More Contact with Birth Families

[Arran2024]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vl5w3zy2eo

I think I contributed to this - I definitely commented on proposals around contact as part of a research study recently. I said then that I thought they were being naive and I'm sticking to it!

There is a high likelihood of the adult adoptees engaging in these studies being ones whose lives are all about adoption. The happy well rounded ones are probably not engaging in discussing their adoption years later.

I know a fair bit professionally about adoption and trauma.

I think for over 5s that have been removed but maybe don't have frightening memories, there might be some argument for contact. Those people have been parents to that child, even if not excellent ones.

Those removed as babies and young children, I really struggle to understand why you would want to be nipping off for a cosy day at the zoo with them.

I'm really alarmed by it and I worry that once it becomes a thing, birth families will be coming forward making requests to see children long since adopted, putting their parents in a difficult position.

They had the children removed for a reason. They aren't just being looked after somewhere else, by some kindly folk, for them to visit.

I do however agree that letter writing is odd in 2025 and think that a better idea would be a message board app like the schools and nurseries use, where you could post little updates (& photos if you do that) for them to comment on on specific dates (I.e. not free flowing contact necessarily but on the month the letter would be due).

I think a lot more birth parents would log on and respond if you put a little social media style update of "Thor learnt to ride his bike last month & Jack got his 10 meter badge at swimming. We just came back off holiday" so they could just post a great news!

I don't think a lot of birth families have the literacy, organisation or sometimes motivation to write letters, especially when there are multiple kids in different families and they aren't a letter writing generation.

Your first paragraph - in order to be happy and rounded as adults it is necessary to process trauma from early years, this means understanding what happened, what effect it had on you, how things could have been different and working through the feelings in relation to everything. This will apply to any trauma, even if the adoption had been successful. Do you think that every adoptee who has gone through this process then automatically decides that direct contact would not have been a good idea/is not a good idea generally? Because that doesn't stand up to reason. The sort of people who are engaging with studies or writing about it will be those who have gone through the process - those who have not recovered tend to bury it and not want to engage, so often the opposite of what you think. Out of all the people who do engage, and who have processed early trauma well enough to be living happy lives, opinions about direct contact will depend on various things, mostly to do with how they see the world as individuals. So to explain further, you have some (happy and rounded) adoptees in favour, and some (happy and rounded) not in favour. Based on the imperfect information we have, the majority seem in fact in favour, they think that direct contact is important, and this is not linked to how well they have processed trauma or how happy they are. Professionals generally think that direct contact should be far more the norm than it is for a reason though, and it sounds as though you are going against the tide.

More research is needed though. And more support.

I think your comments about letters are good.

Those removed as babies and young children, I really struggle to understand why you would want to be nipping off for a cosy day at the zoo with them [...] They had the children removed for a reason. They aren't just being looked after somewhere else, by some kindly folk, for them to visit. If you read real life direct contact stories, it isn't about "nipping off for a cosy day at the zoo" "with kindly folk". It has to be extremely well thought out and structured with more awareness of children's needs both immediate and future and their very complicated and sometimes conflicting feelings.

I am not sure what profession you are but I do think looking at the research which has been done might give you a different perspective.

I didn't want to get sucked back in but I have - I don't have time for long discussions on it so I will now keep to my hiding!

I think this will change adoption forever. Prospective adopter numbers are reducing at a shocking rate and post adoption support has been reduced. For this to work it needs huge amounts of money thrown at it, ongoing therapy and support for adoptees, birth parents and adopters as well as properly funded carefully thought out supervised contact plans. In reality, it will be a cheery wave goodbye and left for adopters and birth parents to figure out on their own.

One adoption agency is piloting paying adopters and this seems really sad to me. The money would be much better spent on fully funding and supporting contact so it is positive for children.

Shocking ! Bit of an overreaction there.
And you were rude to Ted suggesting she had ended contact for no good reason and should have tried harder.
And now you admit that you don't actually have any experience of adoption but feel.entitled to lecture adoptive parents on hiw to manage contact.
But like you.i.am done and wont be posting again. Best wishes

@littlemisscassandra

The sort of people who are engaging with studies or writing about it will be those who have gone through the process - those who have not recovered tend to bury it and not want to engage, so often the opposite of what you think.

I am an adult adoptee and have 'engaged with' the process. I am in agreement with the adopters on this thread whose children have been removed from their families of origin following oftentimes harrowing circumstances, that contact with birth families needs to be judged on a case by case basis and may be ill-advised in the majority of current situations.

This is not the 1970s 'Baby Scoop' era where single mothers were told that married couples would by definition offer their child a better life and records were sealed (and still are now, in some US states, where I am originally from) and children fed a weird fairy tale about being 'chosen' and your mum loved you so much she gave you away etc.

That sort of story did and does create a cognitive dissonance in an adoptee and everyone should have the right to the truth about their origins. (It also damages the relationship with the adoptive parents, IME.)

I feel very strongly, though, that truth about origins is not the same thing as actual ongoing physical contact with a birth family as a young adopted person. These proposals feel like an 'overcorrection' of previous wrongs?

An adoptee could easily need space to process the trauma they've experienced, which would not be helped by re-opening a wound through ongoing contact likely with people who believe they should be considered the 'real' family.

There may be circumstances where it's okay but as a general rule? No way.

The birth parents are responsible for untold damage to these children - adopters should not be expected to have no feelings and act like public servants in terms of facilitating a relationship with these people on top of everything else they have to do.

Adopters are already therapists. Every adopter i know has had untold difficulties to deal with.

These children need space to heal and grow.

Adopters need support and adding more obligations on top is hardly helpful.

Grown up adoptees who wish they had contact with birth family are entitled to push for this to be made part of adoption. Maybe they should think more about whether their situation is representative. My girls do not want to have contact with a birth mother who nearly killed them through neglect and deliberate injury and a birth father who was part of a paedophile ring and subsequently served prison time for it.

An alternative perspective here…I’m a long-time adopter of two non-birth-related children, both with significant disabilities and complexities. My AD1(very nearly an adult and placed with me as a tiny baby) has never had any contact, direct or indirect with any member of her birth family. In my opinion, this has been detrimental to her mental wellbeing and sense of identity. My AD2(9) has had ongoing direct contact with her birth mother several times a year, organised and supported by me (not blowing my own trumpet but just making the point that my regional adoption agency and PAC-UK are utterly crap). Birth mum is a care leaver and there are many generations of trauma. She is as much of a victim as both of my two ADs. In our family experience, I do see the benefit for my AD2 being able to ask questions about her birth family/ies jigsaws and to have the ongoing relationship. AD2 BM is no threat to either me or my child.

Just no. People who couldn't prioritise their own children do not deserve to get to have contact with them. The children are better off with nice families who love then.

@Pumpkinallspice thats possibly one of the worst things I’ve ever read on here. You clearly have absolutely no empathy at all.

Agreed. I would be amazed if this comment came from a genuine adopter.

I have 3 children. I had my daughter at 11 months old and then boy/ girl twins (full siblings of my eldest ) under FFA at 4 weeks old when they left NICU.

I have empathy for the birth mother and father but I also do not believe they should be part of my children's lives.

As an adoptive parent who did support direct contact my thoughts are:

• what research is there, and is it widely applicable? As direct contact is rare i assume those with direct contact are selected to be those with fewest reasons NOT to have direct contact. So it is a very skewed sample.

• birth parents CAN continue to hurt children, even in supervised settings, because if they are unreliable that causes further emotional harm when they don't show up. As happened numerous times with us. Sadly BM died of an overdose a couple of years after the adoption, so I am not sure how long we could have maintained it long term.

• a lot of adopters have to be therapists, lawyers, teachers on top of being parents. Giving us one more thing to deal with - because, let's face it, this is not going to be funded - just isn't realistic. We are finally at the top of the waiting list for Post adoption support, 10 months after DD disclosed sexual abuse (on top of all the reasons she was removed). We are a decade + into adoption...

• the cultural gap between birth and adoptive families can be huge. Not to mention a resource gap. DD was happy to build a relationship with an aunt and some cousins a couple of years ago, until they started asking her for money, and she discovered some nasty comments they had made behind her back...

@Baital I agree with everything you have said. Xx

the cultural gap between birth and adoptive families can be huge. Not to mention a resource gap.

This is a really interesting point actually that i hadnt considered. I also wonder how birth parents might react to the children looking and talking differently to them? E.g. if the children attend independent school and go horse riding, have music lessons etc. They dress in chinos and jumpers with smart hair curs. They don't fit the mould of what the birth family culturally understand. It could be quite uncomfortable to see their former child being brought up in a world so far from what they know.

It doesn't need to be that extreme. DD is in state education, and does extra curricular activities - but largely subsided through school (she has an EHCP), Sunday School, Council schemes such as free swimming, plus I pay for her main hobby. I know about, and access free or low cost activities (e.g. Scouts when she was younger), and prioritise them.

I am a single parent and not a high earner, but I am financially stable and a home owner.

All of that - fairly standard 'middle class' stuff, and very important in helping her develop life skills and self confidence - has created a gulf with her birth family. It's not just about money, although money is a factor to.some degree.

I’m aghast at these ridiculous comments about ‘cultural gaps’. If you can’t bring up children to have empathy and sympathy for people in less fortunate circumstances, then it’s on you. If you don’t want to do direct contact with birth families, for whatever reasons, then please just own it. Would you argue that you couldn’t do contact because you’re white and they’re black and so ‘cultural gap’. Children who have been given access to appropriate life story work can understand that their birth parents do not have access to the same resources. It’s obviously a huge part of their adoption story as poverty is a massive driver for children being taken into care.

If you read my post you will realise that I did support DD with direct contact, and have continued to do so. She decides who she is in contact with, and I have always taken the line that I have been very fortunate to have the support I needed growing up, and it isn't for me to judge people who haven't had the support they needed.

Her experience was an expectation from the birth family side (some - there are a couple of cousins who are just happy to be in touch) that she should support them financially, that she 'owed' them because she is in a better situation financially (well, I am better off financially, DD is still in full time education, so perhaps it was that I.owed them...)

DD was left feeling let down yet again.

And I go back to my question over the claims that research shows direct contact is best for the child. How representative was the sample(s)? Because I assume the only cases where direct contact took place were the times direct contact WAS considered appropriate. So it's not surprising that in cases where direct contact is thought to be beneficial, it turns out that direct contact has been beneficial. That doesn't translate into 'direct contact is always beneficial to the child'.

The "class" issue is pretty well understood in adoption, I think. Also taking children away from their communities and often their regions. And it usually involves Northern children moving south.

I am going to confess here that one of my daughters detests where she came from. When we adopted, we took the children back two or three times a year to try to keep them in touch with their roots. But they both hated it and tbh it was a hard sell - inner city deprivation is scary if you are say 6 and used to living in a leafy area.

So my younger daughter hates everything - I'm sure a lot is tied to that being where awful things happened to her.

But it makes her look "snobby" and when we reunited with extended birth family, they werent impressed - they judged her for her "posh" accent and her lack of street sense.

Yes, the assumption DD didn't have any empathy or sympathy was interesting .

DD has no shortage of that, and as she in state education in a large, multi-cultural city with areas of deprivation is quite used to people from a range of backgrounds.

Luckily DD has a couple of cousins, who are a decade or so older, and vaguely kept in touch with an occasional phone call, and now DD is old enough for social.media they follow each other and chat from time to time. They managed to get through the family chaos and have established a steady life for themselves in their 20s.

But she is definitely more wary about contact with other members of her birth family after the aunt and other cousins experience, which is sad.

We had this too, we used to have fairly positive phone contact, but when our son excitedly mentioned he now had a bank card and felt grown up birth mum started trying to tell him her bank details so he could send her money or she would ask him to tell us sob stories in the hopes we would send money. This unsurprisingly upset him and he realised she was only calling because “she wants my pocket money”, he now has no contact which is his own choice, he does however still read her letters. He’s ten, imagine trying to manipulate a then nine year old into giving you money, or grooming them to ask their parents to send money. That was all within our earshot too, I hate to think what she would have said if she thought we weren’t listening.

@simonjt that's where I am sceptical of claims 'the research says direct contact is beneficial' or 'siblings should be kept together'.

Also claims that research says 'direct contact is damaging' or 'siblings should be split up'.

There needs to be a lot more work to identify the factors that indicate one course of action is more likely to be beneficial to the child. Every situation has a range of factors that indicate one way or the other. A lot more work needs to be done to understand those factors, and how they affect each other.

One overwhelming positive for us was that DD's birth mother was 100% supportive of her having me as a second mother. She had already accepted she couldn't parent well enough, and wanted DD to be loved and looked after, and to be able to see her sometimes. She never asked for anything for herself, and was very loving and engaged with DD when we saw her, and as parents we had a mutually respectful and appreciative relationship, as far as it went.

The flip side was that her life was quite chaotic, and she sometimes let DD down by not turning up - if she wasn't sober she wouldn't show, which as an adult i completely respect, but of course DD as a child struggled with it.

And if she had lived the situation would have changed. Maybe the positives would have grown stronger, maybe she would have become sober, maybe the chaos would have increased or been more destabilising for DD. Maybe DD would have had phases of not wanting to engage, wanting to just put it behind her and get on with her life.

It really isn't straightforward.

Just as I wanted to go to bed and sleep i have comforted DD who is in tears processing that members of her birth family tried to exploit her. A random evening, and it hit her. So of course I have stayed awake, listened to her her, reassured her that she is loved without any expectation of a return. That she is wonderful and valued and loved, just because she is herself.