to think that being so ideologically pure won't help these kids?

[upsylazy]

DH and I have begun to very tentatively think about fostering/adopting when DCs are older. I have been looking at a few adoption websites and there are a couple where they basically "advertise" kids up for adoption or fostering. I know that the current practice is to match children's ethnic and cultural background with their adoptive parents. While I totally agree with this in theory, the reality is that many children from minority ethnic backgrounds remain in care because they can't find a "matching" family.However, like I said, I do agree with the principle. What has made me really angry is that I've seen 2 children recently where it is specified that they can only be adopted by parents from the same RELIGIOUS background as the child. One of them is a Muslim and one is Jewish. Also, both of them have major special needs - one has autism and a severe learning disability and the other has Down syndrome and is nearly blind. It is hard enough to find people willing to adopt these kind of children without narrowing prospective adopters down to a minority religion (there are only 300,000 Jewish people in the UK. AIBU?

All things being equal amongst prospective adopters, then physical matches would be taken into account.

altinkum the BAAF (british association for adoption and fostering) have had images and brief profiles of children who are in need of long term placements/adoption. Its also on their website under the 'be my parent' section (sorry, don't know how to do links).

The children involved are always in favour of this and get to choose what pic and info used. It is usually only children who for a number of reasons, have had difficulties in maintaining/securing a stable placement. It has been a success, that's why its used. Its also the reality of these childrens lives, whose plight would have remained hidden and unchanged without such advertising. Not nice, but its the end that counts.

Oh Humanoctopus you nearly had me convinced!!

"All things being equal amongst prospective adopters, then physical matches would be taken into account."

Hair colour/ height etc has NO relevance on how people parent. You try being around someone you care about being turned down for a child/children for one of these reasons. Believe me it would be easier to take if the panel had just flipped a coin and been honest about doing so!!!!

bootymum current practice has to do with a child's identity.

There was a time when a child in care lost everything, background, family contact, culture. Best practice would aim for a child to be with family whenever possible, or neighbour/friend, and so on.

Its the child's background and story, and whatever can be salvaged from an otherwise sad situation is important to keep.

People who adopt from other countries spend alot of time and energy getting to know the culture, etc of the area (Vietnam, Russia, Thailand, etc) and many of these belong to post adoption groups to preserve that side of their child's life, once they return as a family to the UK.

It is respectful at the very least. Even if you adopt a newborn, he/she will havecharacteristics that will indicate a history different to your own. Why hide that? Better to be up front.

I see that so much in adult adoptees who were denied any information and were even not told that they were adopted until they were adults.

Society has always helped to raised children for others. It was called kinship care. But thats another story

onlyjuststillme heartbreaking to reach the end stage and to be rejected for any reason. Flipping the coin isn't on either.

Only very suitable parents reach that stage, and although they would still put the overall welfare in front of their needs. Its just that if all else is equal, then physical similarity does help the situation, its not necessary, but works better.

So sad for your friends.

IMO flipping a coin is just about as valid as hair colour. It also contributes less to the prospective adopters feeling that there is something wrong with THEM. My story, thankfully, has a happy ending (eventually). Many do not

Be My Parent

This is an emotive subject for me. being as vague as I can possibly be - the same couple were turned down at the same stage of the process because the BM developed a very tenuous link with a religion (She received some practical assistance from a certain branch of a religion. another couple were chosen as they also had VERY tenuous links with another branch of the same religion.

None of these reasons had any impact on their ability to parent. Yet they were left feeling like they should have done something else or be someone they weren't (lie to panel, dye hair etc)

If there are massive cultural or social impacts on a child then of course the best should be done to accommodate these. EG if a child has been brought up in a devout religion then of course it would be ideal to match that situation as closely as possible. However, being devoutly associated with a religion is very very different from having minute associations.

YANBU, I think there are too many barriers to adoption anyway. If the birth family want to say that they would appriciate the adoptive family letting the children learn about their language/culture/religion that would be ok. But considr how hard it is to find a fmaily willing to accept a special needs child the most important thing should be what kind of people are adopting not their religious identity.

Firawla, like I said, certainly as far as tehnicity is concerned I agree that the ideal would be for children to be placed with a broadly similar family. However the reality is that this often isn't possible so that these children spend their whole lives in care. Although some kids do manage to overcome disadvantage in early life, the statistics relating to their life outcomes are appalling. I take the point that children's views should be taken into account if they feel that their religion is very important to them but one of the children I am talking about was 18 months old! Do you really think that child would prefer to remain in care forever rather than be adopted by a loving family of a different religion? Although I'm an atheist, I'm not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins but I do feel he makes a good point when he says that we should not talk about Christian or Muslim children but children of Christian or Muslim parents. Whilst ethnicity is a fundamental part of identity, religion is chosen for them by their parents and many people later choose to follow a different religion to the one in which they were raised or to choose not to have any faith at all.

I am a firm believer that it is the child's right to have information about their biological background and culture. I agree that it is respectful to the child to ensure that they are enabled by their fostering/adoptive parents to have understanding of the cultural context into which they were born. I do not agree with adoptive [or donor conceived children for that matter] having their biological identity concealed from them.

However I personally still don't see that a child has to be raised in a particular religion just because this was the one into which they were born? Surely the autonomy of the child must be respected and that they can make their own decision regarding their religion?

I mean, by all means the child should know that their biological parents were Jewish [for example] but perhaps then they can research or commit themselves to this religion when and if they feel the need to as a young adult?

But we as a society do NOT allow children to make their own decisions regarding their religion.

It is normal for faith families to baptise their babies, or to attend services, mosques, etc bringing the children along.

I would argue that only families of no religion permit decision making when it comes to choosing faith, or not.

It would put me at the bottom of the pile, if i was a prospective adopter

I guess the OP is referring to this little girl. DP and I have considered looking into adoption as well a while ago and came across her profile then. It stuck in my mind because I couldn't help thinking how difficult it's going to be for her to find an adoptive family, not least because of her Down syndrome but also because of the additional religious requirements. Specifically Orthodox Jewish families only.

Hopefully we will be actually able to have a baby of our own, it looks like it would be very difficult indeed for us to adopt, being both white and athiest!

Yes humanoctopus, parents can introduce their child to a faith, but the child still gets to decide their own beliefs, just as a child brought up in an atheist home may believe in God.

"I would argue that only families of no religion permit decision making when it comes to choosing faith, or not."

I would really disagree with this. Why should it only be atheists/agnostics who make such decisions, instead of a mixture of people?

shoppingdays
But if you baptise your baby, how is that a decision made by the baby

With regard to 'advertising' children for adoption, I think it's better than them not being adopted, if it works, however distasteful it may be.

A friend of mine was adopted, back in the 1970s he tells this story of how he was in the childrens home, aged about one, when his parents came in, after having been approved as adopters and were told to pick a child!!!! They saw him and fell in love.

This sounds horrific but if it means parent and child have some sort of instant connection maybe it improves the chances of adoption working? I don't know? But they both have a story of love at first sight to talk about. If a would be parent sees a child on the internet maybe the same sort of thing could work. Although it does turn it into some sort of beauty contest.

The idea of advertising is always to try and get a secure placement for a child.

No one wants to advertise, it just means that the info about a child gets to a broader range of the population.

The visual image is very helpful in that it brings the idea of adoption/fostering out of the abstract and makes it more definate.

Just because something is "normal" does not make it right though... I was personally brought up in a Christian family [one that endorses regular attendance at church, believes in bible as literal fact and that female bishops are an abomination]. However as an adult I choose an agnostic but spiritual [non-denominational] path. I feel it is my choice to choose what religion I identify with as an adult.

Anyway, the point here is the biological family will not be around to take their child along to the synagogue or the mosque. So why does the child automatically have to adopted into the same observant faith as their biological family that they will have no contact with [again if not an open adoption or fostered]?

Some would see it as progress.

Not that many years ago, there were only faith adoption agencies, and as long as you were given the nod by the church leader, you simply collected the child of your choice, and off you went.

In so far as it is practicable, the origins of the child and his/her culture should be persued as the most suitable placement.

Hence the advertisements.

The cynic in me just believes that the difficult list of requirements in these ads are a way of proving how 'best practice' ideals are impractical. But a good attempt, yielding no suitable full criteria adopter, would then allow for the net to be cast wider.

WHat a beautiful little girl :( I hope she can find a fmaily. I do wonder just how many orthodox jews there are in the UK though? Let alone adopting, and willing to adopt a child with Down's?

This thread is interesting, and I know from reading the posts that nobody is wrong In what they say, and everyone has a valid point. I work in this line of work and there are many misconceptions about adoption and the processes.

Bootymum- i understand what your saying about 'rights' but you've missed the point. The law doesn't say that adoptive children HAVE to be placed with a family of their own religion, and although it is preferable for the Childs identity, it does not always happen, and children certainly do not 'miss out' on otherwise suitable families because of this !! Parents wishes are always taken into account by the Courts and LA's, but they are not automatically acted upon. When religion (or any other factor) is taken into account this is done so in relation to the rights of the child, and not the rights of the parent. It is the Childs right to continue practicing a religion they were born into.

I have formalised care plans for a number of children who have been adopted, including children who have learning difficulties. Sadly Children with learning difficulties are always going to be more tricky to place, and in terms of a 'care plan', sometimes 'somthing has to give in order to find the most appropriate placement for a child. I refuse to believe that prospective adopters have been refused due to haircolour... It is more likley that sadly, another couple were more suitably matched on that occasion.

My mother was adopted as a baby shortly after the end of WW2. She had a very happy childhood with parents who adored her. When, decades later, she tracked down her original birth certificate, it was very clear that her birth mother would have been at least raised RC if not practising (all three names were very Irish Catholic and no UK birth certificate for the mother so is probably in Eire).

If whoever arranged the adoption had insisted on a Catholic family, my mother would have lost out on the very best parents for her, who happened to be atheists from a CofE background. Oh, and they didn't look like her, either.

CheekyChoppers - If you refuse to believe that then are you willing to believe that the SW was a liar because thats what the couple were told by the SW. I think there were 2 equally matched couples and they had to think of a reason to turn one down at that is the only thing they could come up with.

"When religion (or any other factor) is taken into account this is done so in relation to the rights of the child, and not the rights of the parent. It is the Childs right to continue practicing a religion they were born into."

But why is that a right? Obviously once they're old enough to have an opinion on such things, the child should have the right to practice any religion they choose. But I don't see why they have any special 'right' to be raised in a family that practices the same religion their birth parent(s) happened to believe in. Really don't see how it's relevant to a small child or a baby, which is what we're talking about in many of these cases.