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.

rabblenotrebel · Today 11:10

I don't think we're in competition as to who does the hardest work.

Nor do I. However, there seems to be a wif of savourism and ownership.

And I'm a "natural" parent- nothing unnatural about me.

The term 'natural parent' isn't a slur towards adopted parents. Many people use the term. It is used along with bio mother as the term 'birth mother or father' reduces the natural parents to mere vessels and in some ways dehumanises them. Again, with the defence.

You obviously have things you need to say, and that's understandable, and we're willing to listen... But we place what you say in a wider context. You're not the one true voice.

No, true. However, my voice and other adoptees voices are vitally important to this discussion/debate.

I've enough friends/family in real life and I've done enough therapy to last me forever respectfully, I'll pass on your offer all the same 😏

Littlebitoflove1234

My posts have acknowledged that direct contact may not always be possible. Please don't twist my words or interpret them to suit.

Why aren't people using the quote facility on this thread? Quoting by copying and not even putting into italics is making it hard to follow.

Personally we followed SW advice which was that direct contact would not be in the interest of our DC. As studies continue advice changes. It is also quite possible for someone to look back and say 'I should/shouldn't have had direct contact' but no one really knows how the other option would have panned out.

flapjackfairy · Today 11:29

**
Sorry one last thing.
It was in fact ME who offered direct contact to my child's birth family and bent over backwards to try to make it happen at considerable inconvenience to myself . I always supported it.
They birth parents could not be bothered basically and it fizzled out so any legal changes to direct contact doesn't affect me either way.

Well done.

And I have never tried to paint you as an unreasonable adoptee either. Just a somewhat naive one who is unable to look at the situation dispassionately. You have a story obviously . I could hazard a good guess at it and it has obviously scarred you. I am truly sorry about that. But he birth families seem to be getting a free pass here.. At the end of the day their inability to parent adequately and safely is what lead to your adoption and the adoption of others like you which is v sad. But adoptors are not to blame for that .

My life story or your personal ideas about it aren't the subject or the concern here. There's no need or requirement for you to 'hazzard a guess' or make this personal.
Your interpretation that the natural or biological parents are getting a free pass is your interpretation. My concern is for wider rights for adoptees.

I am not some evil adoptor denying my child their birthright as you seem to think.
Anyway I have no more to say and will leave it there but I do sincerely wish you well going forward. All the best.

Again with the defense. Do stop putting words into my mouth I haven't written or spoken. This is now the 4th time I've had to categorically deny this accusation.

you have acknowledged that if it’s not safe for the child then it shouldn’t happen. You don’t seem to be acknowledging that even if it’s safe it might not be good for the child in some cases: I apologies if you feel you have made that clear, but it doesn’t read that way.

UnderTheNameOfSanders · Today 11:52

Why aren't people using the quote facility on this thread? Quoting by copying and not even putting into italics is making it hard to follow.

I didn't know there was that function. I rarely post on here. Until this thread.

When you use the quote it looks like this ^^

Which makes threads way easier to follow.

@simonlebone I'm glad you hear you're well supported.

I hope you've got what you needed here?

What would be your ideal response to your posts? What are you seeking from us?

Littlebitoflove1234

you have acknowledged that if it’s not safe for the child then it shouldn’t happen. You don’t seem to be acknowledging that even if it’s safe it might not be good for the child in some cases: I apologies if you feel you have made that clear, but it doesn’t read that way.

Your being slightly pedantic inmo. Safe means safe mentally and physically. It's difficult to put everything into a post but it's obvious what safe means.

rabblenotrebel · Today 12:02

** I'm glad you hear you're well supported.
I hope you've got what you needed here?
What would be your ideal response to your posts? What are you seeking from us?

Thanks. I'm giving a different viewpoint. Nothing more or less. I'm unsure as to why you believe I'm seeking anything from you.

If most of the posters here are all saying it should go ahead if it’s safe, physicality, mentally and emotionally then what is the debate that your having?

and the language of birth parents, you and other adoptees might not like it, and think it dehumanising, other adoptees are happy with this terminology. Why is your way the only way?

I don't think it is obvious what 'safe' means.

Also, certainly wrt mental safety it can be extremely difficult to tell whether short term disruption is going to lead to (a) long term disruption or (b) long term peace of mind.

Which is why direct contact is such a difficult subject.

If a child has direct contact and suffers short-medium term negative reactions to it, how do people judge whether to keep going or not?

I honestly don't think you are giving a different view point.

It's interesting that you feel you are, and are looking for disagreement.

I hope you find what you're looking for, but not from me.

also can you not see that if a birth parent is the “natural parent’ the very obvious term for an adopted parent would be the ‘unnatural’ parent? And how that might feel a little dehumanising to?

Maybe we're ethereal parents?

@rabblenotrebel

Or imaginary as in imaginary friend

Given that I'm neither light or delicate so ethereal wouldn't suit me

@simonlebone

But you aren't really giving a different viewpoint. We all agree contact is beneficial where it is safe.
All you are doing is banging on about change is coming and we're just going to have to suck it up.

I will be interesting won't it to see if there was any 'change' to see just how many birth families are considered safe.

Because maybe what you are not seeing is that it already happens where it is safe.

And safe also has to mean safe for the adoptive family. Because we are humans and our safety matters too.

Yeah, I'm decidedly solid myself!

No change in the guidance would help our BPs engage in contact, sadly. In our case, direct doesn't happen because they can't manage it.

The idea of "safe" is an interesting one. The fact that most adopted children were forceably removed from unsafe situations suggests that they may not be safe. Even if my girls' birth parents had completely turned their lives around, the girls would still be terrified of them because of what they did. Even if they had supported contact in a venue with social workers around, they would still be terrified of them because of what they did.

My two were terrified when letters arrived in an enveloped franked with the placing authority name.

"Safe" is doing a lot of lifting here.

oh yes what I would give to be ethereal !

I can't imagine social care approaching all parents of adopted children with legal cases to enforcement direct contact.

Children may as well be fostered if this goes ahead.

From my understanding of the adoptee voices movement they would prefer that child were not adopted and went into sgo’s or kinship care

Wouldn't we all prefer that children could go into sgos with someone known to the family, or kinship care?

Adoption only happens if that isn't an option. Adoption is a last resort.

I know that if my kids were fostered, at least one would be in a secure home by now, with no future.

They don't speak for all adoptees of course. Adoptees like my 25 and 27 year old daughters, who have no interest in their birth family, stay quiet - they are uninterested and not out campaigning - so the voice of the contented adoptee is non existent.

Completely agree, I’m not sure how any more sgo’s could take place, I know with both of mine that multiple assessments of family members were undertook before adoption was decided, when they say it’s last resort I believe it.

I think I was more making the point that the adoptees voices group on Facebook/X seem to be advocating for no adoptions at all, so the previous post about it meaning its more like foster care would make those people happy.