Men should not be able to adopt

[clarinsgirl]

Obviously related to recent tragic events but something I’ve been thinking about for a while. In England and Wales 99% of all those convicted of child sexual offences are men (ONS). 91% of all defendants in child abuse cases are men (ONS). So start point for adoption is men alone cannot adopt.

Of course I realise it’s not that simple but really interested to hear what others think.

You can, however, mandate sw involvement till the child reaches adulthood. Funny, not, I thought you'd decided to bow out of this discussion. Welcome back Ted!

@ForDearSwan

It's not dismissive or completely ignorant to want more screening and more protections for cared for children that are adopted.

...... all because I'm advocating for better support for adopted children pre and post adoption.

This isn't the 'support' you were talking about before though? This sounds more like mandatory checking up / interference post adoption whether the child & parents want it or not.

I think most adopters would be all in favour of more support being available in a very easy way as and when they feel it is needed. Or even a prompt yearly, of 'would your child like some support'.
What people are saying is that they don't see why there should be mandatory 'screening' or 'protections' on them as parents post adoption over and above the general parenting population.

And I am not at all sure you have made the case for it.

If you want to support the children, make it easy for the parents to access support.

If you feel adoptive parents as a group are less trustworthy than general parents, and thus their children need extra protections then just come out and say so (and evidence it).

I don't think you are being very clear about either what you are proposing or your reasoning behind it.

If you are keen to advocate for adoptive children, please will you join the campaign to reinstate the Adoption & Special Guardianship Support Fund? The campaign group is called At Stake.

I don't think all adopted parents are abusive. I've haven't said that or even hinted that I believe adopted parents on the whole are less trustworthy as a group. I've been clear and given more than enough reasons and links as to why I've formed this view.

Adoptee's need and deserve more supports till adulthood. That includes regular sw involvement for the child and therapy.

What do you mean by 'screening and protections'? I feel we may all be on a similar page but your chouce of language is muddling things for me.

Yes, please, to regular and ongoing therapies for all adopted children and adults.

"if the adoptive parents were adequately trained and supported then they should be able to give the child everything they need."

I don't think that's true. There is nothing wrong with accepting that adopters can't do it all by themselves. We are trying to get the Gov to give adopters more support. Saying no, we don't need it, is not helpful frankly.

I didn't say they don't need it - I said in many cases. I also said of they were adequately trained and supported - that's not something they can do by themselves. What I'm saying is that there is a great deal of support out there but it is not mandatory nor do I believe it should be. I have extensive personal and professional experience with adoption. I have know children and parents who needed a great deal of ongoing support and therapy. I have also known plenty of others who managed using their own learned skillset and perhaps dipped in and out of support. I have known many children who would have been adversely affected if they had been forced into mandatory therapy and labelled themselves as damaged goods if they were monitored and assessed for their entire childhood.
Support should be there but no child should be made to feel that they are broken and need fixing.
Perhaps look at the adoption barometer or studies conducted with care experienced children and young adults to find out more about what is really needed.

Where is this ‘great deal of support?’

Many - if not most - adopted children have had traumatic experiences with social work in their past. Continual visits and supervision throughout the rest of their life would cause a great deal of anxiety and upset and could seriously undermine the child's ability to bond with their adopted parents and make attachments in their new home/school.
See it from the child's perspective - they said they are my forever family but why are SW still coming round? Maybe this isn't permanent after all.
If the social workers and the adoption team do their jobs right then the families should be able to move on with their lives dipping in and out of support where necessary.
Adoptive parents know how to advocate for their children just as well as biological parents do, if not even more so.

Ask your social worker. He or she should be able to guide you. Are you a member of Adoption UK? They have a great deal of resources and contacts. Depending on your particular needs, your school, childcare setting or GP can also offer advice.
If there's something specific I may or may not have advice
Feel free to DM me

We tried to get support for DD1 when she was about 14. It had a negative effect which put us off asking for her again.

Support for DD2 has been much better because the SW and therapist involved us properly.

Haha! Are you for real? There is NO decent support. I don’t know if you are being goady or if you are involved in the world of adoption, in which case, your responses are terrifying. No, I’m not a member of AUK because I object to paying to join an organisation which, in trying to be all things to everyone in the adoption triad, is seriously failing. Will joining an AUK webinar improve my lot? No, it will not. I have a teen who is self-harming so severely that I am terrified that she will accidentally kill herself. Not helped by the fact that she is blind (in utero exposure to drugs and alcohol, even though there’s been so much push-back on these threads that children are NOT removed because drugs and alcohol. But that’s by the by.) so I am concerned that she could choose the wrong vein or cut an artery. We did have a PASW, after a two-year-wait and she was great, but after six months, went off sick for five months. Because adoption is ‘stressful’. Tell me about it, mate.

I'm very aware that this thread has been derailed from its original point so I'll stop commenting.
I think one major flaw is that there seems to be a great disparity among areas of how things are done (much like in many other areas of health, social care and education).
Adopted children are different - there is no denying that but some of the issues that emerge in adolescence might not necessarily be down to the trauma of adoption. We can't really judge or assess how other people parent without knowing the full story and nobody will ever really know what goes on behind closed doors.
I absolutely agree that helps, support and therapy should be available. I can't get behind the insistence that it must be mandatory for all adopted children. That is impractical and unnecessary.

I'm absolutely not trying to be goady. Yes I'm very experienced in adoption personally and professionally. With respect, what you are experiencing with your child is not typical. You must realise that. It's extreme and I imagine the support you need extends beyond that of adoption. I'm really sorry if I've offended you. That was not my intention at all. What I'm trying to get through to people who have no experience in this area is that not all kids are damaged goods. All children are different and I don't like the assumption that they all need help as though they are poor souls. To suggest that my responses are terrifying is pretty insulting but I understand you're emotionally responding. I happen to think I've done a pretty decent job at raising happy healthy humans. It isn't easy but definitely worth it.

If you were genuinely involved and experienced in the world of adoption, then there is absolutely no way you would even consider using the expression ‘damaged goods’ about society’s most vulnerable children. How disgusting. Our children are not ‘damaged’ they are ‘harmed’. Genuinely, I’m always happy to engage in intelligent and sensible debate but I believe you to be a bad actor operating in bad faith.

I think you're totally misunderstanding me. That is EXACTLY how I don't want the children to be seen. That's my whole point! My children might have had a difficult start in life but being adopted doesn't define who they are. They are bloody amazing. I hate the idea of people seeing them as poor souls or like some bloody rescue dog. I'm sure you've come across these people too. They act like your Mother Theresa!
This thread has got way off track. I think adopters are getting a particularly hard time at the moment because of a horrendous event. I get my back up when people who have no experience or understanding of what it takes put their tuppence worth in on forums like this.
We probably have a lot in common. It's hard to get a point across on something like this - particularly where emotions and personal feelings are involved.
I genuinely wish you the best.

I adopted 25 years ago. I was heavily involved in local adoption groups for a large part of that period and have adopter friends throughout the country - basically i know a lot of adopters. And I don't know anyone who didn't have issues of some sort. Now, you may say that I was inevitably meeting other adopters with issues who were seeking out post adoption support, and that there are plenty of issue free adoptions out there. But I know such a wide range of adopters - some not from adoption support groups but from my daughters' schools and colleges, local special needs groups, my work supporting parents with ehc plans etc etc.

Most parents are resourceful and do what they can but there is no doubt that some will need more. And some families need the external input - say a child has a huge mother figure issue, that will probably require professional input.

I believe that all adopted children should receive a package of support - we had a terrible job getting a then Statement for our younger daughter, with school and LA both saying no. So we ended up paying privately for advice, Ed psych, SALT and OT assessments. It worked as we got the Statement and a place at an independent sen school, but it cost us a fortune. The reports also gave us a weslth of information which transformed how we understood her needs - oh to speak to the placing LA social workers who kept telling us everything was fine.

Imo every child should be assessed by an Ed psych, a speech and language therapist and an OT in years 1 and 5.

And ehc plans should be approved without having to fight.

And that's before we even get to therapy.

Also, I know a LOT of adopters of teens and young adults, from all over the UK. Many of us have been arrested and detained in custody on false allegations. What I am telling you is not extreme and not uncommon. If you were so professionally experienced in the field of adoption, you would know this.

We have clearly had very different experiences within the world of adoption.
I know a large number of adopters and adoptees too but you're right - I don't know many adopters (actually I don't personally know any) who have been arrested. I have known some professionally who have had false allegations made against them but I definitely wouldn't say it was the norm. In my experience this is far more common in foster care than after adoption but, as I say, that's just my experience.

I used the word screening in response to usernamalreadytakens post about the process it takes to become an adopted person. What I meant by screening is that all prospective adopters should expect to be screened. I used screening in response to that comment only. I'm in no way suggesting that sw involvement with adoptees till adulthood means adopted parents should/would be screened constantly or at all. I hope that clears any misconception you might have had.

Bringing this back- the original point was about who should be allowed to adopt and in particular the undeniable risk that men pose. There has been some interesting debate about the vetting process prospective adopters go through. In this case, that process failed absolutely. These men were still in the process of adopting and if press reports are to be believed giving huge warning signals in the form of multiple hospital visits and expressing desire to suffocate the child as well as concerns being raised by the foster parents. We can’t bring about change on the basis of single cases but this case isn’t isolated and data on male assault is overwhelming.

My title is designed to be provocative rather than a plan and comes from a place of frustration. There will
be an enquiry, lessons will be learned but this won’t change anything. I’ve yet to hear anything that is likely to stop this happening again.

This thread is not designed to attack adoptive parents, it’s just that this case relates to adoption and adoption, unlike giving birth to your own child offers a control point, an opportunity to protect which right now is not working.

I am so sorry to write this but this adoption thread on mumsnet is usually so lovely and supportive I am finding this thread quite unkind! I have adopted six, got no adoption support didn’t need it. I know I have been so lucky.
And I cannot understand why men should not be allowed to adopt.

Sorry you are finding it unkind - that is certainly not my intent. Not allowing men to adopt is obviously not the answer but we have to acknowledge that men pose a huge risk to children. They are responsible for almost all sexual assaults on children. Safeguards we put in place must recognise this.

While I understand the frustration about crimes perpetrated by men, there's plenty of women who turn a blind eye to what their husbands do and only care about their marriage. Baby P's mother comes to mind. Our society doesn't talk about abusive mothers as often because we all have been raised with the Christian ideal of the devout mother who just HAS to love her children above everything and everyone else, but reality is not like this.

Crimes commited by women are often considered "not serious" or "influenced by men", but if someone else can influence you to do these things or to turn a blind eye to abuse, you're just as unreliable as the main abuser, in my book. Didn't Preston's own birth mother participate in the murder an old lady, too? So while men are the perpetrators of most violent crimes, women aren't fully safe either.

Having said that, it's good to hold men accountable for their contributions to crime statistics. If they don't like women pointing this out, they should hold each other accountable and start organizing to do better.