I don't understand...

[PrettyCandles]

I thought that adoption was an unbreakable bond. So, if parents can 'give back' an adopted child, why can't children who have been wrongly separated from their birth parents and been adopted be given back to their birth parents?

Can parents 'give back" an adopted child? Or are they in the same postition as any parent choosing to give their child up for adoption?

i didn't know you could give back a child. why would you want to? dh and i have just agreed that we would like to adopt a child and are now in the process of filling out paperwork.

I saw the recent story about the woman who 'gave back' the little boy
and some of those sad cases re the children wrongly separated.
Perhaps it depends on the bond and how long they've been with the adoptive parents.

Adoptions do disrupt sometimes. It usually (I think) happens between the time the child is placed and the time the adoption is finalised. Until the final court hearing the child is still under the care of social services.

I don't know any that have disrupted, but AFAIK it's usually to do with problems that the adoptive parents simply can't cope with. It does seem to be generally viewed as being the adoptive parents' fault when it breaks down but I think that's unfair without knowing the details of any particular case. A few adoptive children, especially some of the older ones, have been through experiences that are more traumatic than I would care to think about and can be very emotionally damaged. In the past (I hope it's less common now) social workers would sometimes play down the child's problems in order to find an adoptive placement so it's hardly surprising that some adoptive parents found that they were completely out of their depth.

Sometimes it just is better for a child to be removed to be cared for by experienced foster carers than to be left with a family that can't cope.

Children who have been wrongfully removed from their birth family is an entirely different situation. The decisions should always be child-focussed. Where an adoption is breaking down the best thing for the child may be to remove them to foster care but if the child has settled into the adoptive family it would be disruptive to move them back to the birth family. Moving them would be the kindest decision for the birth parents obviously, but their wellbeing has to come second to that of the child.

Agree with a lot of what Bran says but adoptions can disrupt/breakdown at any stage (not just between child being placed and adoption finalised) indeed I think that would be unlikely. As Bran says there are all sorts of reasons for adoption breakdown. The thing is that the vast majority of children who are adopted will by definition have suffered some extreme form of abuse/neglect in their early life. This can cause problems as the child grows up and can show itself in all kinds of behavioural problems. Sometimes no matter what the adoptive parents do, it doesn't alter things enough for the adoption to be successful.Statistically the older the child when placed the greater potential for breakdown, though a lot depends on the child's pre placement experiences. I think there is not enough recognition of the damage that early abuse/neglect can cause to a child - and this can be through the lifespan. No one should ever be judged for feeling that they cannot cope with an adopted child. It isn't just a case of "giving the child back" - all of these families will have been through tremendous heartache and will feel incredibly guilty - often forever. I have seen marriages break up and birth children really seriously affected.

Someone asked about why the child could not be returned to the birth parents if it was "wrongly" removed. Before a child can removed from birth parents and placed for adoption, there is a very lengthy process and a court case where the child's future is decided by a Judge. It has to be proved that the birth parents are not capable of providing the child with the care that he needs, now or in the future. SO once a child is removed from birth parents by a Judge then he/she cannot be returned, even if the adoption breaks down. If the child is fostered, then the birth parents can apply for the Care Order made in the court to be revoked but they would have to prove that they had changed enough to properly parent the child and this would be a very unusual situation.

EandZ I wish you well in your quest to adopt but I think there is a long way for you to go in terms of undrstanding as you are asking why would anyone want to give a child back. No-one WANTS to give a child back - it is just sometimes impossible for the adoption to work out, as I have tried to explain. You will need to lear a great deal more about the risks involved in adoption. Sorry I am not trying to put you off but you need to know the reality.

Me again -I think the next post down "Help I have terrible problems with my son" illustrates one of the points I am trying to make about adoption.

I think there is a big difference between:

otoh an adoption that breaks down (on a par with biological parents giving up a child for fostering, because things are not working, just more common due to attachment problems)

otoh a judge ordering the return of an adopted child from an adopting family where the child has settled and bonded and is happy

Isn't the point the welfare of the child? In the first case, the child is not being looked after as well as it could be and runs the risk of being damaged. In the second case, the child is being well looked after and the risk from disruption may well seem greater if you return the child even if it turns out that the premisses on which the original judge ordered forced adoption were incorrect.

Having said this, I think it would depend on the age of the child. An older child who had been mistakenly adopted away from a biological family which actually didn't have the problems they were thought to have might well spend the rest of his life missing his real parents and would be better off being returned; for a younger child it might be very disrupted.

Cory - I am unclear what you mean about the "judge ordering the return of an adopted child where the child has settled and is happy" etc. This just isn't possible to be honest. You also talk of a child "mistakenly" adopted. I think you have to look at what happens prior to a child being placed for adoption.

When a child is removed from birth parents then the first priority is to work with the parents to try to return the child home. Assessments have to be carried out and sometimes the parents go to a residential setting with the child and further assessments are carried out. If at the end of a significant period of time, there is reason to believe that the child is not safe at home, then plans have to be made for his future care throughout his childhood and indeed until he is old enough to live independently.

The first option is to look to see if there is anyone in the extended family (grandparents) or other relatives who could offer the child a safe and loving home. If this is not possible then dependent upon the age of the child, the care plan would be for permanent foster care or adoption. Let's suppose it is adoption as this is what this thread is about. There follows a court case with several professionals having assessed and reported to the court on the welfare of the child and what is best for his future etc. The birth parents are represented by their own solicitor and are usually asessed by psychologists etc. If at the end of it the Judge decides that the SSD are right in bringing the case to court he will make an Order to secure the child's future. This can be a Care Order (which gives parental responisbility) to the l.a. or if he agrees that adoption is the best way to secure the child's future he willmake a Placement Order, which means that the child can be placed for adoption. The parents do have a right of appeal to either of these orders and if they do appeal the matter is heard again in court. If there appeal fails thenthe original orders stand.

SO let's assume the placecment order is made and the baby placed for adoption. The prospective adoptors later have to go to court for the judge to make an adoption order but once the Placement Order is made this is really a formality. After that the Order cannot be revoked in any way by anybody. SO it isn't possible for a child to be removed from adoptors. You talk of "forced" adoption and the original decision being "incorrect". I cannot possibly say that there have never ever been cases where the wrong decision was made in the court but these will be few and far between, because there are so many checks and balances and so many different professionals reporting to the court, and in my experience judges are very astutue inthese cases. In fact if a judge thinks that the l.a. have not done enough to reunite the child and birth parents he will not make any orders. I'm not sure what you meanby "forced adoption" but assume it is where the birth parents are not in agreement with the adoption which of course theyseldom are.

Sorry for long post but I think it important
for there to be clarity in these matters.

NanaNina Wed 25-Nov-09 10:09:43
"Cory - I am unclear what you mean about the "judge ordering the return of an adopted child where the child has settled and is happy" etc. This just isn't possible to be honest. You also talk of a child "mistakenly" adopted. I think you have to look at what happens prior to a child being placed for adoption."

I expressed myself badly. I know it is not possible and I was trying to explain why this is.

I understood that by "children who have been wrongly adopted" PrettyCandles was referring to those children who have been adopted because it was mistakenly believed that the parents were harming them.

Of course having a judge and a court order is no guarantee that this can never happen? Of course it can happen, particularly when medical evidence is unreliable. It has been known.

I am not suggesting that these cases are frequent. But they have happened.

And my point was that even if they have happened, it probably still is a good idea that the adoption is regarded as irreversible. As indeed it is. For the sake of the child. That the court expresses regret, but that it ends there.

However, you could argue that if a mistake has been made in the case of an older child who still remembers his or her parents and misses them, this might not actually be the ideal position. That might be some of what PrettyCandles is getting at.

Yes OK Cory I didn't quite follow your OP - I did agree that you can never say that there has not been a miscarriage of justice but as you say these are thankfully few and far between and are related to medical evidence that has been believed by the court, only for doubt to be cast onthat medical evidence at a later stage. I know it's not adoption but I can't help thinking of the cases where mothers have been convicted on murdering their own children in cases of alleged cot death andlater released from prison because the evidence was unsafe. Difficult to think of a more distressing thing isn't it. One poor woman (Sally Clark) went on to take her own life as you probably recall.

Re the older child you mention who has been adopted, then the issue of adoption being irrevocable would still hold wouldn't it and the adoptors would have the PR onthe child and as the parents would be the ones to make any decision about the child's future. In all honesty I think this hypothetical situation would be rare because an "older" child would be more likely to be fostered rather than adopted, and if so then the care arrabgements for the child could be altered, so long of course that whatever changes were made were in the best interests of the child.

"I thought that adoption was an unbreakable bond" - legally it is. Morally its as much of an unbreakable bond as any other parent/child bond. It is tragic when a family breaks down for whatever reason, and it is particularly tragic when the child is adopted as they have already suffered such profound loss that it may not be possible for them to ever really recover.

Its one of the reasons that prospective adoptive parents are vetted so closely and why I never (much!) objected to the intrusiveness of a home study because its so important that you are well informed about the potential problems and have a stable life to deal as much as possible with the additional challenges that an adoption brings.

Its my understanding that most adoptions which disrupt do so with children who were adopted over 5 for the reasons NanaN gives. It would be interesting (but perhaps impossible) to compare the percentage of child taken into care because of significant emotional/behavioural problems which parents couldn't cope with, plit by those children who were adopted and those who are still with birth family. I have no idea whether birth parents have a better than average chance of dealing with significant issues in their birth children than adoptive parents do, but I do know that the vast majority of children in care are there because their birth families have broken down not because their adoptive families have broken down.

There is also a theory unproven but voiced to me by a paediatician who specialised in teenagers with behavioural problems, that these days childrne who are placed for adoption are more likely to come from parents who have mental health and addiction problmes and possibly just lacking an ability to empathise which makes it more likely that they are unable to deal with their children who are then placed for adoption - it is possible that these childrne too run the risk of inheriting the same (or milder versions of) these characteristics which when coupled with a potentially damaging early start in life can make for very challenging behaviour in a child.

IMVHO children placed for adoption due (for example) to a medical error are so rare that trying to gain any conclusions form it which can be extrapolated across the adoption community is flawed. Each case should be carefully looked at and at all times the best interests of the child must prevail. However heartbreaking that may be for either sets of parents.

A point of information - Sally Clark did not take her own life as you state Nina. The coroner at the inquest, Caroline Beasley-Murray, said there was no evidence Mrs Clark intended to commit suicide.

report here on this tragic story

It's clearly not a simple issue.

So if adoptive parents 'give back' an adopted child, they still remain that child's parents, unless he or she is adopted by another family? But presumably SS resume parental responsibility for the child, just as they would for a child removed from or given up by his birth parents?

Yes and obviously there are other options. As friend who has two boys both adopted at age 3 has one (now a teenager) with severe RAD. He is now in a state boarding school for children with behavioural problems. I wouldn't say the adoption has disrupted, they are still his family he comes home at holidays.

PC - i agree its a complex issue

Adoptive families often break down when the adoptees are adolescents. They are far more likely than bio children to have serious mental health problems, learning difficulties, addictions, personality disorders or get involved in crime.

So when an adoption disrupts or an adoptive family breaks down, its not that the parents are " giving back" the child/ren. Its usually that the young people concerned have to go into residential care or hospital to have their needs met better. Sometimes they are placed in secure units because they have committed serious offences or are a risk to themselves or others.

You will not read of these cases in the tabloids as they are ( quite rightly) protected by privacy laws.

I know many families who have faced such a terrible situation - to realise that they can no longer safely provide the care that their child needs. Parents and other siblings have been attacked, assaulted with offensive weapons, had bleach thrown at them etc. Younger children have been sexually assaulted, pets have been tortured or even killed. Parents have to make a terrible decision to protect themselves and their families

i don't think any of these tragic families would describe themselves as having " given back their child". As Nina says, many marriages do not survive this kind of trauma , most parents are siblings carry the sense of guilt and failure for the rest of their lives.

Thank you KristinaM for understanding what most people outside this awful situation can't (even though I'm not an adoptive parent but a custodial stepparent with parental responsibility).

KristinaM,
In your post, you say "Adoptive families often break down when the adoptees are adolescents. They are far more likely than bio children to have serious mental health problems, learning difficulties, addictions, personality disorders or get involved in crime."

I often hear people asserting things like this, but I cannot find any actual research (official documented studies) that proves it. In fact, the only real research that I have read on the matter prove the opposite - that biological children just as often "have serious mental health problems, learning difficulties, addictions, personality disorders or get involved in crime."

I would be interested in knowing if you have found a valid study proving your assertion, or if you are just repeating something you have heard widely expressed (as it is, unfortunately, widely, and - I think, mistakenly - believed) or something you saw written somewhere (I have seen such statements made in adoption literature, but when looking further for where the author got his information, I found that it was undocumented and assumed).

Unfortunately Caramel, I don't think it is always mistakenly believed.
I personally know of 3 families who struggled with the effects of attachment disorder with young children. In adolescence, things became very difficult for all three families.
Mental illness was a factor in all three cases.
My own DD has serious emotional and behavioural issues. She is nearly twelve and over the last year, her antisocial behaviour has intensified.
We are taking big steps to combat the damage done in early life... I have just agreed a 'share care' timetable with her school so that she goes to school in the morning and comes home in the afternoon so we can do some theraputic work and general togetherness.
I understand completely why some adoptions break down... just as some biological families become estranged.
I am very lucky that I have been given support by After Adoption and that as a family, we have the resources available to allow me to work (very) part time.

I think with adopted teenagers v birth child teenagers there is an added dimension.

My birth son has been going through teenage meltdown. He wants to move out and live on his own (didnt we all at that age?), he is rebelling against all the rules and blaming me (on and off) for everything. But he has no where to go. He is not so disturbed he will run off and sleep rough. So he has to lump it at home.

When my adopted son is a teenager if he has the same feelings about home life he has got an option. He can go to his birth mum. Her lifestyle would appeal to most teenagers and she doesnt live far away. She would be delighted at the whole thing (for a short while).

I have heard of this happening in a few famlies who maintain open adoptions. It was not until I experienced the full force of teenage angst and rebellion from my birth son that it began to hit home.

maryz and chegirl I agree with you. I think when adopted children go through the trauma of teenage years it is so much more difficult for them. I think they probably feel that as adopted children they don't have the bond of birth children so they use that as an excuse for what is often normal (if excessive)teenage behaviour.
My bd really struggled with her teenage years as did dh and I. She drank, took drugs absconded, stole from us, and generally made our lives so difficult. It was a very sad time. But at the end of the day we had to stick together and after 6 years we came through it and she is now at uni studying for a social work degree.
We often foster teenage girls that have come from adoption breakdowns. What is most noticable to me is that the parents in these situations don't usually have birth children. So both sides are wrongly thinking that as the child is adopted maybe they don't have the natural bond that birth families have. A lot of the adoptive parents I work with blame themselves and believe they wouldn't have these problems with a birth child.
As the parent of an adopted dd2 I am glad now that dd1 taught us all she did and I feel much more confident about dd2s dreaded teenage years.

You give me such hope dolphin.

Sounds like you are doing all you can do maryz. Hang on in there.

caramelcream - there has been quite a bit of research on behaviour and mental health issues in adopted vs non-adopted vs fostered children though little of it in the UK.

From what I have read 80-90% of adopted children have no different a behavioural profile to non-adopted children but that the minority which does have behavioural problems is significant enough to push the averages up to a statistically significant level.

ALso in one study in 1999, adopted children were twice as likely to have had contact with mental health professional than non-adopted children although of course it isn't possible to say whether thats because adoptive parents tend to be more open to the possibility of mental health issues and more likely to seek health.

Various studies in this area if you want to google - Ann Brand & Paul Brinish also the Dutch have done quite a bit of work on this one more recent study 2005(?) into intercountry adoptees (I know thats a slightly different subset) were twice as likely to have an addiction problem and adopted males were nearly 4 times as likely to have a "mood disorder" than non-adopted men (though interestingly no difference in the women) (Wendy Tieman, M.S., Jan van der Ende, M.S., and Frank C. Verhulst, M.D.)