with struggles. Some of them are plain nasty individuals. And it is a challenge to develop self esteem inchildren with this sort of background. I tried to be pleasant about the birth family but my younger daughter in particular wants nothing to do with any of them. She is disgusted by them, she really struggles to accept that she came from this background. She has had therapy via the asf where the therapist tried to get her to relate to them and she was furious with him. She is an adult now and will not budge.

The idea that our children are always going to want to know their origins simply isn't true. Plenty of adopted children were seriously harmed by their birth parents and don't want anything to do with them.

Arran2024

I believe I've covered that in my last two comments. I understand, as do most that there are unsafe biological families. However, where it's safe, contact with biological family should be facilitated.

Adoptees aren't a monolith. Their backgrounds are varied. I was seriously harmed through neglect and addiction. I wanted nothing to do with my bio family as a child. That changed due to study and therapy. Never say never. I have beautiful, safe relationship's with some bio family members. It's hard to find I could have had these relationship's as a child, but due to policies at the time I was allowed no contact whatsoever.

I believe that as contact becomes more normalised, as it inevitably will, people, will be horrified at the huge human rights breaches made by others on behalf of (usually) what if's and outrage by adopted parents.

Often, adoptees, even in adulthood, are too afraid/don't want to upset their adopted parents by saying they would like to know more. You really don't know what it's like to live in a world where you are not like others. Adoptees aren't possessions and need the same human rights as non adopted persons. Open adoptions are, when safe to practise, the only way forward.

I'd also like to state that as an adopted person you all need to rethink how open you all (mostly) seem to be at sharing your adopted children/s stories. Do sort that out. The internet is forever. Trauma informed parents don't ever do that. Your child's story is theirs to tell and never yours.

I’m an adoptee and when I was a child it was normal to have no contact or information at all about birth family. That never bothered me and I grew up happy and secure in my adoptive family. As an adult I was curious and did trace my birth family - not because of any great longing, simply out of curiosity and wondering if we had anything in common. I really wish I’d never bothered - I continue to be hurt by their casual indifference. It is rejection all over again. It breaks my heart to hear what adopted children and young people have to struggle with these days, when some kind of contact is becoming the norm. For those children with criminal and abusive birth families, they have such a lot to deal with and I suspect there is precious little support from adoption services. A very sad and troubling situation for those young people and their families.

@simonlebone

No-one knows my son's full story, not even my mother. People think they do, but they really don't.

On line, we have user names, we don't disclose locations, we don't name our children or there schools etc etc. I've warned numerous people over the years when they were giving our identifiable information. It's very easy to be vague and change specific details, whilst still retaining the gist of a story.

@simo

MrsMatty
Perhaps things might have been different or not had you the opportunity to have had contact with your biological family as a child? It's not a question I need an answer to tbh I'm pointing out that things might not have been as difficult if this was the case.

I know only too well how hard it is to find acceptance due to not being able to have access or a place within my biological family because I was adopted. It's a hard no man's land. This is why I strongly support the government's new policy in opening up adoption.

Louder, for those in the back... When safe to do so.

@simonlebone

No one knows my son's full story, not even my mum. People may think they do but they really don't.

On line it's not difficult to maintain a decent level of confidentiality. We don't post pictures of kids here, we have usernames, we don't name the children, we don't disclose locations. We may invent a sibling or choose not to mention them. We lock down social media or have none all. When I was being assessed for fostering my SW was somewhat irritated because she couldn't find me anywhere.
If you knew my real name you wouldn't find it that easy to connect me to my son.
It's very easy to change specific details or be very vague whilst maintaining the gist of a story. I'd say there are only 2 things you can be sure of knowing about me, one is that I'm a single adopter, and that I have a son and his age. That's it.

I have a group of online friends who adopted around the same time as I did, so Ive known them for over 13 years. I still don't know where most of them live, except vaguely north West or south east, or their real names or their kids names.
I've personally advised many people on forums that they have given away identifying information.
So whatever you think you know or think we are giving away, you can't be sure of very much.

I seem to have posted twice, but once before I'd finished the post - editing!

Ted27
I'm gratified to hear that. I'm in a few groups and the amount of personal information they give is astounding in their own name.

For example there's a social media content provider, who believes they have their children's best wishes, but earns on the back of posting their adopted children on line and their business, including being (from what I can decipher) posting their adopted children's faces but believes he is protecting them by calling each child he adopted by calling them boy and girl. The parents are paid to post about their adoption story. This is unethical and must be prohibited by law. It's an abuse of these children. These children they were supposed to be 'saving'. This is an example of how the internet is forever. These children did not consent to having their images and their deeply personal. stories on the internet but here we are?

The adopter regularly how he is embarrassed or worried about being called in by the teacher because she's a SEN child. In what world is this acceptable? If you adopt a child, you have no business making money out of the child you adopted. For clarity, I'm taking about twodadsinlondon. His content is ownership and fucked up beyond what could ever be caused considered reasonable. That's just one of many who disregard their adopted children's right to privacy. It should be (perhaps it is but people ignore, not sure?). Regardless adopted parents need to stop telling their adopted children's deeply personal stories.

When I said there were some parents that do this it doesn't mean I believe you do so, I believe other comments cover this.

Imagine, twodadsinlondon think it's okay to post their adopted children's stories and diagnosis for all to see but think they are great parents? Fluck that. It should be illegal to make money on the back of your adopted children. Btw, I'm so heavily pro trans and LGBTqti don't even bother coming at me from that angle 😏

Adopted children's stories aren't for consumption from randomers.

@simonlebone

Yes I'm aware of a few people like that and I agree it should be banned.
God help us if Katie Price were ever to achieve her wish to adopt- but I'd hope SWs aren't that daft.

But there are many people who do the same with their birth children

By the way, I don't really think we are too far apart in our views

I'm sure we're not. However, we come from different angles. I hope, where safe to advocate, you are advocating for the human rights of adopted people, which includes being able to annul their adoption and return to their natural identity should they wish to.

BTW, an example of a crass, not trauma informed adopted parent...

vm.tiktok.com/ZGdAMnqwf/

To be clear. My little beans know I didn't grow them. We see their foster carers and half birth siblings face to face.

We only ever call birth family by first names.

They know their story, but irs very incidental. We just mention bits here and there. It's very much a background 10% & not who they are.

I am vehemently against face to face. Its confusing. Children were removed for a reason. They deserve to know their story but to grow up in a normal family, without feeling like they are split in two.

We do our letterbox contact (no pictures as i only want the children traced if they want to be)

Brieandcamembert

To be clear. My little beans know I didn't grow them. We see their foster carers and half birth siblings face to face.

It's good that they are in touch with their siblings.

We only ever call birth family by first names.
They know their story, but irs very incidental. We just mention bits here and there. It's very much a background 10% & not who they are.

Their story is very much more than you think. It's not, despite your protest, background or 10%. It's their genetic background, their health, identity, history, etc.

University of East Anglia (UEA) longitudinal Contact after Adoption study, we found that adopted young people who had maintained contact with someone in their birth family were more likely to have a good sense of their life story and the reasons they needed to be adopted, and they were more at ease about their adoption.

https://www.researchinpractice.org.uk/children/news-views/2024/december/staying-in-touch-changing-our-approach-to-contact-after-adoption/. 

This is an interesting read. It's about how adoption is changing for the best interests of the adoptee.

I am vehemently against face to face. Its confusing. Children were removed for a reason. They deserve to know their story but to grow up in a normal family, without feeling like they are split in two.

Contact with biological family has been recognised as being what is best by experts and now the British government. It doesn't need be be confusing. What is a 'normal' family? Families come in all shapes and sizes. They see their siblings you said and I'm presuming they are still whole beings? Why are you vehemently against face to face contact? A child can be removed for various reasons. If one or both the parents are safe, what's the actual issue?

We do our letterbox contact (no pictures as i only want the children traced if they want to be)

Gratified to hear you are doing letterbox at least. Tho the letterbox site says "Adopters are encouraged
to send anonymized photos".

https://www.pac-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Maintaining-Relationships-with-Birth-Families-Research-Briefing.pdf

Recently a survey was carried out re adult adoptees understanding about how adoption was for them. As your 'beans' will eventually grow, it's stark reading.

Littlebitoflove1234

If a child is in long term foster care or an SGO with direct contact, they can say no I don’t want to have contact with parents today and the sessions do not go ahead. Why are adopted children not afforded the same autonomy over their relationship with their birth parents?

Your argument raises a valid point. As in why is it not the same for adopted children? The new process for direct contact with parent/s or other biological relatives will right a wrong that's long needed. Open adoptions (where safe) is the best for a child in most circumstances.

Letterbox should continue where possible.

@simonlebone I suspect you're preaching to the converted here. However, you're posting about the population level data, and adopters are posting about individual level data- these are rarely the same.

At a population level, it's best for children to grow up in their family of origin. For our children... Not so much.

At a population level, adoptees benefit from contact. For some of our children... Not so much.

Something can be "true" at a population level, and yet not true for the individual.

The best people to make individual assessments for their children are the adopters.

I feel you need to say your bit on contact, for personal reasons, and that's ok. But we're not going to argue with you on this- we know the population level data and guidance, we get that. We then use that for very individual level decisions, for our own beloved children, when we know their full story, which we'd never share openly in this arena.

We're not the bad guys who need telling. We get it, we understand it. But it has to be implemented carefully, mindfully, thoughtfully, because these are vulnerable children, all with individual stories and needs.

@rabblenotrebel

Perfectly put !

If there does become a drive towards f:f contact I wonder birth families of adopted children will start coming forwards to contest for it?

What I do wish is that there was an email / Tapestry type set up for contact letters as I think you are far more likely to get actesponse if they could just write a quick instant online response like they might on Facebook?