Can someone explain the 2 yrs younger rule?

[fannysparkle]

Hi everyone i am very new to this section, i have recently read about the adoptive child having to be 2yrs younger(at least) than your own youngest child. Why is this?
I am gutted, i wanted to choose an older child as i know alot of people want babies/toddlers. I have a 5yr old but wanted an older brother/sister as he is Autistic and doesn't really get on with children younger than himself.
Is this rule set in stone then, no exceptions? Sorry if this has already been asked and thanks for any replies!

Majority of children placed for adoption (here anyway) are under 7. Older ones go to long term fostering/sgo/ro.

Not set in stone. There are loads of older children available for adoption but they usually stay in long term fc because most people want babies.

Get in touch with your local ss I'm sure they will be delighted to hear from you.

The main reason for this guideline is that an adopted child (particularly an older one) can be expected to come with issues, may well be violent and almost certainly extremely time consuming. They will need massive input of time and attention to bond with their new parents and to deal with any previous trauma- even if it is only the separation trauma resulting from having lost their biological parents (and remember, many adopted children have been through much, much worse than this).

This can be difficult to cope with for parents who also have to meet the demands of a younger child; and it can also be difficult to keep a younger child safe if the adopted child has angry periods.

Adopted children often need to be the baby of the family because they are the most vulnerable. They often regress and go through the baby stage at a later age, because that's when they feel safe to do that. And once they feel safe, they may well start to act out their hidden aggressions. They cannot be expected to understand and meet the needs of a younger, more vulnerable younger sibling.

Don't get me wrong, adoption can be a great thing. I have an absolutely gorgeous adopted brother, whom I have loved dearly from the moment I saw him; I can't imagine life without him. But there is no doubt that he did kick the hell out of me at various points of our childhood despite my being 3 years older and a lot bigger. No problem, because I was old enough to handle it and feel maternal towards him- but would I have done that if I had been younger than him? And he needed time from both our parents in a way I never did: doubtful how I could have coped with that if he had been older than me. Yet as far as I know he had never suffered any of the really horrible things (abuse, drug exposure etc) that so many adopted children have.

Not saying you can't do it. But I think what you do have to ask yourself is: given the needs of my autistic son, would we be able to deal with a period (maybe of several years, maybe recurring throughout their childhoods) when the adopted child needs to be the baby and the one that gets most time and attention? And if your ds cannot cope with younger children, how well would he cope with an older child who had the needs of a younger child?

If you are interested in adopting an older child it's always worth speaking to your local authority. The 2 yrs younger thing is generally to do with pre school children IME and is a guideline a lot of agencies use for reasons given. Not a legal rule or anything like that, just based on experience/research.

But an older child will often have quite a few issues as cory has said, will need a secure place in the family where other members won't be vulnerable.

There are a huge range of children needing adoption and with older ones at least the agency will have an idea of their personality/experiences. Sometimes they specifically say "needs to be the youngest child" but then often children have experience of siblings/foster homes where they aren't the youngest.

The answer might still be "not now" but you won't know unless you ask. Your son has particular needs but then that's given you some valuable experience I guess.

To be honest you are looking at 2 years application process on average so you might as well enquire now, as your son will be quite a bit older by the time you get near to looking at matches.

No not set in stone - you need to discuss with your LA as differnt ones have different attitudes, you might also want to consider a voluntary agency to get their opinion too.

It is likely that they won't let you adopt a child older than your bc as this will upset the natural family order. Perhaps wait til your bc is about 10 then you could look to adopting an 'older' younger child.

Hi and thanks for the replies, i am still a little confused though as some of you say it would not be possible and some of you think it would be.
I guess the best thing for me to do is to contact some agencies then and take it from there. Again thankyou, alot for me to think about.

The isn't a clear "rule" as with everything in adoption is comes down to what is in the best interests of the child and that opinion will vary.

Iknow of people who were approved for a child older than their twins and they had well thought through reasons for hwy it would be better for all the childrne for the adopted sibling to be older. SO it certianly is possible.

First you will need to convince your LA and assigned social worker that its a good idea then once you have been approved you would need to convince the childs social worker at matching stage too.

Start with your LA or a local VA and take it form there.

Thanks kewcumber i appreciate that.