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.

I agree with you 100% men generally don’t have the same empathy as women and are more likely to have dark triad traits. Two men should not be adopting children - nothing to do with being gay, it’s to do with them both being men. And in this case one of them had the most depraved sickness and the other person, also a man turned a blind eye and also took part. Men are more likely to be sex offenders than women and that’s where the focus should be.

I wonder if adoption as it stands is really working for anyone. Not only the horrific case of children abused by adoptive parents but also all the adoptive families left without any support trying to parent children with such significant additional needs. Maybe moving to doing something more like long term foster care would be a better model? That already happens with older children and I know it's far from perfect but at least it means social services still visit regularly and that they are responsible for funding and securing support for the children as well as supporting them to transition to adulthood. If more funding was put into that would it be better? I could be completely wrong I fully admit that I'm far from an expert on this topic, my only experience is of working as a support worker for children with disabilities and their families and working with a few adoptive families through that. The adoptive parents I knew felt that they had been lied to about the extent of their children's needs by social services before the adoption orders went through, and then completely abandoned once the adoptions were completed. As for the point about men I agree that men are much more likely to be a risk to children but I'm not sure what realistically could be done about that. I don't think banning men from adoption is feasible. With the Preston Davey case I think there were so many times he could have been saved if people had just acted on some of the red flags.

As an experienced and long-term adopter, I agree that the current model of adoption is not, on the whole, working very well. I would go so far as to say that adoption as we know it in the UK is not likely to exist within three decades. The babies and children who are removed from their birth families have been exposed to such prenatal and early life harm, that parenting them can be beyond the capabilities of very many people even if the good intentions are there. Things are getting much worse for adoptive families in England as the Adoption & Special Guardianship Fund, which pays for specialist assessments and therapies for society’s most vulnerable children has been nearly halved. We are often refused access to universal services such as CAMHS as professionals seem to believe that adoption cures all trauma and attachment issues, plus inherited neurodivergences, as well as in utero harm caused by drugs and alcohol. Very many adoptive families implode in the pre-teen and teenage years when puberty strikes and young people can struggle with their sense of identity and their lack of belonging. Also, there is a big cohort of care-experienced children and young people who are so harmed by their early experiences that they actually cannot feel safe living in a ‘normal’ family setting where they are expected to love.

@Penny91 The foster carers I know had no support. None at all. I also don't understand why foster carers should be better at parenting children than adopters. It is just as hard for them, and I have seen several fc placements disrupt prematurely.

There clearly are social workers who lie to prospective adopters, or downplay problems, but there are also prospective adopters who do not want to hear the truth. I know adopters who were told about risks and refused to believe it.

It wasn't that I thought foster carers would be intrinsically better at caring for children. It was just that in foster care the local authority retains parental responsibility for the child, so the buck stops with them, and they are the ones who have the duty to fund and arrange services for the child and when they get to adulthood. With adopters they have parental responsibility and are fully responsible for the child once the adoption order goes through. Then any problems the child has after that the authorities can just blame the adoptive parents and wash their hands of all responsibility. But if it's the case as you say that social services still manage to evade their responsibilities for children in foster care and end up doing nothing anyway, it may not be any better. 😢

That makes sense. I'm sorry you've had to deal with the complete lack of support too. 💐 I didn't know that about the funding being halved, that's disgraceful but not surprising. 😢 What do you think will end up replacing adoption as it stands? What do you think would be a better alternative?

I actually think that we may revert to some sort of institutional-type living, but from a therapeutic perspective for those children who are so harmed by their early experiences that they cannot live in family homes. I know this sounds radical. But parenting such harmed children can be so intense that it actually makes sense for the ‘task’ to be shared among trained professionals who get the chance for respite when they clock off. I find it interesting that Josh MacAlister, the children’s minister, is extremely quiet about adoption issues but very vocal about the need to recruit 10,000 more foster carers. I think, given the apology on forced adoption, and the Preston Davey case, plus the Family Courts’ drive for lifelong links and ongoing direct contact for adopted children, that the government is pushing more for children staying in state-controlled foster care.

Personally, I don’t think it’s necessarily about being ‘lied to’ or ‘ not listening’, rather, I think it’s about the vast chasm of uncertainty and certain personality types predisposed to thinking that love can cure all. The churches don’t help in this matter. Especially as they are the organisations that sit around the government’s tables and influence adoption policies. Those of us who have been around for a long time know that love is not enough. I have been berated on these types of threads by prospective adopters for being negative and not knowing enough about attachment, trauma and the lifelong effects of drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, poverty, chaotic lifestyles and dysfunction. Because obviously I have worn a blindfold for nearly 19 years and stuck my fingers in my ears. I know hundreds of adoptive families from all around the country whose family has either disrupted, broken down or is in extreme crisis.

The figures don't match what you say: around 3% to 9% of adoptions end in disruption, which is not nearly the majority of them, and while it's true that adopters and adoptees both need more support (access to therapists that specialize in adoption, etc), most children do better in an adoptive family than in long term foster care. There are those that do have a better chance in long term foster care, I know a woman who's a stepmother to such a child and while she and her husband are not fit to work, let alone take care of anyone, the child does benefit from being in a foster placement more than he would be if he was adopted or living with birth parents.

There are no accurate figures, because local authorities and regional adoption agencies are not required to collect them by the government. Therein lies the problem. My own RAA only reports in to its constituent local authorities disruptions, so pre-AO. It does not report in adoption breakdowns, so post-adoption family breakdowns. The vast majority of adoptions break down post-adoption order. It’s a national scandal that this data is not collated accurately. I would refer anyone interested in the most accurate picture nationally to the BBC research of November 2025 in which it conducted freedom of information requests across all authorities. You can gain a truer picture of the scale of disruptions and breakdowns this way.

I gave quoted no figures here? You are bringing your own prejudices here?

That's an interesting idea. I think it makes a lot of sense. If it were possible to have something like small houses with a couple of children and a rotation of carers who were highly trained and remunerated well enough so that there was a chance of recruiting suitable people, then that could work better for some young people.
It makes sense that with some young people, if their only experience of family for a long time was people who abused and neglected them it might be too hard for them to ever accept and trust any new parent figures, and that some might do better with other kinds of carer relationships that were different enough to feel like less of a threat, and with carers who were able to have enough breaks. Also for some young people with behaviour so challenging that parents wouldn't be able to look after them safely at home, especially if they had siblings who could
be in danger.

The estimates I have seen have been 1/3rd minimal issues, 1/3rd medium, and 1/3rd serious difficulties.

Breakdowns must surely depend on how they are counted. 'Returning' during intros or before adoption order, using section 20 before adulthood, or things breaking down at or near adulthood.

The thirds is research dating back to 2014 so very out of date. The latest AUK annual survey shows 41 per cent of adopters in serious crisis.

@ThePieceHall From the article of the BBC itself:

"Results of the BBC's Freedom of Information requests show that, in the past five years, more than 700 children were returned to care before an adoption order was signed and more than 350 afterwards. About 3,500 children are adopted each year."

So in most cases, it does sound like adoption disruption does happen pre adoption order.

I'm not coming here with any prejudices, you said that adoption as it is doesn't work overall. I'm pointing out that this is not the case, even if there is a problem with post adoption support for families; even the article from the BBC says that many of those breakdowns could be avoided with better support and earlier interventions.

1,000 children returned into care sounds like a lot, but it was in the span of five years. So around 200 children per year, give or take. There's around 3,500 adoptions a year in the UK, so that means 5,7% adoptions per year end up with children being returned to care. Even if we double the number up to 11% or 12%, it hardly means that adoption as a whole is not working.

Again, don't get me wrong; this is an issue that deserves attention. But saying that adoption as it is doesn't work overall doesn't hold under scrutiny. I appreciate there's parents with really bad situations, and it sucks to be in the wrong side of the statistics, but it is often exaggerated when it comes to adoption in particular. This doesn't help adoptees get the help they need, stigmatizes them and makes people think they're a "lost cause" due to their background or adopted status. Again, not saying this is your intention, but it's something that happens.

The issue is linked to the raising trend of higher levels of violence from children to parents, and this applies across the board. Adoption comes with its own set of difficulties because a lot of these children come from homes where there was considerable violence, but intra-family violence is not unique to adoptees and adopters, and child to parent violence has raised considerably during the last decades. Teen years are hard because they're teen years, everyone expects them to be absolutely awful and they often are, including for birth families. If the support services improved, most of these crisis would be solved way quicker.

I think this is the most up to date data on adoption disruption. It says 4.8%

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/family-routes-children-who-returned-to-care

@QuercusIlex I hear what you’re saying and yes we need to be careful about stigmatising adopted children and people who are care experienced, or suggesting that they are harmed beyond repair. At the moment figures on adoption breakdown are inconsistent because there is no agreed definition on what constitutes adoption breakdown.

Is it disruption pre-order, is it a child being returned to care at any stage, is it a child being placed in care with ongoing involvement from adoptive parents, is it families in crisis whose child continues to stay with or without support?

The extremes of crisis before children are taken back into care is hard to imagine, it’s very, very hard to have a local authority take your child in a voluntary basis, which means they treat crisis as effectively a child protection issue. That means adoptive parents feel like they’ve done something wrong, that if they could just parent well enough their child would be fine and their family would “work”. The local authority investigate, and support, looking for risk to the child because that’s the mechanism for removing a child. It’s a flaw in existing legislation intended to avoid parents abandoning their children to the State but it means adoptive parents who have skirted crisis often for years then feel blamed and shamed when they can’t do it any more. The trauma the child has experienced becomes another stick to beat the parent with rather than a factor which means a child may simply not cope with the intimacy of family life.

I believe in adoption, there are so many children it does work for but when it doesn’t, it really doesn’t and there are no easy mechanisms for support, respite or a change in living circumstances.

Just to add, there is no legal obligation for LAs to report WHY children come into care, so the figures about adoption disruptions/breakdowns are not definitive or accurate. Currently. This is one of the issues that PATCH is campaigning about. If Government does not have accurate statistics, then the extent of an issue can be overlooked. Julie Selwyn has only worked with the data available from those LAs which have reported accurately, but without obligation.

One of the facts that I find most interesting about the report you have posted is that where adopted children have been on CIN or CP plans prior to returning to care, SWs cite the mental health of adoptive parents in 25 per cent of cases. Now, bearing in mind the robustness of the approval process and medical examinations, something is going very wrong for our families.

Also, I find this table very interesting. The table has not reproduced correctly so for the sake of clarity, the first figure is for adopted children and the second is for those on an SGO. Do we really think that more than half of adoptive parents whose young people (and most breakdowns happen post-14) are genuinely abusing and neglecting their children? Given we are society’s most vetted children? Or is there an issue with a ‘child protection’ system that seeks to blame, shame and criminalise adopters who have often been through years of hell before - with the help of costly specialist solicitors - seeking to have a fully legal s20? Authorities can’t have it all ways. The tragic thing is that we become the problem when adoptive families break down and we can lose our careers (teachers, lawyers, social workers etc), our extended families, our marriages and our reputations.

Table 33: The primary need identified by the social worker at the first
assessment
Adopted
SGO
n%
n%
Abuse or neglect 190 (54%) 500 (60%)
Family under acute stress 70 (21%) 110 (13%)
Family dysfunction 40 (13%) 150 (18%)
Parental disability/illness C (c%) 20 (3%)
The child’s disability/illness 10 (3%) 10 (1%)
Socially unacceptable behaviour C (c%) 10 (1%)
Low income C (c%) 10 (1%)
Absent parenting C (c%) 10 (1%)
Cases other than CIN 10 (4%) 10 (1%)
Total 340 (100%) 830 (100%)
Base n=1,170 Source ONS.

Thing is, I know a few families where the yp went back into care but I know a lot more where the yp got pregnant, got involved in crime, got sent to prison, went back to birth family. There is more than one way for adopted yp to leave the family home /disrupt the adoption.

There are studies which indicate that children in institutional care have lower IQ, than those in foster care placement, who have lower than adoptees and those are lower than children in birth families. This will be down to trauma, level of deprivation and quality of attachment, but those things are often linked to the setting. So advocating for an end to adoption and a replacement by foster care is not a neutral act.

I find this discussion is too centred on the adults in all of this. None of the children are at fault, and every child deserves a loving family, even those who at some point cannot handle living in one anymore.

My children would have had much worse outcomes in any other setting than adoption. Yes, we have had incredibly difficult times and it took a toll on us, but we knew - as much as we could - what we were getting into, and we would do it again. Both my children feel loved, well cared for and safe in a stable family.This would not be the case in any other setting. Foster carers cannot say "You will never move family again." I can, my children needed to hear it and it made a huge difference.

I think adoptive families need more support, and the education system and the health and mental health care for people with +6 ACEs need to drastically change. That would help a lot.

Just to point out, I am not advocating for an end to adoption, but I do believe that it will naturally come to an end within the next few decades.

I agree that for some children adoption doesn't work, but adoption as a whole does work. I'm not commenting on anyone's particular case as much as on adoption as a whole. Not looking to blame parents either.

Social services should not treat adoptive parents like criminals unless there's proof of mistreatment, they should be teaming up with them and do earlier interventions, that's something I agree with too. I think most social workers have the best interests of the children at heart, but as you mentioned things get complicated with the current state of the law.

I've known my fair share of adoptees growing up who come from complicated situations or dangerous birth families, I've seen the impact that trauma can have on them and I believe the same as the people I quoted before (from the BBC investigation) mentioned; in a lot of cases, things could have been different with earlier intervention. But cases where things will just go downhill exist, and it's a shame because it's something that sometimes can't be predicted.

What I notice with families in crisis (not only adoptive families, but all of them) is that the parents are immediately blamed, when it's more complicated than that. Parenting isn't everything, parents don't have the monopoly of influence on a child (especially not past the age of 12), children can struggle with pain and shame and with making sense of their place in the world: for adoptees you already know the load that is added, cases of earlier mistreatment and complex trauma, sometimes idolization of the birth mother (who can be decent but troubled or can be, frankly, a bad person), sometimes demonization of the birth family which can make them believe they will end up being just as bad. And the safest people to lash out at is their adoptive family and/or themselves.

But child on parent abuse and estrangement is on the rise in general too, and even if there's differences with what biological families go through, there's similarities too. That is what I meant when I said that in adoptions, the issue is often exaggerated; I don't think for a second that parents are lying about the severity of what happens, but that this issue is not unique to adoption, although it is more prevalent. It's not as if families related by blood are basking in eternal love and harmony (which is something that adoptees seem to think sometimes??). I've seen sons and daughters beat their parents up or steal 40k from their bank account. There was an article a while ago about sons murdering their mothers.

Sometimes all it takes, birth family or not, is a child mixing with the wrong crowd because they feel unloved and insecure despite being raised in a loving home. Maybe they are different in a way they can't reconcile with what they feel is expected of them, maybe they are angry at the world because they think that others have it easier, maybe they were abused by someone; either way they struggle, sometimes don't even know where those feelings are coming from, much less how to deal with them. It's a complicated situation all around, but I believe that support would help in most cases. In others, however, it will not. And I don't blame parents who decide that enough is enough after years of being terrified in their own homes. I simply think adoption works in most cases, even if in others it does not.

Where IS this support? In my experience, the cavalry is not coming.

I think that’s the point @QuercusIlex is making. The support isn’t there for anyone - services have been cut to the bone and while family support services have been prioritised where I am, they’re often a bandage over a gaping wound. I think adopters sometimes think there’s a raft of services out there that adopters aren’t being given access to but there’s really very little.

And while we rightly mourn infants and toddlers who are killed by their parents, when traumatised children grow up and are lashing out at the world, there’s little understanding much less meaningful support. And by the time things get to that place the issues are entrenched and very hard to resolve - the therapeutic work needs to start early but services won’t do pre-emptive work.

I don’t think we’ll see the end of adoption but I hope it looks different in years to come with local authorities properly scaffolding adoptive families to raise children and to support recovery.