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.

https://www.nyas.net/about-us/news/%E2%80%98set-up-to-fail%E2%80%99-discrimination-and-care-experienced-young-mothers/

Care-experienced young mothers are disproportionately more likely to have their children taken into care compared to their non-care-experienced peers. Sometimes this can occur for no reason except that the mother herself lived in care as a child. This previous history of care can be used as a factor for why social services think they might not be a good parent, due to the assumption that history repeats itself. Making sure care-experienced young mothers can access support services during and after their pregnancies is therefore vital.

I know several care experienced young mothers. Some did lose their children, but these were young women living utterly unsuitable lifestyles involving drugs, alcohol....I also know young women who have been great parents, no assessments needed. And I know cases of dodgy partners who were absolutely unsafe (one baby had his leg broken).

The problem of some care experienced girls getting into situations which mean their babies aren't safe with them goes back to support generally for care experienced yp. You can't expect to stick a plaster on things once a girl has a baby.

All the reasons you cite are adverse childhood experiences that can result in sub-optimal life chances.

This comes back to the fact that trauma is absolutely implicit in adoption and care and that generations of dysfunction are hard to undo.

There are levels to disability. By your reasoning should we as a society should look to remove children from physically disabled people? Many disabled people whether that be intellectually or physically, parent successfully, some with supports.

Nothing to do with unfair profiling of vulnerable women?

Starmer/Wales/Scotland and Ireland have all issued apologies for historic forced adoption. The negative discrimination of care leaver's should stop.

You must be the bendiest person you know because you are literally tying yourself up in knots here. If your agenda is to stop adoption, then I don’t actually disagree with you. But you seem to be the type of person who could cause a brawl in a phone box, as my late dad would say.

You're being rude. Again. No agenda. Pot and kettle comes to mind 😁

No agenda, you say?

I don't agree. I believe adoption as it's practiced needs to be completely reformed. Infertile/gay/single and heterosexual couples should be made to go through invasive and thorough therapy and only once completed and signed of by a consultant psychiatrist should prospective parents be allowed to adopt. With the caveat that social services are involved in the child's life until they reach adulthood. I aso believe all adoptee's should be entitled to life long, free therapy.
This is what needs to happen, I'm sure some of you will disagree. You want to care for a child that's not biologically yours, then I believe you should be ready and accepting of this. Never again should be the motto.

Your point?

I'm advocating for changes to how adoption is practiced. Wanting more safeguards, supports and services for care experienced children, and that includes adoption, is hardly an 'agenda'.

Historic forced adoptions have little to do with today's adoptions of the removal of children under care orders.

The unfair targeting of care experienced mother's is tomorrow's historic forced adoption apology. It's relevant.

Comments from an adoptee, from a blog posts discussing their experiences with adoption therapies.

Of course, trauma often causes socially unacceptable, even dangerous, behaviours. But perhaps the behaviour they’re referencing is better described as rebellion. Adoptees are expected to accept their loss and act as though these strangers are our parents. They aren’t. I’d go so far as to say it’s natural, even commendable, to rebel against lies.

The fact is, adoption as a fantasy persists simply because children are unable to consent. As adults, neither you nor I would consent to being legally assigned a new family tomorrow selected for us by the state, no matter how awful our first. Were that state to demand I maintain such a fantasy with my newly-assigned husband, I can only hope I’d be in a position to rebel.

But children who rebel, children who grieve their loss in socially unacceptable ways, are charged with the title of “problem”, are described as “controlling”, and are sent back to care. It is sickening of them to use such language as resistance with the power they wield.

https://adultadoptee.uk/nvr-an-adoptees-account/

The focus has to be the baby. The only reason babies are removed is for their safety because the mother has been deemed unable to parent appropriately. They can't be left in unsafe situations to see what happens.

I have said that these young women need more support earlier on. Not when they have a baby they can't manage.

That's one person's personal anecdote. I have 2 adopted children adults now. We were always completely open about their birth family. They have always chosen us. They would not agree with the thoughts of the adoptee in your post. Everyone has their own views of course - these views are perfectly valid. But they are not universal. Many adopees want nothing to do with the people who harmed them

Why are you choosing to ignore this?

Care-experienced young mothers are disproportionately more likely to have their children taken into care compared to their non-care-experienced peers. Sometimes this can occur for no reason except that the mother herself lived in care as a child.

The only reason babies are removed is for their safety because the mother has been deemed unable to parent appropriately.

The idea of future harm and discriminatory practices are why many care experienced women are at risk or have had their baby/ies removed.

I have said that these young women need more support earlier on. Not when they have a baby they can't manage.

That's definitely something I agree on all care experienced children, including those who are adopted, need more supports and resources given to them.

You are still choosing to ignore the women who could parent, some with and some without support, that are of no danger to their children but have them removed because they have been deemed a future risk to their children. Not withstanding the cycle continues and that woman is now at a far greater risk of further removals due to discriminatory practices.

I'm saying no one is taking a baby away just because someone is a care leaver. They are doing it after an assessment which shows that the mother can't safely parent the baby. I agree that it's terribly sad, that these women have been let down, but I simply don't agree that social services are targetting perfectly able care leavers to deprive them of their babies.

I know a lot of fellow adopters and quite a few have daughters who have had babies. Most have been able to keep their children - the few who were unable to do so were absolutely not going to be able to parent them.

In fact the more likely scenario is mothers being given a chance and relatives left sick with worry about what is going on. Often the grandparents have to intervene significantly, often becoming kinship carers.

I simply don't see how you think babies can stay in situations that are potentially unsafe.

I haven't said babies can or should stay in unsafe situations. What I am saying is that many care experienced mother's have their children removed due to unfair discriminatory practices. Please try not to twist or fashion someone's words into something they aren't saying.

But that's now what they're saying? They even say 'no matter how awful our first'.

They're saying that they found the therapies abusive, and that for them, the actual adoption was an extra trauma.

Did you read the article?

*not what they're saying.

The premise of significant risk of future harm is a silly one because no one has a crystal ball. However, the thread has come full circle because original posters were arguing that all prospective adopters (well, mainly the gays and the singletons) should be psychiatrically evaluated on the basis of potentially weeding out those who may later potentially pose a risk of significant future harm. As I say, crystal ball-gazing territory.

It’s not crystal ball gazing though is it. 91% of all child abuse defendants are men. That’s is pretty strong indicator with no witchcraft required. As we discussed at the beginning of the thread, of course we can’t just exclude all men from adopting but that statistic must shape policy and practice.

Thanks for posting this, I found it a fascinating and insightful read and I don’t disagree with a word of it. Adoption is trauma and I understand why some/many adult adoptees are angry. I no longer support adoption. I can imagine my eldest adopted daughter, now an adult, writing an intelligent blog like this. I concur with the blogger about the fact that NVR is a load of horse-shit; although I imagine that I come at our mutual disgust from a slightly different angle. Adoptive homes do experience more CPVA than average and I resent the fact that we are being taught to endure extreme levels of violent assaults in our home. As a feminist, no one would dare to tell me that I needed to ‘deescalate’ situations to stop a romantic or sexual partner from punching me in the head or pushing me down the stairs. NVR is this year’s BS trend in the adoption world. The fact is that like in the private children’s home sector, some corporate adoption therapy companies have absolutely milked the ASGSF for their own greedy ends.

So how do you propose to manage this without excluding men?

I don’t have the answers which is why I started this thread. But I think this stat must inform practice and policy. I am also extremely sceptical about adoptions where women are not involved (on the basis of this statistic).