ON NOW: Online Conference on Attachment in Adoption

[onlytherain]

On Now (Friday, 16 Oct, 11am to 4pm). Link below.

Join researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to hear findings from the three phases of this 25-year longitudinal adoption study, focusing on attachment, identity and developmental outcomes from childhood to early adulthood, alongside adoptive parents’ experiences.

The longitudinal study was a collaboration with Anna Freud, Coram and Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Speakers include:
Dr Saul Hillman: Senior Research Fellow, Child Attachment Psychological Therapies, Anna Freud Centre & Honorary Lecturer, UCL
Dr Miriam Steele: Professor in Psychology, New School for Social Research, Psychology, based in New York
Jeanne Kaniuk OBE: Formerly Adoption Manager, Coram
Dr Emily Blackshaw: Senior Research Manager, Research Impact and Evaluation Team, Coram Institute for Children
Dr Naomi Bartle: Research Manager, Research Impact and Evaluation Team, Coram Institute for Children
Jenny Kenrick: Formerly Consultant Child Psychotherapist Adoption, Fostering and Kinship Care team, Tavistock Clinic
Sibilla Robutti: Researcher, Research, Impact and Evaluation Team, Coram Institute for Children

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88548986745#success

I attended this. What did you make of it?

@ThePieceHall I only saw parts and will need to watch the recording to get a fuller picture. From what I have seen, I thought it was fascinating but a bit confusing at times. It was unclear to me what the experiences of babies pre-placement had been - how did they compare to traumatised older children? I also felt the difference between "adoption" and "trauma" was at times unclear.

I found it interesting that many adopters reacted so negatively to adoptees seeing their adoption as something positive. The question is: What is the comparator? Growing up happily with their birth family who magically becomes safe, or longterm foster care with potentially many moves?

I want to read up on more of the results. What did you think?

@onlytherain

I was really, hugely disappointed, to be honest; I was anticipating a groundbreaking piece of research. I’m shocked that researchers thought it okay to compare relinquished babies with the reality of our children. Also, there was a massive focus on adoptive mothers with insecure attachments; I feel like this will be a stick to beat female adopters with when things go wrong. I also worry that this piece of research will be harnessed incorrectly by local authorities to rule out certain prospective adopters. Let’s face it, adoption is in crisis and would-be prospective adopters are a fairly self-selecting bunch of people. I don’t know how this ‘evidence’ is going to pan out for adoption. I did ask the question: what did adopters actually DO to build attachments. Or did they do anything in particular or was it just a case of time served? All in all, it just confirms to me that no one is really investing in different research in the arena of adoption. Everything just seems to be a rehash of Julie Selwyn’s boring study from 2014 (ie the thirds). I think the issue is that very few researchers have lived experience.

I wonder if these truly were relinquished babies or if that was a misunderstanding. There were no more relinquished babies in 2005 than there are today.

I thought it was confusing that they said all it takes is one parent with a secure attachment but then focussed on mothers. However, I missed sessions, so maybe I missed the data on fathers. I understand your concern about social workers blaming adopters. At the same time I think closing our eyes won't make sources of problems disappear. It is unfortunate that Josh McAlister seems to have no interest in adoptive families, otherwise this study could be used to argue for the need for support.

To me, it seems that families seem to move through the thirds - we certainly did.

https://www.annafreud.org/research/current-research-projects/adoption-and-attachment-research-study-transition-into-adulthood/