To think this mother needs to accept a proportion of blame for the way her dd's turned out?

[Memoo]

The father does too of course but he isn't the one being interviewed.

I actually felt quite angry reading this article and sad for the dd's who were dumped back into care. The poor girls had shit upbringings. It's no wonder they grew up angry and violent. And the stupid mother seems intent to blame everyone but herself.

Sorry daily fail link

Wish I'd been there, MrsDV . We had to spend 40 minutes all declaring our ethnic identity (very 1980s) and then much of the day being 'persuaded' by the trainers that adopted children have racial identity needs. I wanted to shout out them: "You're preaching to the converted! We've all spent a hundred quid to be here - we do NOT need persuading that this is an issue! Now get on with the important stuff!"

They seemed to constantly shift between talking about transracial adoption and talking about adopting BME children, as though they're the same thing, which was a bit confusing for the black adoptive parents there. I asked about this (as I suppose I am a transracial adopter, but my dd has not been transracially adopted) and they just stared at me as though they had no idea what I was talking about.

Not the best use of a hundred quid.

She also goes on to say that she saw violent behaviour (scratching hitting) from the eldest towards her foster family, at the many visits they made before taking them home. They tried to discuss these with the case worker, but got told that it was just because she was unsettled & she would be fine once in a permanent home.

So there were signs that something was amiss, but questions as to what/why were answered with excuses. The whole family has been let down, but not by each other.

Maybe adoptive parents (or all parents?) should read this book,

The Nuture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris

Pop psychology has focused for far too long on nurture, Bowlby and attachment theory etc. which I love and find fascinating but its good to have a dose of nature and genetics too.

This thread has really stayed with me

Devorah, in many ways I se this as a the molotov cocktail of adoption, 2 v damaged babies and parents that had unimaginable pain (remember the MC/2 x stillbirth). I just dont know if it could ever have worked TBH. fucking sad

it raises some very uncomfortable issues, and must be hard for you to read

but forwarned is forearmed

and there are SO many adoptions that are sucessful

I wish you, and all, every luck and love

v vvv interesting issues raised on this thread

I adopted before my DD died. Infact the adoption went through when she was ill but shortly before she became terminal.

I have no idea how a bereaved parent would be able to cope with the intrusive and intense nature of the adoption assessment. I know that they examine and explore fertility issues so I assume that they would do the same regarding child loss.

To get through that this woman must have been absolutly commited to the process. I just can see how she would have been approved if she wasnt.

oh mrs

I was not in any way saying bereaved parents are not suitable, but when I read their history I was like "fucking hell", years and years and YEARS of pain

its a hugely emotive topic, and one case not same as other

"I just can see how she would have been approved if she wasnt"

I take it that you ment to write 'cannot', tbh, a big house and income to match, plus the 'right' sort of background still counted for a lot in the 80's.

I think that also it can be a matter of luck to the company that you fall into as an adult.

Positive relationships make the difference for 'troubled' people (of all types).

All of the people that the DD was involved with had come through the care sytem and had addiction problems, which would have had a further negative effect.

Reading it, it sounds as though things were spiraling out of control and unfortuately they had found a vulnerable person to take advantage of.

She will be only 25 when she gets out and hopefully there will have been some turn around by then.

I'd like to think this wouldn't happen these days though, would it ?

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Mon 23-Apr-12 10:28:36

"There is so much utter crap talked about adoption - from the cosy 50's version of dear little moppets being handed over for a better life by their unfortunate mothers - to the bad seed, cuckoo in the nest bent on destroying their kindly saviour's lives, driven by their inherent badness.

I dont think the reader will gain any insight from it. They wont understand the complexities of caring for a child from the care system.

They will just think 'well if I was going to adopt I would make sure I got a nice one from a good family, a baby'"

That's what I was thinking and struggling to express. It's very Agatha Christie, isn't it? The child with the murderous genes.

It all stems from this idea that somebody has got to be to blame if things go wrong. Which is fine for a detective story but not necessarily very helpful in real life.

Posters who have been thinking about the genetic influence on behaviour might be interested to google the various "twins separated at birth" research done in the US.

In the '50s and '60s many US States had a policy of adopting twins born to "unsuitable" mothers to different families at birth. The adopted children had no idea that they were twins in almost every case. Although the policy itself was reprehensible, the one silver lining was that it gave biologists a unique opportunity to compare the effects of genetics on life outcome (as opposed to environment or self-determination - the nature v nuture v Nietzsche argument).

The results are staggering. Identical twins have strikingly similar personalities and life outcomes, irrespective of the environment into which they were adopted. Non-identical twins have no more similarity of outcome or personality than siblings, although siblings do have more in common than strangers selected at random. (Note that all children were adopted from birth, so the birth family had no influence over the children other than DNA).

What does this mean? Most importantly it does not mean that children are condemned by their genetic inheritance. The study also demonstrated that the right intervention and support given at an early enough stage did markedly improve the outcomes for children with "bad" genetics. In fact, the researchers concluded that the studies demonstrated the critical importance of professional support to targeted families.

Interestingly, the next most important factor for influencing life outcome was not parenting - it was peers. Children who fall in with a "bad" crowd really do risk ruining their futures. Perhaps as parents the most important piece of parenting we can do is to gently steer our children towards making nice friends.

Heswall adoptions in the UK break downevery week. And there are many more adoptions where the adoptive parents have hung on in there but the placement is killing everyone involved.

There has been some very interesting research done on the DC who were adopted from thw Romanian orphanages. Their recent brain scans seem to indicate that no matter how lovely and nurturing their adoptive parents were, a part of their brain is different. There are certain pathways that remain disconnected.

Some scientists are wondering if those early months/years of neglect (not violence, just being left to rock in those cots) has caused this.

Personally, having spent years working with children in care and seeing the detrius of many failed adoptions I wonder whether many DC would fair better in long term foster care. The set up there is of a very different nature to adoption. The expectations on both sides are different. And of course support is more readily available to foster carers.

Mary you are not alone.
Your expereince is replicated across the country.

You must not blame yourself.

I think it was a fantastic article.
Yes, it was daily mail and was sensationalist blah blah blah
But - it challenges a lot of the assumptions that people have.

Children who have been abused can 'get better' with lots of love. Wrong. Some can but some never will, no matter how much they are loved.

That some children are just 'evil'. I think we just don't want to believe that a pretty blonde girl sucking her thumb can be a sociopath. They can.

That by putting everything into a child - love, time, education, material things can make them a good person. You can't. Some children will never be 'good'.

That some children are so hideously abused/neglected that they are damaged permanently - even by the age of 2.

That 'bad' characteristics can be inherited and no amount of intervention can change that.

I have had lots of experience in adoption/fostering and adoptive parents are so keen and loving and think that love can conquer anything. It can't.

I have a friend who was a social worker and her opinion, though she was lambasted for it on MN is that children over the age of three are virtiually impossible to successfully adopt, the damage done in the first few months of life is too far reaching.

I dont feel very comfortable with the "mark of cain" idea however, and that is somehow inferred

its damage, IMO. and the Romanian baby story sadly backs this up

every fucking time I read this shit I wish we could stop the parents from having these damaged babies

I know sterilisation is WRONG WRONG WRONG , but god help me..... cant help wishing we could somehow stop them

heswall

Do you think though there is a diffrence between neglect, and chronic abuse however?

so for example a loving yet feckless 17 year old drug addict has her kids taken away, hungry, dirty, a bit behind developmentally... but maybe not profoundly emotionally damaged

very different to some of the worse cases? I wont even dare to imagine

I dunnooo

Yes I do think there's a difference, I wasn't the world best with my first child in terms of practicalities but she was held and loved every waking moment.
By the time of got to my 4th the practical side is down pat and I had to buy a sling as I was conscious that at first he was spending most of his waking time on a playmat and I felt that wasn't right.
There has been research I believe that the first days interaction with the mother does impact long term and if that mother knows she isn't keeping the baby, the staff in the hospital haven't the time, where does that leave the infant?

I have a friend who was a social worker and her opinion, though she was lambasted for it on MN is that children over the age of three are virtiually impossible to successfully adopt, the damage done in the first few months of life is too far reaching

As i said ealier though, the threaseholds for removal are higher than they once were and so it depends on what the issues were, usually even if a parent is failing the child has had some positive interactions with other family members and this lessens the 'damage'.

Often family mambers are not able to care for the child full time,though,so the ned for fostering and adoption. Whilst may leave them with emotional damage, they turn into killers or torturers.

They just won't have the same quality of relationships and interactions, with others, but may still do with their own children, with support.

A lot will never be truely happy, in the sense that others are and they have to work at having a 'successful' life, emotionally speaking.

'I have a friend who was a social worker and her opinion, though she was lambasted for it on MN is that children over the age of three are virtiually impossible to successfully adopt, the damage done in the first few months of life is too far reaching.'

I have a friend who fosters and who specialises in turning very damaged children around and get them ready for adoption. She does this at enormous cost to herself, by loving them to bits and breaking her heart time and again when she hands them over a year (or two or three!) later, then rejoicing in the successful adoptions. She once took on a boy everyone had given up on, he was 3 and slept on his knees with his arms over his head and pushed everyone away. 3 years later he was successfully adopted. It can be done. But it's not easy.

Do you think though there is a diffrence between neglect, and chronic abuse however

In the case that you stated though, there won't have been 'bonding' going on in the formof good eye contact and the baby being responded to, because of the addiction problems, that is were the 'damage' will come from.

Skin conditions,lackof weight gain can be overcome, but not being spoken to and smiled at etc, leaves an impression.

We never know until later on possibly school age, if there has been any lasting disabilities because of dehydration etc,so again different issues emerge over time.

Like all issues - the nature and nuture argument plays a part.
Some kids are profoundly neglected and abused and are relatively uneffected.
Some are only minimally neglected and abused and are deeply, irrepairably damaged.

I guess the kind of person you are/personality you have plays a part in how you cope.

Unfortunately adopters don't know which category their child will be in.

I think the Romanian orphanage scandal was such an eye opener to the world about neglect. Rows and rows of cots full of abandoned children. Who wouldn't want one to take home and give a happy life to?
There are parents still struggling with the fall-out. Attachment disorder has to be one of the most challenging things adoptive parents have to deal with. Because there are very few answers. It is what it is

3 years later he was successfully adopted.

Finding adoptive parents isn't the success, though. The main aim of removing children is to improve their outcomes, in most cases that has probably been done, even if the family situation, breaks down.