Advice for early preparations, and two questions!

[pinksky]

Hi there,

I was really pleased to find this forum - I didn't know there were any dedicated forums outside of specialised websites, so sorry in advance for the long post

My husband (35) and I (30) would like to adopt in the future. Can anyone think of things that we could do now to get us as prepared as possible? We have found out about volunteering as 'independent visitors' for children in LA care, and thought that would be a good start. Aside from reading as much as possible and getting more experience of children, is there anything else that might help?

At the moment there are two things that are worrying me. Firstly that we don't have or want biological children. Will this stand against us? We would love children, but we have never felt that we need to have our own biological children. It's quite hard to articulate this and I worry that it seems odd.
Secondly, we plan on moving the year after next, out of the city to one of the outlying villages. We'll do this to give us the space to have children, but I wondered if this might hold things up? It would be within 10 miles of our current home, but possibly in a different LA. It already feels like a long wait before we move and I would hate to think we wouldn't be considered for a few years after this - it would definitely effect where we move to.

Thanks so much in advance

don't worry shockers - if pinksky is going to adopt she will need to develop the hide of a rhinocerous so this will be good practice for her!

goodnight Kewcumber and thanks for understanding.

Hi!

A couple of points - I posted on another thread about the fact that you can have the most wonderful happy gorgeous children even if they aren't babies when you adopt them (in my case 3 and a half and 6 and a half) AND if they are seen to be a bit difficult (eh? not really - a bit feisty maybe!!). My only sadness is that I missed so much of their early lives but I know that they are mine (mine I tell you! - sorry just quoting my DD on another matter who is destined for the stage I feel!) and that bond is something that no one now can get in the way of. (And no - I didn't 'fall in love' at first sight etc. in fact I lost about a stone and half in the first month and spent a lot of time in tears becasue I thought I couldn't) And look at us now!

My second point - I bravely tiptoe into the controversy! Well, in my working life I am actually 'a professional' (apparently!) working hard often to keep children with their birth families under the most horrendous of circumstances and I know that it is truly horrible for many birth families who may not ever have stood a chance. So from that point of view I can absolutely understand you NanaNina. And I do think you are right in many ways.

But.........

I am an adoptive Mum as well and there was a huge part of me that had a little 'oh my God - I'm not the only one!' at Shockers remarks. I will not go into detail but I have had more than the odd moment when I have wanted to shout 'Go away!!! I want to know nothing about you - you are nothing to MY children! You treated them SO badly you have no right to tell me anything! I am their mother and you can take a running jump!'

And I now await the firing squad- open fire NanNina!) because it's bad enough having those thoughts but to be someone working (not all the time mind you) in the field and to STILL have them.....

In my defence:

I would NEVER NEVER NEVER say that to my children - luckily I have a brilliant post adoption worker who I have had to call upon about three times in the past eight years but has always understood what I am going on about. And I make an honourable exception for my kids birth father who I have met and who took my hand and said something like 'I was their parent but you are their parent now' and the whole thing still reduces me to tears when I think about it. It has to be said that it is not his side of the family I have concerns about when it somes to the whole 'reading of the file' thing. And while we are at it - it won't be a piece of cake explaining to my two what they are likely to encounter when they do that - which I am sure they will want to. Although my DS (who is the most fab young man who I am soooooo proud of - even though he never does his homework!) is steadfast in his desire never to have anything to do with his birth family but I am sure that may change.

Sorry long rant - and maybe a bit off what the OP wanted - please refer to the beginning of my post and GOOD LUCK!!! It will be the best thing you ever did.

kew,they couldnt enforce birth control unless they camped out at our bed head!
shockers, was speaking about the majority and no way would detract from people who have fostered.also would agree with perception of birth family as "pond life". reading the profiles of prospective adopted children is truly shocking.

Why the FUCK (and I very rarely swear on MN or elsewhere) should shockers have to be "respectful" towards her DD's birth parents, who have very specifically caused her DD a lifelong problem, on a parenting forum?

It's at best arguable whether she should have to be "respectful" to them in any context other than in front of her DD, but on a support forum for her, where she is anonymous and the birth parents by definition even more anonymous (can you be more anonymous than "anonymous")? Really?

there is research, ongoing, that questions the involvement of birth parents in adopted/fostered children lives.
99% of the time it should be cut and run.

nana,you dont have to live with the aftermath. how do you tell a child theywere taken away because of drugs, prostitution,drink?

kristina m, the voice of reason as ever.our dd birth mother is on her 8th pregnancy and shes 28!shes knocked out every racial mix possible, when ever is it going to stop?they are mostly lost causes and i dread explaining it all.

I just wanted to say thanks again everyone for all your comments. And please don't worry about this going off topic on my account, it?s important to be able to discuss these things and as Kewcumber said, it's good practice.
To be honest, it just shows how much people want to be advocates for their children, and feel so passionately about adoption.

IF you're still around Shockers I'm sorry that you are feeling angry. This wasn't my intention - I was just genuinely shocked at the words "pond life". I know I had my "social work" hat on in my response and I DO understand how you must feel - honestly. I think if you had said that you felt anger towards your children's birth parents or something similar I would have known exactly where you were coming from. It isn't the sentiment that you are expressing that is the issue for me, as I have said I find that perfectly understandable, it was just the words that you used.

Of course I wouldn't want you giving any details about convictions or anything else because that would be breaching confidentiality even on an anonymous forum like this. And I honestly DO know about the
horrific ways in which birth parents abuse their children and the life long effects of that abuse in some cases, as in yours. I
have actually worked with one family where the male partner actually murdered one of the children in the family. Yes it was terrible, truly terrible and no one could feel anything other than contempt for this man, BUT I still would not call him "pond life" - for me there's just something so awful about that expression. Enough said I think.

I do have the highest regard for foster carers and adoptors and know that you all cope with very hurt and damaged children and are selfless in your desire to give these children the love and care that they deserve.

ProfessorLayton - of course I don't think that shockers should feel respect for her children's birth parents - that would be ridiculous. My comment about "respect for people" was directed at Kristina as I know that she is a social worker too and she seemed to be defending shocker's description of the birth parents. As social workers we all sign up to "having respect for people" when we do our training. Sometimes it is difficult to do this especially in cases of child abuse but it is something I have always tried to do.

HiFI - I don't know in what capacity you are posting - but presumably you are a prospective adoptor as you are talking about reaing the profiles of children. I really am not sure what you are talking about when you mention "the research into parental contact in fostering and adoption and 99% says it should be cut and run" - which research are you referring to as I would challenge you that any academic research would come up with such a conclusion. It doesn't make any sense at all.

The whole issue of parental involvement in fostering and adoption is a very complex matter, and not one to go into in detail on this thread. Suffice to say that in adoption it is very unusual for their to be direct contact between birth relatives and adopted children, though prospective adoptors are encouraged to agree to some kind of indirect contact, by way of an annual photo or something similar. As far as contact in fostering is concerned, this is essential in the majority of cases where children are fostered on a temporary basis. Indeed it is unlawful under the terms of the Children Act to prevent contact, for very good reasons, but I won't go into it now.

I just think it is unhelpful to make comments about such matters which are inaccurate.

At the risk of becoming unpopular again, I find your terminology HIfi very unfortunate and judgemental, in your description of your child's birth mother "she's knocked out every racial mix possible" - sounds insulting and slightly racist to me. I will put on my hard hat and await the backlash!

neverjamtoday - what a brilliant post!

Hope OP that you are not being put off by the way this thread is turning out.

NanaNina - let's get this straight, you find the term pond life so awful that you have to publicly tick off a poster who was talking about a very emotive subject in a supportive and anon environment. Maybe you should chill out, put your wagging finger away and take your social worker hat off (the one that you've had on for 20 years, blah, de blah, very important social worker person, blah blah). After all, you're not shockers or the relevant family's SW or in fact at work when on here. Stating the bleeding obvious here, but just because someone thinks something privately, doesn't mean they don't treat the relevant people with respect when actually dealing with them.

Oh, and just out of interest,do you prefer the term 'scum'?

(Sorry OP, I've been reading this with interest over the last few days and just wanted to say that I don't think Shockers said anything wrong at all)

" My comment about "respect for people" was directed at Kristina as I know that she is a social worker too and she seemed to be defending shocker's description of the birth parents. As social workers we all sign up to "having respect for people" when we do our training. Sometimes it is difficult to do this especially in cases of child abuse but it is something I have always tried to do."

Nina - i am not a social worker

i was not " defending" (or otherwise) shockers comment. i was merely pointing out that it is easier to be detached from the effect of abuse on a family when they are clients that you see for perhaps, an hour a week. its a lot harder when you live with it 24/7 for the rest of your life

" Don't judge a man till you have walked two moons in his moccasins"

oh, and the poster you assume is a prospective adopter is in fact an experienced adoptive parent

and the person you accuse of being racist is IIRC from a family of mixed heritage

nina - you have made a lot of assumptions here about people, most of which are inaccurate. As a reflective practitioner, you might want to give that some thought

Ah well I will consider myself well and truly "ticked off" by you toolbox and I can see that you are cross because you think I am coming over as "a very important person" - why is it I wonder that if social workers dare to offer an opinion they are so castigated by others. This happened on another thread too. Sorry to disolusion you but No I am not posting from any position of feeling important or anything like that, but I can gather from the tone of your post and your unplesant language that you will not accept this so I will stop there.

Sorry Kristina - I thought you were a sw as I had noticed you giving very pertinent advice on another thread. And yes I absolutely agree with your comment about not judging anyone etc. However at the risk of repeating myself can I say that I was NOT judging anyone and went to some lengths to explain that in my posts, all of which appears to have fallen on stoney ground. I was quite simply taken aback by the particular terminology used by Pinksy.

I have NOT accused anyone of being racist. I said that a particular comment "sounded" racist to me - that is not an accusation though I accept that the inference is clear. Incidentally I am not sure why you think being from a mixed heritage family means that you can't be racist?

I disagree that I have made assumptions about people "most of which are inaccurate" - what I have done is made comment about the mode of expression of a couple of adoptive parents on these posts. I have also taken issue with a poster about what I perceive to be inaccurate and misleading information about parental contact in fostering and adoption. The OP wanted information about adoption and others may join the debate for the same reason, so I don't think it's helpful to post inaccurate information about an important issue like parental contact in fostering and adoption.

I have also been at pains to point out of the regard that I have for adoptors (and that includes posters on here)and my comments about the particular mode of expression does not detract from the fact that I am sure that these women are doing a wonderful job in caring for their children.

I really want to say thank you... I've been quite overwhelmed by the support shown on this thread.
I don't always get things right and I will be more careful about the things I say in future.
BUT... the perspective and intelligence of your replies show me that common sense still prevails.

Can I just say one more time that I would never be negative about my children's birth parents in front of them... or indeed to anyone who knows my kids.

I have had many talks over the years with our lovely adoption SW and have never encountered this rigidity of thought or judgemental attitude from her.
As a couple, we have been asked to talk to prospective adopters and foster carers about our experiences and I feel that we have always conducted ourselves appropriately.

I was not allowed to meet my kids birth parents as it was deemed "too dangerous" for them to know who we are. I write via mailbox but apart from a few cards to their "angels" in the first years... nothing back. I do this so that the children will know when that I respect their right to a relationship with these people, should they want it.

DS (9) was looking through his life story book the other day, put it down and hugged me so hard. No words were needed. I love those children with all my heart and we will face the ugly truth when we have to, aware that if it weren't for the birth parents, I would never have known them.

Thank you all again

NanaNina - just to be clear, my issue isn't with Social Workers as a group. I have a lot of respect for the role of a social worker - one of my DH's best friends is one (also of 20 years standing ), and I used to work with some on a professional basis in child protection issues.

So no, my issue isn't with Social Workers. My issue is with you as an individual. And specifically the lecturing, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou tone of your posts on this thread to shockers and others. I lurk a lot, and I've also noticed the same tone from you on other threads about adoption and also WRT MILS. You seem to enjoy being morally outraged by people's normal feelings. Good luck to you.

WOW toolbox -other than that - no problems with me then! I was once told by an irate MN (on a MIL thread) when I mentioned a post made by a particular poster on another thread that it was "extremely rude and against MN etiquette" to refer to posts that appear on different threads. Maybe I was "advised" incorrectly or maybe it was just that I happened to be a mil and there are different rules for mils and dils! I also thought it was against MN etiquette to attack people on a personal basis, which is what I think you have done, but if it's made you feel better, it matters not to me.

I think you should maybe remember that we are all just lines of text on a comupter screen (nothing more and nothing less) and FWIW I get lots of people agreeing with me and even thanking me for my help and support SO it takes all sort doesn't it toolbox.

Shockers - glad to see you are grateful for the support (that is not meant to sound cynical by the way) it is a genuine thought as I didn't like the thought of you being angry. Also glad to hear you have a lovely r/ship with your adoption social worker. I note however you say that you have not "encountered this rigidity of attitude or judgemental attitude" in her, which I think infers that this is my attitude to you. I doubt though you have ever used the words "pond life" in relation to the birth parents of your children to the ad s.w. and if you had, I strongly suspect he/she might have found this a little unacceptable. It is interesting you mention judgemental attitudes, because I know that all adoptors have to satisfy social workers that THEY do not possess judgemental attitudes and I'm afraid your comment about "pond life" would cast doubt on this for me.

You are clearly not going to accept that I was not judging you or denying the validity of your feelings and I have tried (clearly in vain) to make this clear, and was merely commenting on your mode of expression, but there is nothing more to say on the matter.

nananina I think the problem that we may be having is that w lines of text on a computer screen... we are real live people, sometimes joyous, sometimes sad, sometimes curious and other times just wanting to make a connection with others who may be experiencing feelings similar to our own.

I have been extremely candid with our SW. I have wept with anger in front of her and probably used stronger terms than pond life. She accepts that there will be moments when I'm finding certain things difficult to cope with and has never judged my parenting as a result. She also knows that I trust her enough to voice my feelings safely whilst being confident that I would have the common sense not to do it in front of anyone else ( other than on this anonymous forum)

My strongest impuse as a parent is to protect.
If a stranger had done the things my DD's birth parents had, nobody would question my terminology. I find it so much more repulsive that these were the very people that should have wanted to protect her. I also find their complete lack of remorse incredible.

I'm glad you have nothing more to say on the matter... your use of quotation marks was beginning to irk me.

nananina - I apologise if I've breached MN etiquette by mentioning I've noticed your tone on other threads. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have done. Although I notice that you have mentioned a few other threads on here without giving specifics too.

I wrote a blunt reply to you because you seemed insistent that my issue was with social workers, when I hadn't said anything against social workers. You automatically assumed I had a problem with your (alleged) profession, rather than with what you wrote. Which was very irksome.

One thing to remember is that yes, we are words on the screen, and because of that we come as anon individuals, without proof of any of our professional credentials. It is all very well coming with your SW hat on, but you are not a SW here. You are an anon person who claims she is a SW. (Not that I don't believe you, but I don't have proof). So really, your opinion as a SW as to whether you would approve shockers or anyone else as adoptive parents doesn't carry any weight here.

Shockers - great last post.

"have to say I was a little shocked to hear you describe the birth parents of your adopted children as "pond life" which seems to be unnecessarily insulting" - this comes across as rather judgemental and personal (perhaps you aren;t aware of this). If your aim was to express your concern generally you should have phrased it more carefully. By the way no need to label the children "adopted", the reference to birth parents on an adoption thread makes it irrelevant, I hadn't previously said that when it jarred with me but if you are going to insist on the correctness of terminology I felt I should point it out to you so you don;t do it again.

Even the loveliest of my social workers have had a tendancy to lecture and patronise albeit with the best of intentions and often with many years of experience behind them. Doesn't make it any less irritating and many of us on here don't really enjoy getting it on MN as well.

Shockers - it is now only my use of quotation marks that you are finding irksome, that seems to be progress! Maybe I was a little hasty in my comments about your description of the birth parents, but the words sort of jumped out at me, and with MN and because we are on a keyboard it is easy to just tap out the first thought - well that's how it is with me. Anyway I'm sure you are a brilliant parent to your children and I wish you well.

Toolbox -thank you for your apology - a very rare occurrence on MN and I take your point that we are all anon on here regardless of what we do in RL. However I have not made any comment about "whether I would approve shockers as an adoptive parent" - it would be absolutely foolish to make such a comment. Sometimes posters find it helpful to get the view of a s.w. on here just as I find it helpful to get the view of a lawyer or accountant etc.

Kewcumber - you are absolutely right and I will not refer to "your adopted child" again (not yours but you know what I mean I hope) I am sure some posters see sws as "lecturing and patronising" and see MN as a way of just being freee to say whatever is in their heads. I accept this too, but can I say that some posters do actually see benefit in getting advice/clarity whatever from sws. and many have found this helpful and supportive.

SO sorry to anyone who I have offended and I hope the OP hasn't been put off by all this stuff!

Thank you.

nana nina, i have actually been part of government funded research into whether its in the best interest of the child to have contact with birth parents.the findings should be published soon but the professor i was dealing with said it looks like the likely result is there's no benefit to the child.
also whenever dd birth mother knocks another one out we are then put into a very difficult situation as to do we have them or not.

Hifi - you are still not making sense about parental contact. Are you talking about contact in fostering or adoption. This is a hugely complex area and I would be interested in the details of the research to which you are referring. I simply cannot imagine any "professor"(or indeed anyone else involved in this research) stating that "there is no benefit to the child" - this is far too simplistic, goes against legislation and please can you evidence what you are saying about this research. It is very misleading.

And I note you are still saying "whenever dd birth mother knocks another one out" - that sounds a little insulting to me. If you are being given a choice about whether you wish to take a sibling of your child, you do actually have a choice, and I honestly can't imagine that you have been asked 8 times! And why do you talk of "ever racial mix possible" - that sounds racist to me.

NanaNina: I always find your contributions very sanctimonious in tone, and often not really within the context of whatever the OP may have been but rather to ride your own particular hobby horses.

Do you mean to come across like that?