To not understand why babies can't go straight to adoptive families

[mytartanscarf]

I have read a little around this lately and I don't understand why babies are first sent to foster families then to their adoptive parents? It must be traumatic for them to be parted from their foster parents.

AIBU to think the system seems strange in a number of ways? Or are there good reasons for this?

Happy things have changed a lot.

I think the parents who raised the little boy are his natural parents - do you mean his biological parents?

Lilka thanks for that very informative post. It was really helpful (albeit heartbreaking )

Is there no way the system can be - um - changed (!) in order to benefit the CHILD most? Or am I living in cotton candy land?

Not sure when the matching process officially begins but babies being removed at birth with zero chance of being returned to the birth parents isn't unusual, adoption is known to be the inevitable outcome well before the child is born. Because these parents cannot care for them and have usually proved that with older children in one way or another.

The problem with the care system is that it can never be perfect because it in essence it is all very sad.

Well, it's no bad thing to try and encourage people to think about becoming concurrent carers and making sure LA's are always asking themselves "is concurrent care suitable for this case or not?"

But we have to recongise how fundamentally different fostering and adopting are. They really aren't alike, and so we have to be careful about making sure that people really understand how it would work and have the training to be able to do it. People who just want to be approved as adoptive parents should not be pressurised to be concurrent carers, and while the outcome of a case is not as legally secure as possible (ie. placement order or signed section 19) it's very important the child is with parent/s who have foster care training. That means we need a system where we have these 3 types of carers.

Thanks, Lilka

I think first babies are placed in foster care until parents are found for them, then once they are, they have to go through a long process to make sure they are suitable and to build up a bond with the child.

My best friend's mother used to foster newborn babies in the 70's and it was mostly where there was a question mark over whether the child would end up staying with their birth parent(s) or be adopted. It took quite a long time for the decision to be made in some cases. I remember a baby who was well over 12 months when she was finally adopted.

DH is adopted. I think his parents got him when he was 2 weeks old, and the parents knew each other so the adoption was done when she was still pregnant.

I'm pretty sure the only time that babies go straight to the adoptive parents is when the two mothers (bio and adoptive) work something out in advance. Even then I think there's a waiting period. Sometimes biological mothers change their mind, as there is mountains of paperwork to fill out.

Lilka that was an extremely informative post. My friends were told that if their adoptive child's birth parents had subsequent children, they would be given 'first option' (that sounds awful when talking about a baby) to adopt. If that was the case, would the baby still have to go to a foster carer for at least 6 weeks? I was under the impression they would be able to take the baby home almost immediately (but I may have misunderstood that).

We are currently being approved for our third child who is the birth sibling of our current two. This baby was taken straight into care at birth but will be 10 months old by the time we are allowed to bring him home. This is despite there being further older children who have been adopted prior to our two. They still gave the birth parents a chance to show they can care for the new baby before even contacting us.

They might well be asked to take the baby as 'concurrent carers' as Lilka has outlined. This would absolutely be better for the baby and would likely be better for their family - assuming baby was not returned to the extended birth family.

But - baby might well have a different birth dad, and he/ his extended family might make a case to look after the baby. BM might feel that her circumstances have changed, and make a case to look after the baby. Sorting all of this out would take legal time, and the court might order that one or both parents have supervised contact with baby in the meantime. And the foster carers/ adopters take the risk that baby may in the end be returned to birth family, which is a redoubled risk if they already have an adopted child. I have two, and no idea how I would explain to them that the new baby in our house had gone to be cared for by the birth family that couldn't look after my kids.

In this country, we take the legal and social view that we only take somebody's children from them when we are absolutely sure that nothing else will do. And I understand that - I can't think of a worse thing you could do to me than taking my children.

It is also the case that in the UK, in this century, very very few women voluntarily relinquish their babies for adoption. I think most women who are absolutely sure they don't want a child tend to opt for a safe legal termination, and most women who are unsure tend to end up parenting the child. Carrying a child to term, giving birth and then giving it away appears to be a very difficult (and sometimes incredibly brave) step that women won't often choose where they have alternatives.

So I think the short answer is as Lilka says - that of course it's better for babies to have one carer from birth, but there are very few cases in modern uk adoption where that is suitable. So we do the best we can with where we are.

I think we could make the legal process quicker and more efficient, and encourage concurrent caring where we can. But I can't think of a way in which we could make that happen for most babies in the uk system.

Tattie - The 6 weeks is about relinquishing only, it's the minimum time before a birth mum can give the authorisation for her baby to be placed with adoptive parents (who are approved for adoption only). However in practice it often takes quite a bit longer to happen, usually a few months before she will actually sign anything (what she signs is called a Section 19).

Your friends may well have been able to take a theoretical baby home immediately if they were agreeing to be concurrent carers for the baby. People are often more willing to do that if it's their childs sibling and the case feels much more likely to go to adoption.

I understand why it might sound awful, but obviously when it comes to siblings, SS need to try and keep the children together if it's possible and appropriate to do so, so they always will ask the older siblings adoptive parents first, and adoptive parents understand that they should be asked first if another baby were to need adoption.

I adopted my DD2's young sibling, but not by concurrent care, I waited until they had a Placement Order in place for him (the order needed when it's not a case of relinquishment) by which time he was 21 months old and had been in care for about 17 months. It was then about 8 more weeks till he moved in at 23 months. There was so much delay in his case. However I wasn't in a place to be able to adopt him until he was that older age, so the delay resulted in him growing up with me and one of his birth siblings, instead of being placed with other adopters.

A member of our extended family had been fostering short term placements and applied to be adoptees with an agency - willing to adopt children up to age 2 including those with special needs. Got a phone call from the agency saying that in 5 days time a NT baby was being born and birth mother wanted to relinquish at birth. Picked up the baby at 27 hours old and became the baby's official foster carers until the adoption process was completed. Took 8 months - social services had no policies in place for this type of case as quite unusual - and had to give birth mother 'time' over her decision. So it can happen!

tartan - even when the birth parents absolutely can't parent a child, the extended family will be considered before the baby is put up for adoption.

One of my relatives had a baby taken and adopted. Ss engaged with the parents for a year before the decision for adoption was made. Parents were given chance after chance to keep away from risky adults, quit the booze and drugs, stop the DV but all to no avail. Family courts view that a child is always best off with the birth parents unless the risk and behaviour of the parents is so bad a child needs to be removed. It was very frustrating for me as a relative seeing dad staggering down the road drunk and high when Ss warned him to clean his act up

Fatter face in theory they are supposed to consider relatives but in our family's case we were all deemed unsuitable. Me because I have bipolar SIL because she already had 3 kids MIL because she has joint and mobility issues

tartan. This is someone's child we are talking about. Someone has become a mother and I have not met one mother whose baby has been removed who doesn't love that child. For many reasons some children are removed at birth from their natural mother. There is ALWAYS a question mark whether a child can be returned to it's natural mother. The decision to put a child up for adoption takes months (if not years). SW and Courts must be 100% certain that adoption is in the best interests of the child. This is why they are placed with foster parents until that decision is made. In a lot of cases I dealt with the child in question was placed with and later adopted by a family member. Most social workers and Courts would rather keep the child with their family than adopt outwith family as long as it's safe to do so. Birth removals are very few and far between in my area. Normally the child is able to go home and be with mum at a later date. However, every case and the circumstances surrounding it are different.

In every adoption case the natural mother has the right to appeal the adoption and many do. I've seen cases take up to 5 years to be concluded.

To be fair I agreed with what Ss told me and MIL as MIL has severe mobility issues and they felt another baby when I was already looking after my baby may have stressed me out and made me ill. Fair enough. However my SIL has no MH issues and refusing her on the basis she has 3 kids that she is an excellent mum to is a bit unfair

From reading Lilka's posts it seems like the main delay is obtaining the Placement Order. I wonder if this could be sped up if it was started pre birth, in the cases where the bio parents are never going to be allowed to keep the child?

Against that, I wonder if the delay is partly because the authorities need to have a better idea what health conditions the baby may have (I presume a lot of these babies will be born to women who have abused drugs/alcohol etc) as adoptions depend on matching with people willing to take on those conditions. Obviously this would often not be clear till some months after birth.

I must admit I am puzzled at the view that adoption within the extended family is better than adoption by non relatives. Why is this?

I find this bizarre. I know someone (English) who fosters only babies & she doesn't really believe that young babies easily adapt to changing-carers either. One baby she had from 3 days old took until almost 1yo to get adopted (potential parents put off by parents profile even though child didn't seem to share parent problems).

An aunt gave up a newborn in 1969 & is now close friends with her bio DD she met 27 yrs later.

My American cousin gave a baby up for adoption in late 1999 (Oregon). She met the adoptive parents beforehand & effectively interviewed & chose them. The adoptive mother cut the umbilical cord. They still send Christmas cards every year to the bio mom.

Another American cousin adopted in late 2007 (Utah). It was the 2nd time she was in the hospital for the birth of a baby she hoped to adopt. The first time she had to give the baby back after 3 days, but 2nd time she got to keep. I think rules were she had to wait a week living in hotel attached to hospital and even after that mother can still change mind.

I don't think there was anything unusual about those experiences of adoption.

As for older kids & incompetent mothers... another relative (drug addict) put her 18 month twins into foster care; they stayed with same foster parents for 17 years and the bio mum still got to visit on their birthdays each yr. She was/is proud of them and has no regrets about giving them up.

Sorry, for all the pants social services things Americans do, it seems like they do newborn adoption & maybe even foster care much better than the British system can manage.

Sorry, for all the pants social services things Americans do, it seems like they do newborn adoption & maybe even foster care much better than the British system can manage.

I very much agree with this.

Fabulous that's an emotive post but it doesn't really respond to why, in cases where the child is not going to ever be permitted to live with the birth family, the child still has to undergo the trauma of bonding with his or her foster famil(ies) then the adoptive ones.

You state you've never known a mother not love her child: I have, unfortunately but that is by-the-by for now.

Thank you for the informative posts. I agree we need a system that is fair but for a baby it just seems very much weighed in favour of the birth parents and I'm questioning if that's always a good thing.

I must admit I am puzzled at the view that adoption within the extended family is better than adoption by non relatives. Why is this?

Because adoption by it's very nature, comes about with the loss of a childs entire family. It's a huge loss. Heritage, relatives you share your genes with, your family 'story', a part of your identity....having to juggle what it means to essentially be a child of two families not one....remaining within their extended family means that they don't lose all of this. Of course losing their birth parents is still a big loss, but less of a loss than being adopted by people you aren't related to. Every child processes their adoption differently, but don't underestimate how important the original family is for some children and adults, or how big the loss of an entire birth family is

Sorry, for all the pants social services things Americans do, it seems like they do newborn adoption & maybe even foster care much better than the British system can manage

See, this is something I really disagree with.

Is there a lot of value in giving a relinquishing mother more say in who adopts her child? Yes, I do agree completely, and some LA's are better at this than others. I have no issue with giving a birth mum multiple profiles of parents and letting her say that she prefers parent x.

There are difficulties in moving quickly after birth though, the birth mum needs time to think about her decision, IMHO she does need weeks, and during this time it's very vulnerable for the family who want to adopt.

But a private adoption system is something I could never think of a good thing. Adoption is called an industry by many over there. A multi-million or a billion dollar industry with children as its commodity makes me feel ill to be honest. Adoption should always be a service for children, and it's impossible for it it truly remain such when people are getting rich off the back of exchanging money for these innocent children. It's not the fault of birth mums or adoptive parents at all, it's the way the system is set up and the law. But every month there's some new news stories out of the states where it's all gone horribly wrong.

JMHO of course

OP, I used to work as a midwife to a very vulnerable group of women and had quite a lot of involvement in babies being removed to care at birth and also to a much lesser extent, relinquished babies. You've asked about the second group so I will try to give you some of my experiences of this.

1. A young woman too terrified to tell her parents she was pregnant. No partner. Pregnancy was concealed from them and she was adamant the baby would be adopted. We talked about this A LOT and obviously SS were involved. She laboured, gave birth and we decided she would hold the baby. She never put him down again. Her parents were very shocked but dealt with it.

1. Another concealed pregnancy. 15 years old, very catholic family. They eventually found out late in the pregnancy. The baby did go into care but mum had contact and did visit. The baby came home to the birth family aged about 6 months and was cared for by her mum while she went back to school.( she went on to become a midwife .

1. A woman in her twenties who had become pregnant on a night out and wasn't even sure who the father was. Adamant baby would be placed for adoption and she would get on with life. Hardly anyone knew in her family. Baby did indeed go for adoption but was mixed race so it wasn't possible to eve begin to identify suitable matches prior to birth.

1. Very similar to the above except mother knew racial mix. Very supportive family and tbh I thought she would change her mind but she didn't.

1. Woman with alcohol issues who had a one night stand and wanted the baby adopted. A lot of concerns about the potential effects of alcohol on the baby so again, would require very careful assessment and placement. Baby was, afiak adopted.

So, you see, every story is different and complex. There was, IME a high rate of people changing their minds and other uncertainties. Six weeks is absolutely the minimum IMO to allow for a mother to make such a decision formally even if she thinks she is sure.

Finally, even if you did place a relinquished newborn into a concurrent placement at birth and then the birth mother changed her mind, just how heartbreaking would that be for everyone concerned?

I agree that in many cases the delays in getting babies into their forever homes are shameful, but in the case of relinquishment, immediate placement is certainly not an answer I would advocate.

Hope that answers some of your answers.